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
Thursday, March 6, 2008
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)