Fifty years of social engineering have made Singaporeans who we are today. Fifty years ago, we became independent largely involuntarily and almost by accident, which has compelled us to take an unorthodox route to economic survival.
We traded liberal democracy for prosperity and our Singaporean-ness for fast-track global status. (Note that I do not mean to say that liberal democracy is the gold standard for political governance.)
Today, we continue to search for a right balance between cosmopolitan openness and social solidarity.
What is Singaporean-ness?
chensiyuan
Singapore city skyline
Having Singaporean-ness in us is more than just identity. For most of us born and bred in Singapore, we will naturally describe ourselves as Singaporean. No question about it.
But going beyond a narrow definition, Singaporean-ness encompasses a sense of belonging to a unique and worthy community of individuals with an easily identifiable style of behaviour and mannerisms.
It is a tribal concept. Being identified as part of the tribe gives us a sense of social cohesion which hopefully leads to a higher level of contentment and happiness living in our country of birth.
Why is there a seemingly low level of social solidarity and happiness in Singapore?
When foreigners like Charlotte Ashton observe that Singaporeans are by and large miserable, it can never be accurately proven. But one can feel the general level of contentment that exists in the “air” when one arrives in a country like Australia, New Zealand, or even Japan. So where is the source of discontentment and unhappiness in Singapore?
Possible factors
There are “fixed factors” which are permanent constraints and there are “changeable” factors which can be adjusted by tweaking public policies.
Let us examine some factors which may have had an impact on our contentment and level of happiness over the years.
(1) Land size and absence of natural resources. Singapore has only 710 square kilometres of land and no natural resources. Even the state of Johor, our Malaysian neighbour is 41 times our size. Unfortunately, this constraint creates a zero-sum game mentality in Singapore. It becomes the perfect breeding ground for ultra-selfish behaviour. For example, there will never be enough certificates of entitlements (COEs) for cars (Singaporeans love their cars) and there can only be just so much land for cosy landed homes. (In Singapore, in order to buy a car, one must first bid for a COE and only a limited number are available). So possession by some will automatically come at the exclusion of others. New Zealanders and Australians do not have to live with such a zero-sum game mentality. Unfortunately, this is a permanent constraint in tiny Singapore.
(2) Historical reality: Singapore is a relatively young country (50 years old in 2015). From independence day in 1965, we had a population comprising majority of Chinese, a significant percentage of Malays and slightly lower percentage of Indians and a smattering of other races. Different races co-existed happily and communicated with one another using a clever mixture of dialects and Malay by and large for normal everyday dealings and often for commerce. For obvious reasons, we could not have been a mono-lingual and mono-cultural country like China, Japan, Korea or Thailand.
(3) Foreign population to local population ratio. 60 per cent of Singaporeans are currently sharing our limited land and scare resources with 40 per cent of foreigners. This is the highest ratio of foreigners to locals in the world for a city state. Foreigners bring a different set of habits and lifestyle to Singapore, which brings both economic benefits and social externalities. Public policies can be tweaked to re-balance this factor.
(4) Economic competitiveness and stress level. Singaporeans live in an environment of heightened competition and stress, from (a) aiming for good grades at the primary school leaving (PSLE) exams to (b) getting good jobs after graduation and (c) succeeding in a highly competitive business environment.
(5) Income and wealth inequality. This is affected by globalisation and policy decisions. Wealth and income tax policies can re-balance this factor.
(6) Love for money and equating it with power, status and self-worth. This is a deeply rooted part of Singaporean-ness for many Singaporeans. There is no difference between the perceived self-worth of a doctor or lawyer in Australia and Singapore. But the big difference lies in the perceived self-worth of occupations like a bus driver, a waitress and a sales person. The acid test of an advanced country is the intelligence and self-confidence that is needed for every occupation, including a waitress. This mind-set change must first come from parents not devaluing these occupations in front of their children. The wages for these occupations must also rise to be commensurate with higher skill requirements for these jobs. This factor can be changed but will take time and a mind-set change.
(7) Language and culture. This is related to point number (2). We could not have been a monolingual and mono-cultural nation because the minority races were significant in numbers. For good reason of economics, we chose English as our official language which is a great language of commerce but far detached from our linguistic roots and Asian culture. This created cultural conflicts and confusion. In the end, we gained economically but suffered culturally. We speak Singlish which is an efficient but not quite internationally accepted lingo.
Why are Hong Kongers purportedly less miserable than Singaporeans?
Eckhard Pecher
Nathan Road, Kowloon, Hongkong
Hong Kong is largely a mono-lingual and mono-cultural society. There is something unique about the Hong Kong language, mannerism and style that makes her citizens feel a strong sense of solidarity. Rich or poor, they love their dim sum, their Jackie Chan and Jackie Cheung.
Hong Kongers have a Chinese identity card that give them a choice to live in China with most of the local privileges. They benefit from one-country-two-systems.
They have a Hong Kong passport which is as good as Singapore for visa-free entries to many countries. Yet they are allowed to hold dual passports and many Hong Kongers are not shy to display their Canadian passports. They live in a goods and services tax- free country with lots of cheap eateries and stores conveniently located below their tiny apartments and bed-sits. And they have the cheapest and best public transport system in the world in my view.
The world is different today from a century ago and so is the concept of migration
It is often argued that since our fore-fathers were migrants, hence we should continue to welcome immigrants.
A century ago, our fore-fathers escaped extreme poverty from their mother-land and came here by boats. It was a voyage of possibly no looking back. Although many who came harboured the hope of making a quick buck and returning, the truth was Southern China then was extremely poor and politically devastated by the sheer incompetence of the last empress/emperor. China was a divided country torn apart and bullied by foreign powers, with the best parts of the country given away as foreign concessions. Hence the desire to return to mother-land would have to be driven purely by emotion or stupidity.
Migrants then came penniless. The various clans received them according to dialect groups. They quickly assimilated to Southeast Asian food, mannerisms, customs and culture. Upon arrival, they integrated.
Fast-forward to the present. Today’s migrants are elite global nomads. Instead of boats, they fly in on business class cabins. Admittedly, they are essential to the effective functioning of our global hub.
Let’s use Chinese migration as an example. China is today confident, stable and prosperous, providing immense economic opportunities, vastly different from the dilapidated state it was in a century ago.
There is therefore little guarantee that today’s elite migrants are here to stay. After graduating from the National University of Singapore and Nanyang Technological University with generous scholarships and grants, and after pledging their allegiance to Singapore, they could be on a plane the following day seeking new pastures.
Our Singapore passport is often seen as a great way to get visa-free entries, an instrument of arbitrage in a globalised world.
Today’s instant communication almost also ensure that migrants and new citizens can be physically in Singapore but continue to “live” virtually in their mother-land.
And since their numbers are large enough, they may see little need to integrate. From food, entertainment, language to customs and mannerisms, they can continue to live exactly the same way they do as though they never left their home country.
But being a global hub, we may have no choice but to accommodate this class of new global nomads.
Is Singapore becoming more like “hotel Singapore’’?
An American professor by the name of Kotkin recently highlighted a cultural and identity dilemma faced by Singaporeans.
Do we search and nurture our Singaporean-ness or become “Hotel Singapore”, by which he refers to “a place of transit for a nomadic global population – from the highest end of specialists to the day labourers – moving from place to place.”
According to professor Kotkin, “Singapore is under constant pressure to conform to a global pattern that obliterates differences and all those things that adhere people and families to a place.”
He concluded that “in the process, place-ness is slowly eroding, and with it, the sentimental ties and sacred space that tie people and families to a specific place, a neighbourhood and a city. In the drive to achieve acceptability from the followers of urban fashion, a city can lose its soul, and over time, it’s very reason to exist.”
Conclusion
We in Singapore must therefore tweak our public policies to ensure that we retain our Singaporean-ness and our social solidarity. Otherwise we may fall into the global city “trap” that Professor Kotkin has aptly put.
But as a global city, we cannot do without foreign talent. They are an elite group and on the average they come with professional skills and educational standards higher than our present Singaporean work-force.
Many middle and pioneer age Singaporeans were not given adequate opportunities for higher education and could not now plug into the knowledge economy. Younger Singaporeans do not face this problem anymore. Hence over time the 60/40 ratio will improve in favour of Singaporeans.
Truth is with a 60/40 ratio today, however much we Singaporeans desire to continue to dominate the landscape and compel foreigners to switch to our habits and lifestyle, it will not likely happen so easily.
Being an open society, we cannot for example, prevent thousands of foreign style eateries and entertainment outlets being started to cater to their own foreign demand. Quite rightly, they are free to celebrate their independence days and cultural events here. This shared “space’’ is something we have to accept as part of the bargain of being a global cosmopolitan city state.
Secondly, we may have to live with the fact that we will never achieve the same level of social and cultural solidarity as mono-lingual and mono-cultural nations like Japan, South Korea and China. This fact will not change even if we have no foreigners living in Singapore.
Therefore, given the many limiting factors that Singapore faces, our aim to notch up the global city ladder and our aim to deepen Singaporean-ness are clearly conflicting objectives.
Something needs to give and it is a question of finding the right balance.
Who decides what should be the right balance? If you ask a Singaporean CEO who is paid millions of dollars a year, he will certainly choose more globalisation. If you ask a low to middle level Singaporean working class person, he would probably choose less globalisation. Now which one leads to more Singaporean-ness as Singapore is both associated with developed economy status, the result of globalisation as a fast economic growth path as well as a place for the ordinary Singaporean on whose backs Singapore was built.
Either way, there is a price to pay.
This article was kindly contributed by Charles Chow.
About the Web
- Survey aims to define workplace happiness in S’pore (channelnewsasia.com)
- Nurturing a culture of conviction (todayonline.com)
- National service for the 21st century (straitstimes.com)
- Bio
- Latest Posts
Have We Been Gradually Losing Our Singaporean-ness And How Do We Get It ...
Best content & valuable as well. Thanks for sharing this content.
Trả lờiXóaAccounting & Auditing Firms in Dubai
Company Liquidation Services in Dubai
Always look forward for such nice post & finally I got you. Really very impressive post & glad to read this. Good luck & keep writing such awesome content.
Trả lờiXóaWeb Development Company in Greater Noida
Software development company In Greater noida
CMS and ED
CMSED
Homoeopathic treatment for Psoriasis in greater noida
Kidney Disease Homoeopathy Doctor In Greater Noida