Should we engage foreign talent, and what role does such foreign talent occupy and play in our society? After reading these thought-provoking articles, particularly Goh Chin Lian’s insightful “Foreign talent = disposable labour?” these are some of the essential questions that spring to mind. Foreign talent has long been a sticking point and also a hotly contested and widely debated one. In recent times, the foreign talent debate has been heating up, especially in the light of issues such as the authenticity of the silver medal “our” Olympic paddlers have won us, and the forecast that Singapore’s population will rise to 6.5 million, mostly as a result of foreigners.
In his article entitled “Success of foreign talent discourages locals”, reader Ryan Huang holds the view that in our performance-obsessed country, we are now merely turning to foreign talent as a means of obtaining accolades and “dressing our trophy cabinet”, rather than performing the more important task of nurturing our own talent. He feels, along with many other Singaporeans, that foreign talent will in general, create an adverse impact on our society. In his words, we should not “open the floodgates” of foreign talent as a short term means of securing accolades and allow them to represent the Singaporean identity, but rather, we should spend more time focusing on our locals. Goh Chin Lian’s article further highlights the roles that foreigners play in our society – that of mere foreign workers and labourers. Personally, I am of the opinion that foreign talent does indeed constitute a vital part of our society and will increase in importance over the coming years, and that indeed we should, instead of ostracizing such foreigners, invite them into our society and help them integrate.
Firstly, one of the main arguments against even having foreign talent in Singapore, would be that of the cultural dilution and ensuing lack of Singaporean identity that such an influx of foreign talent would conceivably cause. Many Singaporeans are of the opinion that having such a number of foreigners come into Singapore, would irreversibly dilute our culture and cause our Singaporean identity to erode. However, if we look objectively at Singaporean society as it stands, it is rather evident that our current society already is a multiracial and multi-religious melting pot of cultures, and injecting further foreigners into this mix will not result in any identity or culture being eroded, but will rather ensure that Singapore is a vibrant, exciting and even more diverse place. In the case of a truly Singaporean identity, we will have to help the foreigners integrate and assimilate into our society, forging a unique identity that all of us can share, and treating these “foreign talent” as one of us, particularly since they are not so different, and merely add to the diversity of cultures and races in the melting pot that is Singapore.
Next, foreign talent is and will further become a vital part of Singapore in coming years. Another point that most do not take into account, is the fact that foreigners and foreign talent is increasingly required and necessary for Singapore. In this increasingly globalised world, in order to perform well and excel in all areas, it has become increasingly necessary to tap on the aid and expertise that foreign talent can provide, in order to reach greater heights. Our population size is fairly limited, and not all kinds of expertise can thus be found in our country, increasing the need for foreign talent, especially in the light of growing specialization of fields. Sports is no different, and foreign talent too may be needed, in order to help develop and establish Singapore as a viable sports hub. Furthermore, Singapore’s birth rate is decreasing, and in order to maintain a healthy population, foreign talent and foreigners are needed and encouraged to settle in Singapore, to help make up for the potential dearth of manpower we may conceivably face. Hence, it is more than evident that foreign talent is indeed a very necessary and vital part in Singapore, and we should not merely treat them as “labourers or workers”, but help them assimilate into our society and treat them as our own.
Integrating these people into our society is not merely “substituting them for home-grown options” as Ryan Huang puts it. In the first place, the concept of a native Singaporean cannot be fully defined, particularly since anyone who has studied Singapore’s history will realize that our ancestors too, were immigrants in the first place, coming from the same Asian countries most foreigners now migrate from. Who is to say then, who is more Singaporean? In any case, these people will eventually constitute a large part of our society and be essential to our economy, and using foreign talent cannot be seen as a substitute for home grown talent. Furthermore, the presence of foreigners further helps to create competition and prevent any stagnation on the part of Singaporeans, creating a culture of constant improvement.
In essence, I feel that we should indeed engage foreign talent and in fact, should actively encourage foreign talent to settle in Singapore, especially in the light of the growing necessity of having foreign talent in Singapore. We should rather, instead of segregating ourselves from them and using more “local” talent, if such a term can be defined, be integrating them into our society and developing our unique identity from there. Li Jiawei and the other Olympic paddlers from Singapore may be from mainland China, but after their stay in Singapore, they are now surely no less Singaporean than the rest of us; this is encapsulated neatly in Jiawei’s speech after winning the silver medal at the Olympics, that she was proud to have done well for her fellow Singaporeans.
Integrating foreign talent into our society and accepting it is vital for our country. I hope all of us will think objectively and logically and eventually accept this for a fact and act to ensure our country's continued good performance on the worldwide arena.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Friday, May 30, 2008
Winston Churchill famously said that “democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others have been tried.” From such a statement, we would be given a fairly negative impression of democracy. But, what exactly, is democracy, and given the apparent failings of all the other political philosophies and forms of government, can democracy truly create stability in a country?
In my opinion, I feel that democracy truly is able to create stability to some extent. However, let us define some key concepts first. Firstly, a democracy, will be defined as a philosophy of government, in which the citizens are invested with sovereign power, and such power is exercised either directly or indirectly through a system of representation. Next, for the purposes of this essay, we will narrow down the types of stability to just political and social stability, and we will take a look at how democracy can create such forms of stability.
Firstly, it can be easily seen throughout the world, that democracy is quite capable of creating political stability. Democracy, because of its nature, allows the majority to pick and choose their party, in representative politics, and also allows the citizens to influence the decisions made about the country. Having such liberties and freedom to vote for the representative who will best embody their interests, or having the power vested in them to make changes that will benefit themselves, or at least, the majority, will generally create stability. This will minimize unhappiness among the population at large as the people will be able to decide what suits them best. Furthermore, democracies do facilitate discussion and debate among people or their representatives, and is open to criticism. The provision of such civil freedom and liberties, as well as providing contrasting viewpoints and allowing for political opposition, do contribute to political stability. Democracy creates avenues for people to air their opinions and to act on what they believe, and does not suppress opinions on certain matters of governance, and thus helps generate stability.
Next, social stability can be created by the use of democracy as a philosophy of government. Democracy can allow citizens political freedom, and at the same time, allow them to shape their own lives and participate in the decision-making process. Democracy is one of the few and only philosophies that afford people such liberties and freedom. As a result, there would be much less oppression and unhappiness in general, and unrest would be minimal. Looking at the issue from another point of view, citizens have the right to choose their government or their representatives, and it if the government wishes to retain power, it will have to provide what the general population wants and needs, and agree with the general populace’s ideas and wants. The government has to initiate schemes and ensure that the people are happy, and has to ensure that the economy is stable and that there is minimal unrest in the country, and hence there will be social stability of a sort.
Furthermore, democratic methods of governance can also perpetuate a positive cycle of improvement. People who have such civil liberties and political freedom as democracy affords will be better able and encouraged to press for the improvement of their opportunities, socially, economically et cetera. The space provided for dissent and opposition, as well as debate will also provide new ways for expressing opinion and provide a counterbalance and contrasting viewpoint.
Many democratic countries are counted as countries with advanced human development. It can also be seen that democracy is able to create political and social stability in a number of ways. However, such advanced human development also requires several key institutions for democratic governing, such as an independent electoral system and a good system of representation, which still remains a key challenge for many countries, such as certain African countries. There is also the problem of the “tyranny of the majority”, which is when the majority, possibly and ethnic or religious majority, oppresses a minority group through use of democracy, by choosing a more advantageous position for themselves. An example of this would be the Irish conflict. Most governments have tried to tackle this problem by also taking into account minority rights, and protecting them constitutionally.
Democracy is indeed quite capable of ensuring political and social stability in a given country, and to improve our human living conditions, we should all look to the institutions of our state, in order to bring the benefits that democracy offers to our homeland.
In my opinion, I feel that democracy truly is able to create stability to some extent. However, let us define some key concepts first. Firstly, a democracy, will be defined as a philosophy of government, in which the citizens are invested with sovereign power, and such power is exercised either directly or indirectly through a system of representation. Next, for the purposes of this essay, we will narrow down the types of stability to just political and social stability, and we will take a look at how democracy can create such forms of stability.
Firstly, it can be easily seen throughout the world, that democracy is quite capable of creating political stability. Democracy, because of its nature, allows the majority to pick and choose their party, in representative politics, and also allows the citizens to influence the decisions made about the country. Having such liberties and freedom to vote for the representative who will best embody their interests, or having the power vested in them to make changes that will benefit themselves, or at least, the majority, will generally create stability. This will minimize unhappiness among the population at large as the people will be able to decide what suits them best. Furthermore, democracies do facilitate discussion and debate among people or their representatives, and is open to criticism. The provision of such civil freedom and liberties, as well as providing contrasting viewpoints and allowing for political opposition, do contribute to political stability. Democracy creates avenues for people to air their opinions and to act on what they believe, and does not suppress opinions on certain matters of governance, and thus helps generate stability.
Next, social stability can be created by the use of democracy as a philosophy of government. Democracy can allow citizens political freedom, and at the same time, allow them to shape their own lives and participate in the decision-making process. Democracy is one of the few and only philosophies that afford people such liberties and freedom. As a result, there would be much less oppression and unhappiness in general, and unrest would be minimal. Looking at the issue from another point of view, citizens have the right to choose their government or their representatives, and it if the government wishes to retain power, it will have to provide what the general population wants and needs, and agree with the general populace’s ideas and wants. The government has to initiate schemes and ensure that the people are happy, and has to ensure that the economy is stable and that there is minimal unrest in the country, and hence there will be social stability of a sort.
Furthermore, democratic methods of governance can also perpetuate a positive cycle of improvement. People who have such civil liberties and political freedom as democracy affords will be better able and encouraged to press for the improvement of their opportunities, socially, economically et cetera. The space provided for dissent and opposition, as well as debate will also provide new ways for expressing opinion and provide a counterbalance and contrasting viewpoint.
Many democratic countries are counted as countries with advanced human development. It can also be seen that democracy is able to create political and social stability in a number of ways. However, such advanced human development also requires several key institutions for democratic governing, such as an independent electoral system and a good system of representation, which still remains a key challenge for many countries, such as certain African countries. There is also the problem of the “tyranny of the majority”, which is when the majority, possibly and ethnic or religious majority, oppresses a minority group through use of democracy, by choosing a more advantageous position for themselves. An example of this would be the Irish conflict. Most governments have tried to tackle this problem by also taking into account minority rights, and protecting them constitutionally.
Democracy is indeed quite capable of ensuring political and social stability in a given country, and to improve our human living conditions, we should all look to the institutions of our state, in order to bring the benefits that democracy offers to our homeland.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Does democracy bring about more stability?
Over the past two decades, a democratic revolution has been sweeping the world, starting in Latin America, then spreading through Eastern Europe and most recently across Africa. According to the research organization Freedom House, 117 of the world’s 191 countries are considered democratic. This is a vast increase from even a decade ago. Over the past two centuries, the rise of constitutional forms of government has been closely associated with peace, social stability and rapid socio-economic development. Democratic countries have been more successful in living peacefully with their neighbors, educating their citizens, liberating human energy and initiative for constructive purposes in society, economic growth and wealth generation.
Inspite of its enormous contribution to social development, the process responsible for the emergence and successful adaptation of democratic institutions in society is not yet well understood. For every success, there are instances in which the introduction of democratic institutions has failed or quickly reverted to authoritarian forms of government. A study of the relationship between the rise of democratic institutions and the development of other aspects of society may help us better understand and more effectively harness the power of democracy.
Most studies of the origin of democracy focus on one or a number of important factors and circumstances that seem to be associated with its emergence. This paper argues for a more comprehensive approach that views all the contributing factors as expressions of a more fundamental process of change in the society. It is this process that we must understand, if society is to acquire the capability to promote the successful adoption of democratic institutions in different social and cultural contexts.
A survey of nations that refer to themselves as ‘democratic’ makes it evident that the term is applied to widely divergent forms of government. There is not and may never be a single formula for what constitutes democracy. However, underlying these different forms is a common principle. Democratic governments are those in which fundamental human rights of individual citizens are protected by the collective and in which the views of the population-at-large, not just a ruling elite, are reflected in the actions of government.
The central thesis of this paper is that the rise of democratic forms of government has been the result of a revolutionary shift in the relative importance and positions accorded by society to the individual and to the collective. This shift involved a movement toward a more balanced relationship between the rights and interests of the collective and the rights and interests of individuals. It has resulted in parallel developments in the spheres of philosophy, science, religion, economics, politics, education and social culture. In the intellectual sphere it gave rise to the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, in the field of religion to the Reformation, in economy to the rise of capitalism, in politics to the rise of democracy.
In order to appreciate the import and magnitude of this shift, it should be recognized that until recently the individual occupied a distinctly subordinate position in society. The dominant governing principle behind social organization was preservation of the collective and leadership by a privileged elite—military, religious or aristocratic. During the last five centuries in Western Europe a sea-change occurred which sought to create a more equal balance between the political power of the ruling elite and the rights of individuals. The most distinguishing feature of societies embracing democratic forms of government has been the heightened value given to the full development of its citizens. This paper traces the factors leading to the emergence of the value of individualism in Western Europe over five centuries. It focuses on the emergence and development of democratic political institutions in Western Europe, particularly England.
Democratic values and institutions did not arise as a direct contradiction of authoritarian forms of governance. Rather they emerged by a gradual change in the principles that governed the distribution of power in society. An oligarchy of military strength, divine right, aristocratic lineage and land gradually gave way to an oligopoly of wealthy merchants. The parliaments of the first stage were congresses of feudal lords. The parliaments of the second were assemblies of rich traders. The idea of universe human rights and freedoms which we now identify as the essence of democracy was at first cited as a justification for redistribution of power to the commercial class and only much later as a principle for extending rights and privileges to all citizens. This shift continues today in countries around the world and may not yet have reached its acme in any country.
(http://www.icpd.org/democracy/)
In my personal opinion, democracy does create stability. As is the norm however, there are two sides to this case, and there have been cases in which democracy does not fully create stability, a particular case which has been outlined and generalized by the statement “tyranny of the majority”. Let’s look at how democracy can create stability first.
Looking first at two main forms of stability, social and political stability, it is fairly evident that democracy can result in these two forms of stability. Democracy allows for contrasting viewpoints, dissent and criticism to be openly aired, and creates avenues and platforms on which such statements can be made public. As such opinion is not suppressed, and dissenters are generally allowed and encouraged, to provide checks and counterbalances, there is generally increased political stability, and the power, being vested in the masses, is not wholly tilted to suit a single political party.
Next, representative democracy allows the masses to be vested with the power to choose the person with the vision and ideologies who will best create policies that the masses feel will benefit them. Direct democracy is a, well, more direct way, with the masses actively involved in the policy-making et cetera. Thus, as the people are allowed to have control over the decision-making process, less unrest is likely, and social stability will be created. Further, democracy allows for a cycle of development to be perpetuated, as the people who have such liberties and freedom at their disposal, as a democratic method of governance will afford its citizens, should be able to push for what they feel will benefit them most.
Of course, there will be contrary examples, such as, as aforementioned, the “tyranny of the majority”. This is where the majority uses the power vested in it to overrule or trample down other minority groups present in the country, and to vote for policies which will enhance its position or solely benefit itself.
Inspite of its enormous contribution to social development, the process responsible for the emergence and successful adaptation of democratic institutions in society is not yet well understood. For every success, there are instances in which the introduction of democratic institutions has failed or quickly reverted to authoritarian forms of government. A study of the relationship between the rise of democratic institutions and the development of other aspects of society may help us better understand and more effectively harness the power of democracy.
Most studies of the origin of democracy focus on one or a number of important factors and circumstances that seem to be associated with its emergence. This paper argues for a more comprehensive approach that views all the contributing factors as expressions of a more fundamental process of change in the society. It is this process that we must understand, if society is to acquire the capability to promote the successful adoption of democratic institutions in different social and cultural contexts.
A survey of nations that refer to themselves as ‘democratic’ makes it evident that the term is applied to widely divergent forms of government. There is not and may never be a single formula for what constitutes democracy. However, underlying these different forms is a common principle. Democratic governments are those in which fundamental human rights of individual citizens are protected by the collective and in which the views of the population-at-large, not just a ruling elite, are reflected in the actions of government.
The central thesis of this paper is that the rise of democratic forms of government has been the result of a revolutionary shift in the relative importance and positions accorded by society to the individual and to the collective. This shift involved a movement toward a more balanced relationship between the rights and interests of the collective and the rights and interests of individuals. It has resulted in parallel developments in the spheres of philosophy, science, religion, economics, politics, education and social culture. In the intellectual sphere it gave rise to the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, in the field of religion to the Reformation, in economy to the rise of capitalism, in politics to the rise of democracy.
In order to appreciate the import and magnitude of this shift, it should be recognized that until recently the individual occupied a distinctly subordinate position in society. The dominant governing principle behind social organization was preservation of the collective and leadership by a privileged elite—military, religious or aristocratic. During the last five centuries in Western Europe a sea-change occurred which sought to create a more equal balance between the political power of the ruling elite and the rights of individuals. The most distinguishing feature of societies embracing democratic forms of government has been the heightened value given to the full development of its citizens. This paper traces the factors leading to the emergence of the value of individualism in Western Europe over five centuries. It focuses on the emergence and development of democratic political institutions in Western Europe, particularly England.
Democratic values and institutions did not arise as a direct contradiction of authoritarian forms of governance. Rather they emerged by a gradual change in the principles that governed the distribution of power in society. An oligarchy of military strength, divine right, aristocratic lineage and land gradually gave way to an oligopoly of wealthy merchants. The parliaments of the first stage were congresses of feudal lords. The parliaments of the second were assemblies of rich traders. The idea of universe human rights and freedoms which we now identify as the essence of democracy was at first cited as a justification for redistribution of power to the commercial class and only much later as a principle for extending rights and privileges to all citizens. This shift continues today in countries around the world and may not yet have reached its acme in any country.
(http://www.icpd.org/democracy/)
In my personal opinion, democracy does create stability. As is the norm however, there are two sides to this case, and there have been cases in which democracy does not fully create stability, a particular case which has been outlined and generalized by the statement “tyranny of the majority”. Let’s look at how democracy can create stability first.
Looking first at two main forms of stability, social and political stability, it is fairly evident that democracy can result in these two forms of stability. Democracy allows for contrasting viewpoints, dissent and criticism to be openly aired, and creates avenues and platforms on which such statements can be made public. As such opinion is not suppressed, and dissenters are generally allowed and encouraged, to provide checks and counterbalances, there is generally increased political stability, and the power, being vested in the masses, is not wholly tilted to suit a single political party.
Next, representative democracy allows the masses to be vested with the power to choose the person with the vision and ideologies who will best create policies that the masses feel will benefit them. Direct democracy is a, well, more direct way, with the masses actively involved in the policy-making et cetera. Thus, as the people are allowed to have control over the decision-making process, less unrest is likely, and social stability will be created. Further, democracy allows for a cycle of development to be perpetuated, as the people who have such liberties and freedom at their disposal, as a democratic method of governance will afford its citizens, should be able to push for what they feel will benefit them most.
Of course, there will be contrary examples, such as, as aforementioned, the “tyranny of the majority”. This is where the majority uses the power vested in it to overrule or trample down other minority groups present in the country, and to vote for policies which will enhance its position or solely benefit itself.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
A Good, Hard Look at Singapore's Identity (The Straits Times, 7th September 2006)
IN Singapore, often when I meet someone for the first time, I'm asked: "What are you?" During these moments, many possible answers come to mind. For example, these responses include academic, longboard skateboarder or Singaporean.
Normally, I suspect the enquiry pertains to either my ethnicity or nationality. Here, narrowing the question's parameters does not simplify the answer. Being the product of two generations of inter-cultural marriage, I could ethnically be Indian, Chinese, Indian-Chinese or Chinese-Indian (I could be Singaporean but that's not recognised as an ethnic group). As for nationality, I'm a Singapore citizen but I could be part of the greater diasporic Indian or Chinese nations.
Indeed, in this current epoch of globalisation marked by exceptional degrees of global interconnectedness, my difficulty in expressing my identity is not unique. In this globalised age, articulating identity has become exceedingly challenging. Many pundits argue that globalisation has permitted us to be many things – ethnicity, religion, tribe, nation, region and a host of other markers offer us a dizzying array of identities.
With this smorgasbord of identities available, Velayutham has written an ambitious book exploring the altering strategies employed by the Singaporean government when crafting a Singaporean identity in response to the multiplicity of identities created by globalisation.
For Velayutham, the nub of the issue for the Singaporean government lies with Singapore being both a global city and a nation-state. According to Velayutham, the transience of global cities undermines the capacity of the state to rely on its citizenry: a detached population that typifies a global city, with no sense of belonging and commitment, would pose a direct challenge to the survival of Singapore.
The manner in which the topic is dealt with in this book is commendable with the book broadly divided into two parts. In the first part, the different strategies adopted by the government to develop a national identity are examined. Three key phases are identified.
Firstly, immediately post-independence, the nation-building project focused on economic development as a means to create a community out of heterogeneous diasporic groups. The second phase then focused on Asian values. This phase attempted to develop a distinct Singaporean identity against the foil of "Westernisation". In the third phase, Singaporean identity is founded on being "at home" while being in a cosmopolitan global city.
In the second part of the book, analysis is turned to "the view from below" by contrasting Singaporean views of their own identity against the constructions of their government. It is here that the book's most valuable contribution is made – few have collected Singaporean opinions on their identity and systematically analysed them as cogently as Velayutham. Interestingly, his analysis indicates that Singaporean identity lacks deep emotion. As Singaporean identity is founded upon material comforts, Singaporeans are detached from the nation with relations between government and people similar to relations between service provider and consumer.
Can the tension between being a global city and a nation-state be resolved? Optimistically, Velayutham believes this is possible. Thanks to its economic success, Singapore has the requisite material building blocks for developing a strong national identity. However, for these blocks to hold together, what is required is the cement of a still underdeveloped active citizenry empowered to demonstrate their commitment to the nation by energetically participating in shaping their nation's destiny.
Though the book concludes that active citizenship is necessary for deeper bonds, it is unfortunate that this point was not fleshed out further. Two questions remain unanswered – how would an active citizenry be developed and are Singaporeans even interested in participating more actively in their polity? The second question may have greater bearing on the discussion. After all, not all consumers want to be shareholders. Many are happy to hop from service provider to service provider if the opportunity knocks.
In a related point, another intriguing but overlooked issue is the assumption that nation-states require a citizenry with a sense of belonging to remain viable. Putting aside the difficulty of measuring belonging, it is questionable if a sense of belonging is necessary at all. Citizenship can be based on a utilitarian calculus where individuals become citizens in those states offering them greatest utility. Many countries already acknowledge this fact. For example, countries experiencing a brain drain do not attempt to stem the drain with emotive arguments. Instead, they increase the opportunity cost of leaving through socio-economic incentives.
Norman Vasu is an assistant professor and coordinator of the Social Resilience Programme at the Centre of Excellence for National Security, S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University
IN Singapore, often when I meet someone for the first time, I'm asked: "What are you?" During these moments, many possible answers come to mind. For example, these responses include academic, longboard skateboarder or Singaporean.
Normally, I suspect the enquiry pertains to either my ethnicity or nationality. Here, narrowing the question's parameters does not simplify the answer. Being the product of two generations of inter-cultural marriage, I could ethnically be Indian, Chinese, Indian-Chinese or Chinese-Indian (I could be Singaporean but that's not recognised as an ethnic group). As for nationality, I'm a Singapore citizen but I could be part of the greater diasporic Indian or Chinese nations.
Indeed, in this current epoch of globalisation marked by exceptional degrees of global interconnectedness, my difficulty in expressing my identity is not unique. In this globalised age, articulating identity has become exceedingly challenging. Many pundits argue that globalisation has permitted us to be many things – ethnicity, religion, tribe, nation, region and a host of other markers offer us a dizzying array of identities.
With this smorgasbord of identities available, Velayutham has written an ambitious book exploring the altering strategies employed by the Singaporean government when crafting a Singaporean identity in response to the multiplicity of identities created by globalisation.
For Velayutham, the nub of the issue for the Singaporean government lies with Singapore being both a global city and a nation-state. According to Velayutham, the transience of global cities undermines the capacity of the state to rely on its citizenry: a detached population that typifies a global city, with no sense of belonging and commitment, would pose a direct challenge to the survival of Singapore.
The manner in which the topic is dealt with in this book is commendable with the book broadly divided into two parts. In the first part, the different strategies adopted by the government to develop a national identity are examined. Three key phases are identified.
Firstly, immediately post-independence, the nation-building project focused on economic development as a means to create a community out of heterogeneous diasporic groups. The second phase then focused on Asian values. This phase attempted to develop a distinct Singaporean identity against the foil of "Westernisation". In the third phase, Singaporean identity is founded on being "at home" while being in a cosmopolitan global city.
In the second part of the book, analysis is turned to "the view from below" by contrasting Singaporean views of their own identity against the constructions of their government. It is here that the book's most valuable contribution is made – few have collected Singaporean opinions on their identity and systematically analysed them as cogently as Velayutham. Interestingly, his analysis indicates that Singaporean identity lacks deep emotion. As Singaporean identity is founded upon material comforts, Singaporeans are detached from the nation with relations between government and people similar to relations between service provider and consumer.
Can the tension between being a global city and a nation-state be resolved? Optimistically, Velayutham believes this is possible. Thanks to its economic success, Singapore has the requisite material building blocks for developing a strong national identity. However, for these blocks to hold together, what is required is the cement of a still underdeveloped active citizenry empowered to demonstrate their commitment to the nation by energetically participating in shaping their nation's destiny.
Though the book concludes that active citizenship is necessary for deeper bonds, it is unfortunate that this point was not fleshed out further. Two questions remain unanswered – how would an active citizenry be developed and are Singaporeans even interested in participating more actively in their polity? The second question may have greater bearing on the discussion. After all, not all consumers want to be shareholders. Many are happy to hop from service provider to service provider if the opportunity knocks.
In a related point, another intriguing but overlooked issue is the assumption that nation-states require a citizenry with a sense of belonging to remain viable. Putting aside the difficulty of measuring belonging, it is questionable if a sense of belonging is necessary at all. Citizenship can be based on a utilitarian calculus where individuals become citizens in those states offering them greatest utility. Many countries already acknowledge this fact. For example, countries experiencing a brain drain do not attempt to stem the drain with emotive arguments. Instead, they increase the opportunity cost of leaving through socio-economic incentives.
Norman Vasu is an assistant professor and coordinator of the Social Resilience Programme at the Centre of Excellence for National Security, S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University
Developing our National Identity
Just what is our national identity and how important is it? How are we unique? How should we enforce a sense of national identity in Singapore? These are some essential questions that are tackled in the article I cite, “A Good, Hard Look at Singaporean Identity”, which is a summary of Mr. Selvaraj Velayutham’s published analysis of our national identity. These issues are increasingly important in our global, interconnected world, where borders lose importance and the definition of the nation is increasingly blurred.
According to the article, the government is trying to combat the increasing Western influences in Singapore, and form a sense of national identity – this is done through creating the sense of being “at home” in Singapore. Mr. Velayutham later asserts further in his publication, that the key cause of a lack of national identity in Singapore is the conflict between being a global, connected city and being a nation-state. The writer also presents an option to the development of national identity, which is to develop more socio-economic benefits, and thus eradicate the need for national identity. To resolve this conflict, we need to have active citizens. Yes, being active as a Singaporean citizen and “energetically participating” in shaping our future is certainly a key step, but is this all that can be done, and should we attempt to develop national identity in the first place? Is the government taking the right path?
Firstly, we take a look at the consequences of a lack of national identity. Why shouldn’t we take the path other countries have taken and simply offer more socio-economic benefits? Our generation would not have a sense of belonging, and would conceive of Singapore merely as a geographic location. In times of trouble, our younger generation would not have any attachment and inclination to defend our interests, when they could so easily emigrate. Even with socio-economic policies, there will still be greener pastures elsewhere, where the cost of living is lower, and the salaries higher. Without a sense of belonging, young people will be even more easily pulled away. Singapore is a knowledge based economy, and highly dependent on its citizens, and the ensuing brain drain may well affect us adversely. An example close to heart would be my cousins, one of whom graduated from Purdue University, and the other, from Nottingham University. In spite of the benefits put in place by the government, they have been lured to foreign countries to work.
Being active as a Singaporean citizen is not all that is needed to forge stronger bonds. We should but also at what might be weakening our concept of national identity, and change it to develop stronger bonds. Our open immigration policy might in ways contribute to this. Increase in immigrants and more locals leaving for other countries has resulted in more foreign cultures in Singapore, and causing our national identity to erode. With reference to some research done by Professor Lily Kong of the NUS Geography Department, I feel that we have to find ways to devise our own unique identity, not excluding all these other foreign influences, but including them.
Our government is trying to develop a sense of being “at home” in Singaporeans. I feel that this is merely a start, and the government should go a little further, and help us develop a constantly evolving national identity that includes foreign influences, and unifies the vast variety of cultures in a global city and a nation-state.
In summary, national identity is key to Singapore’s success, especially in preventing talent drain. The government should take further steps to develop national identity, through encouraging active citizenship, and unifying the different poles of Singapore, the nation state and the cosmopolitan city.
I hope that with the advent of such a national identity, we as Singaporeans will be able to feel pride and unite under a single banner, forging a path into the future.
According to the article, the government is trying to combat the increasing Western influences in Singapore, and form a sense of national identity – this is done through creating the sense of being “at home” in Singapore. Mr. Velayutham later asserts further in his publication, that the key cause of a lack of national identity in Singapore is the conflict between being a global, connected city and being a nation-state. The writer also presents an option to the development of national identity, which is to develop more socio-economic benefits, and thus eradicate the need for national identity. To resolve this conflict, we need to have active citizens. Yes, being active as a Singaporean citizen and “energetically participating” in shaping our future is certainly a key step, but is this all that can be done, and should we attempt to develop national identity in the first place? Is the government taking the right path?
Firstly, we take a look at the consequences of a lack of national identity. Why shouldn’t we take the path other countries have taken and simply offer more socio-economic benefits? Our generation would not have a sense of belonging, and would conceive of Singapore merely as a geographic location. In times of trouble, our younger generation would not have any attachment and inclination to defend our interests, when they could so easily emigrate. Even with socio-economic policies, there will still be greener pastures elsewhere, where the cost of living is lower, and the salaries higher. Without a sense of belonging, young people will be even more easily pulled away. Singapore is a knowledge based economy, and highly dependent on its citizens, and the ensuing brain drain may well affect us adversely. An example close to heart would be my cousins, one of whom graduated from Purdue University, and the other, from Nottingham University. In spite of the benefits put in place by the government, they have been lured to foreign countries to work.
Being active as a Singaporean citizen is not all that is needed to forge stronger bonds. We should but also at what might be weakening our concept of national identity, and change it to develop stronger bonds. Our open immigration policy might in ways contribute to this. Increase in immigrants and more locals leaving for other countries has resulted in more foreign cultures in Singapore, and causing our national identity to erode. With reference to some research done by Professor Lily Kong of the NUS Geography Department, I feel that we have to find ways to devise our own unique identity, not excluding all these other foreign influences, but including them.
Our government is trying to develop a sense of being “at home” in Singaporeans. I feel that this is merely a start, and the government should go a little further, and help us develop a constantly evolving national identity that includes foreign influences, and unifies the vast variety of cultures in a global city and a nation-state.
In summary, national identity is key to Singapore’s success, especially in preventing talent drain. The government should take further steps to develop national identity, through encouraging active citizenship, and unifying the different poles of Singapore, the nation state and the cosmopolitan city.
I hope that with the advent of such a national identity, we as Singaporeans will be able to feel pride and unite under a single banner, forging a path into the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)