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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Democracy brings stability in the society
Democracy is seen as a morally right government but the question is that whether it is efficient and also does it brings stability to the society in which it is applied?
We know that humans have some moral values in them that are developed either by the society or by them selves depending on the environment. Humans are very considerate about these values. Hence people would like to live in a government from which they are satisfied not only in terms of its efficiency but also on the values it shows. Democracy is a government, which has a high chance of remaining in the good perspective of people because of its morally right policies and hence it decreases the chance of having riots from people against the working of the government. We have seen in history that the government giving more rights to one group sooner or later ends up getting riots and protests from another group for example the case of British rule in India. Because people were not satisfied with the government’s policy that is why they stood against it and the result was the eradication of the British government from India. Hence the government, which keeps people satisfied, would be able to stay in a position to rule in this modern world or else sooner or later it would go. Democracy has the ability of satisfying its people and bringing stability in the society for long term especially when there is a case of multiculturalism because of its nature of equality.
Democracy has many disadvantages like normal people may not know that which party is beneficial for them and may choose a wrong one. Democracy takes a lot of time in passing bills because of its nature of having intense scrutiny by different people and hence may delay many processes. Democracy leads to corruption because it is based on electoral competitions. But then also democracy is seen as the most efficient government. In dictatorship the power is only in one man’s hand and unlike democracy no one can fight against its policies and hence it may lead to direful consequences if the dictator starts abusing his power. Government with military rule follows the same problem and creates unsatisfaction among people. Other governments, which do not follow equal rights, cannot maintain a peaceful society. Democracy may bring a disadvantage in countries having majority as illiterate because they would not be able to understand the right person beneficial for the society. But there is always a way of correcting this mistake by not voting the part. Providing them education can solve this problem. Democracy by so far has been able to bring peace to such a level which other government would not be able to in large multicultural countries such as India. Corruption exists because majority of people in India are illiterate but so far there have not been any major ethnic war after the British rule. Pure democracy may not be beneficial in all the cases. Democracy demands freedom. But giving a lot of freedom may corrupt the society and hence it may not always work.
India also after having a democratic constitution has not faced any devastating economic crisis because there is an intense scrutiny done by a lot of authorities when a bill is passed. The main authority cannot execute it unless the other authorities agree to it and hence there is a less possibility of making mistakes.
In conclusion democracy brings stability in terms of peace in the society but its pure form may or may not be the best possible government.
Post a Comment