They asked me to "address the issue of youth cohesion in Singapore, and whether it affects our sense of belonging to the country."

I scratched my head for about a week, till a bald spot appeared. I couldn't get my thoughts past a great big mental roadblock, "Why?" Why should youth cohere? Why are we so concerned about a sense of belonging?

My instinct is that if a sense of belonging doesn't do anything for you or your love life, then don't bother with it. Is it something that is expected of us in order to serve someone else's purpose?

Then I copped out. I figured the organisers of the forum wanted me to address the issue, not to contest the basic premise, even though it would be hell of a lot more fun that way. So I put on somebody else's lenses to see that what I was expected to do was to talk about the next generation of Singaporeans finding a common identity ("cohere") that is rooted in Singapore ("belonging").

I asked for a show of hands to this question: how many of you were not born in Singapore, or have at least one parent who was not born in Singapore?

Out of the audience of about 120 – 140 students, about 15% raised their hands. This suggests that within living memory, roughly 1 in 7 students' families have experienced migration. With increasing globalisation, ever easier travel, this percentage can only increase in years to come.

Extrapolating 20 - 30 years from now, at least 15%, likely more, of this cohort of students will no longer be in Singapore. They may have married a foreigner and moved abroad, or found a better job, relocated and established families in another country. At the same time, another 15% or more may have arrived to take their place.

This high-volume coming and going characterises Singapore, and it bedevils the question of identity.

It's not as if people in other large, modern cities don't also pick up and move, but when one is living in a large country like China or the US, one can move 2,000 kilometres from Changsha to Shenyang, or Chicago to Los Angeles, without leaving the country of one's birth. While identity is never monolithic even among the Chinese and the Americans, it tends to be layered and for the vast majority of its citizens, top-level national identity is seldom in doubt.

With Singapore, it doesn't take much to leave the orbit of this city-state. Especially in a future where distance keeps shrinking, more and more of the things in our lives relate to far-away places. We go abroad for further education; we find a job with a non-Singaporean company. When we have to go meet a client, we find ourselves flying to Hanoi or Taipei. When we get a promotion and are asked to head a branch office, we relocate to Pakistan or China.

If you're not yet of working age, think about the movies and TV programs we watch. Almost all of them are foreign programs, with foreigners acting in them, set in places and contexts that are not Singapore. Even surfing porn, we encounter foreign bodies, with the possible exception of the girl from Nanyang Polytechnic, the accidental starlet.

Our ideas and with them, affiliations, often come to us from abroad: ideas about Islam, for example. Ideas about what being gay means, is another example.

It seems then that our lives are bigger than Singapore. Our lives are connected to so many foreign places, it is unimaginable to live mostly a Singapore experience. And this is not counting the 15% or more who physically move out of Singapore altogether.

So naturally, the question arises about rootedness, identity and belonging. Every country has the same set of questions, particularly in the present age of unprecedented migration, but it is especially acute in a tiny city-state like ours.

The response has been conscious effort, often initiated by the state, to create or reinforce a sense of Singaporeanness; to create Homo sapiens singaporiensis.

Our media keep talking about identity; forums like this today are organised.

Citizens are constantly reminded that this is a great place in which to live. We rank top in this and that based on such and such a survey. We have an excellent transport system, an enviable education system, unmatched housing provision, top-class internet infrastructure.

Some years ago, the Malay Singaporeans were openly reminded that although they are a demographic minority here, they material lives and aspirational vistas are far better than those of Malay Malaysians, even though Malays are a majority in that neighbouring country. Be grateful that you're Singapore, be loyal to Singapore, went the subtext.

Every National Day, cheesy national songs are broadcast ad nauseum, and tens of thousands of schoolchildren learn to sing them. Colourful mass displays are performed at the National Stadium -- this tableau with fishing nets represents our humble fisherfolk origins, the TV compere declares, that tableau that looks like an oil rig signifies our successful industrialisation, while the waving red banners represent the courage of the people facing adversity and the circles of green-and-pink girls suggest our garden city! -- all in an attempt to manufacture affection. If this strikes you as unbelievably absurd, see the box on the right.

Also part of the deal is the attempt to manufacture pride, when fighter jets roar overhead and parachutes flutter down.

But not everything is song and dance, or the display of brawn. There are genuine attempts to foster political engagement, especially with the youth. At the same time, attempts are made to keep expatriate Singaporeans in London, New York, Dubai or Shanghai connected with "home".

However, one cannot help but wonder if there is a certain superficiality about all this, for compared to the processes that have made other nations, what we are doing seems forced and artificial.

A sense of nationhood needs to have three deep roots

• Shared political history 
• Shared cultural heritage 
• Common outlook and ideals

Of course, as we know, Singapore doesn't have much by way of a political history. We don't have the centuries of victory and defeat, of prosperity and depression.

We don't even have a shared cultural heritage. Our race-conscious political ideology has, for 40 years, spoken in terms of Chinese culture (thus, look to China), Indian culture (thus, look to India), Malay-Muslim culture (thus, look to Malaysia and the Arab world). Whenever we speak about cultural innovations that are local, we tend to speak of them as something debased, not worth the label of "culture" even. Think about how the official ideology sees Singlish or local rock bands, for example.

A nation's cultural identity is usually mediated and distilled through the arts. Literature and the theatre are conversations that a society has with itself. The pathos of music and the joy of dance are the means by which a people recognise themselves. Yet for a generation, our official position is that the arts are dispensable; they do little to make the Singaporean worker productive and disciplined, qualities needed to attract foreign manufacturers to set up shop on this island.

So the only leg of the tripod we're left with is that of common outlook and ideals. Shared values, in other words. Which our scholar mandarins unerringly corrupted during the "Singapore 21" exercise 6 years ago, by packaging them into a glossy, pictorial-filled coffee-table book, whose only text was some of the most insipid motherhood statements ever penned.

"A caring nation", "Community and individual in mutual support", "An active and harmonious society" were some of the phrases that wormed its way through the book like silverfish.

And they wonder why it seems so hard for Singaporeans to proudly identify with the country. Who wants to be associated with such infantile fluff?

Despite flat-footed execution, the basic principle that the more values we share, the deeper and more natural is our cohesion, isn't off the mark. But this too masks some very thorny issues. Very often, values are contested and there are very few with any degree of unanimity in society. That's because when we examine any value closely, we often see that it is ultimately arbitrary.

Take for example, these three statements:

1. If you're Chinese, you should be ashamed if you can't speak Chinese 
   
2. If you're Malay, you should be ashamed if you don't even know what are the Five Pillars of Islam [1] 
   
3. If you're female, you should marry the man your father has chosen for you

I asked for a show of hands again.

For the first statement, about 40% of the students in the hall agreed with it. About 20% disagreed; the remainder had no opinion.

For the second statement, only about 5% agreed and another 5% disagreed. Some 90% didn't know what to think. Most, I assume, had never heard of the Five Pillars of Islam [2].

As for the last statement, nobody agreed with it except for one or two cheeky boys with big grins on their faces. Many girls were shooting daggers at me with their eyes for even suggesting something like that.

Yet all these statements are logically similar. All three are based on the principle that if you're born this way, then you must do that. You are obliged to live up to certain social and cultural expectations, merely through the accident of birth.

So why are we being so inconsistent, that we support one statement and are shocked at another? Why is one value obligatory and the other unacceptable?

That's simply because certain values have been ingrained into us; we are used to them. All around us, other people expect and behave likewise. As for other values, it just seems alien to us, for no other reason that the fact that we are brought up to consider them alien. We can seldom justify these values for rational reasons alone.

The danger then is that when migration accelerates, there is an increasing mixture of people who have grown up in different environments, absorbing different values. In addition, the intense flood of information, entertainment and culture from outside Singapore means that segments of our population are exposed to and adopt different values.

Some conservative people expect homosexuals to be ashamed of their "psychological deformity" and to spend their lives hiding it; but a different generation of gays and lesbians are open about their "sexual orientation", speaking even of gay pride, to the conservatives' bewilderment and consternation.

Some people think that engaging in a cut and thrust debate with Lee Kuan Yew is unforgivable discourtesy to the father figure of modern Singapore ("How dare the youths even interrupt him before he has finished his reply?"), but others think that anything less than a frank discussion is a mockery to the very idea of political participation.

In an increasingly cosmopolitan, internationally-mobile population like Singapore's, is it impossible to find shared values? Is it impossible to justify any value, because ultimately, they are all arbitrary and irrational?

Yet the fact is, even if a value is arbitrary or merely an accident of history, if enough people share it, it is a homogenising factor. People feel comfortable in familiar settings, they appreciate the fact that society affirms their beliefs.

It makes interaction easier when other people in the same society behave in similar, predictable ways.

For example, the fact that we generally speak English in Singapore gives us a common platform for communication. I am invited to give a talk and without enquiring, I know I am expected to speak in English to the audience, and I can expect the audience to understand me if I use English. Life would be extremely complicated, and not a little disconcerting, if in everything we do, we require simultaneous translation.

Another example may be dress. Our society has certain expectations as to how a male or female is supposed to dress for certain given situations. We don't end up embarrassing each other by being overdressed or underdressed.

The choice of language is an accident of history. Our shared ideas of dress, like any other country's, is ultimately more arbitrary than rational. You can't even blame climate. Climate merely compels such and such a degree of insulation, but it doesn't define how you are supposed to look. Even the degree of insulation may be irrational -- look at Hong Kong, which in summer has a climate even warmer and more humid than ours and yet male office workers are often expected to wear a jacket, while Singaporeans wear a thin shirt and set their office thermostats at 19 degrees Celsius.

But however arbitrary the origins, the fact that it is shared means the value serves as social glue. That is to say, it aids cohesion and engenders a sense of identity and belonging.

Does that mean then, that if we wish to preserve and enhance cohesion and identity, we must actively cultivate these shared characteristics?

Does that imply that imposing these shared characteristics on members of a society and future generations by coercion is justifiable in the interest of the group?

In a sense, we do that already. The fact that all our schools teach in English is a form of linguistic coercion. The fact that we ridicule those who dress inappropriately (by our standards) is a form of social coercion.

There can even be rational reasons for legal coercion.

The chief example is how National Service (i.e. military conscription) is required by law from all male citizens who reach the age of 18 [3]. Failure to report for National Service is an offence. This is justifiable because it is necessary for the defence of the country, but it has also been justified as a time when male citizens of the same age cohort get to bond with each other, in the interest of "nation-building".

Yet, before you think the argument is cut and dried, consider how even this can throw up a counterpoint:

Is it justifiable that in the interest of demography, all females must have borne at least 2 children before the age of 40, or else be jailed?

Isn't population sustainability just as essential to the national interest and our future as defence and security? Isn't it equally a matter of existential importance? So if we can support National Service, why can't we have Baby Service?

Between the unquestionably obvious (National Service) and the -- for now -- unquestionably unthinkable (babies) there's a whole slew of issues where legal force may play a role to maintain group standards. Three examples:

In the interest of morality, manufacture, sale and consumption of alcohol shall be a criminal offence.

In the interest of morality, gays and lesbians should be jailed.

In the interest of social harmony, criticism of [insert religion here] should be a criminal offence.

No doubt, seeing alcohol or homosexuality as immoral are also arbitrary values. There is no objective test for either of them. Privileging any particular religion, and protecting it from criticism, is also an arbitrary value. Yet, keeping these values universal within any society makes that society much more homogenous. It makes it more peaceful and cohesive, and promotes a greater degree of identification and belonging. Surely these are desirable objectives?

That being the case, while the values themselves may be arbitrary or accidents of history, keeping them universal even by coercive means, may be justifiable since universality itself has functional utility, serving a public good.

So by all means, go ahead, ban alcohol, ban gays, ban criticism of [insert religion here]. And while we're at it, ban gambling, infidelity, unfilial sons and daughters, cross-dressing, fortune-telling, sex cabarets, burping loudly, moustachioed dark-skinned men, and roast lamb.

Get rid of all these things that offend people, and you'll have a society whose inhabitants are really pleased and proud to call home.

What we must not forget, however, is that every one of these bans that makes some people happy, also makes other people disgusted. Every one of them creates dissenters and outcasts.

You'll get a homogenous society, indeed, but made up of people who prefer stability, certainty and the status quo; who have no stomach for the unknown. You'll keep the people who are happy to adapt to the strictures of the place. But you'll lose the stubborn, rebellous, unconventional and adventurous types. Good riddance, you might say.

A reasonable man adapts himself to his environment. An unreasonable man persists in attempting to adapt his environment to suit himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. 

-- George Bernard Shaw

The more homogeneity we strive for, the more we undercut our own future, through a loss of people who are unquenchably curious, passionately experimental and defiantly persistent despite impossible odds. The kinds of people who push against boundaries and constantly reinvent themselves and their worlds.

There will come a time when your generation takes ownership of Singapore, and it'll be your turn to grapple with issues of social cohesion, identity, belonging and loyalty.

You may face new questions that we can barely foresee today, such as surrogate pregnancy -- is that immoral, should that be illegal? Or new migrant communities growing in numbers, perhaps from Kenya, Ukraine or Russia, which will present you with the problem of how to make them Singaporean. Or how other Singaporeans treat them. At what point too, would they begin to feel Singapore is home?

You will almost surely be faced with more gay and lesbian issues, for example, that of married couples and their children. Even if Singapore refuses to marry them, other countries will, and can you forcibly detach children from their parents even if you do not legally recognise their parenthood?

What if a significant number of Malays abandon Islam? What if the remaining Muslim Malays feel threatened by this trend and demand that this drift be arrested, by punitive laws if necessary?

In short, you too will be faced with pressures to close the hatches, stop change from coming into Singapore, ban this, ban that, before this place becomes unrecogniseable to its own people and all sense of the familiar, of home, is lost. Or so the fearful will say.

What will your generation choose to do?

Will you define the Singaporean as someone exactly like this, like this and this? Will you demand that the people here remake themselves exactly like, well, yourself, failing which, be marginalised, and better yet, leave? Isn't homogeneity the easier route to harmony and identity?

Or will you rather take people as they are, keep this society open and inclusive, and constantly redefine what it means to be Singaporean, with a light touch?

© Yawning Bread