Singapore 2025

Earlier this week, Yahoo! Singapore ‘Fit to Post’ (FTP) published an article that generated in excess of 900 user comments within 24 hours. Written by FTP Singapore’s blogger Angela Lim, the article was entitled, “Dr Mahathir: MM Lee does not respect religion.” http://sg.yfittopostblog.com/2011/01/31/dr-mahathir-mm-lee-does-not-respect-religion/ Dr Mahathir’s comments were a result of some observations made by MM Lee in the book, Hard Truths, about the Malay-Muslim community in Singapore – remarks which were met by an acerbic response from a significant number of local Malay institutions and individuals. So disenfranchising were MM Lee’s remarks that even Yaacob Ibrahim, the PAP Minister for Malay-Muslim affairs disagreed with them, with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong wisely distancing himself from his father’s caustic musings.

A number of themes ran through the comments thread that appeared after the aforesaid article. Many agreed with Dr Mahathir, while an equal if not greater number, disagreed.

What struck me was the substance of comments that disagreed with Dr Mahathir’s views. An overwhelming number responded to defining Singapore’s multi-racial social compact, not in terms of what it is, but rather oddly, in reference to the ills afflicting race relations in Malaysia. As a consequence, the strength of the Singapore system, in spite of a loud commitment to meritocracy, became nothing more than a function of the lowest common comparative denominator – race relations in Malaysia.

From a policymaking standpoint, it would seem as if the Singapore government is in a more privileged position to drive a robust and enduring social contract that accommodates Singaporeans of every race and creed fairly and equitably, especially since there is no overt political arrangement between the races in Singapore unlike in Malaysia.

It my argument that comparing Singapore’s race relations against Malaysia sets the bar for the Singapore system too low, and ultimately represents a meaningless comparison. Worse, the blind confidence in the Singapore state’s meritocracy mantra may operate to dilute and distract Singaporeans from making serious enquiries into the substance of our multi-racial society.

Legitimate queries on the relative lack of educational progress made by the Malay community over the last 25 years in Singapore, the educational stagnation of the Indian community and the brain drain of 1000 of our brightest students yearly according to MM Lee, amongst others – portend a serious and apolitical study of the apparently successful Singapore system and durability of our multi-racial social compact. A specific and long-standing frustration among Singapore’s minority races has been their abject under-representation as recipients of Singapore government scholarships. The figures in Table 1 below speak for themselves.

Table 1: PSC Scholarship Recipients 2002-2010*

* The above data was culled from information available on the Public Service Commission (PSC) website at: http://www.pscscholarships.gov.sg/SCHOLARS_SPEAK/SCHOLARS.htm In tabulating the data, some difficulties arose in accurately categorising a scholar against his/her race. E.g. Asif Iqbal [Malay or Indian?] or Morris Natalie Yu-Lin [Chinese or Others?]. As such, I have listed the name of each non-Chinese PSC scholar in good faith and labelled each according to his/her most likely racial category. Although unlikely, there could also be the prospect of a Chinese name listed officially under the ‘Others’ category, a possibility that is impossible to extrapolate from the available data.

The PSC webpage which hosted the aforementioned data boasted a column (see image) titled “Giving back to society” where the PSC profiled five scholars – three Chinese, one Indian and one Malay. In profiling the scholars as such, it is argued that the PSC acknowledged the need to portray holders of government scholarships as representative of the major races in Singapore. Critically however, this politically correct profiling operates to misrepresent the actual number of minority PSC scholarship recipients.

Singapore government scholarships are amongst the most sought after as they systematically groom young Singaporeans to take up leadership positions in government, such as permanent secretaries of government ministries, to CEOs of statutory boards such as Housing and Development Board (HDB) and the Central Provident Fund (CPF), amongst others.

For a country that hosts a non-Chinese population of around 25%, the consistently disproportionate representation of minority government scholars is not only worrying, but also very revealing as to the grist of Singapore’s multi-racialism. Prima facie, the often heard of Malaysian Chinese complaint of under-representation at the highest levels of the Malaysian bureaucracy can be argued to operate similarly in Singapore, with minorities – beyond token representation – excluded from top-level bureaucratic appointments by design, if Table 1 is a guide.

In the absence of additional data and empirical evidence from the authorities, the poor representation of minority scholars is a problem that calls out for serious study and enquiry. I was particularly shocked to discover the relative absence of scholars from the Tamil community, even though it is the largest of all Indian ethnic groups in Singapore.

There could be very logical reasons for this under-representation – perhaps very few minority students score four As and ‘S’ / H3 paper credits, dwindling the number of applicants in the first place – reasons only the Public Service Commission is best placed to answer. But if many minority students do not qualify for top government scholarships in the first place, a separate enquiry on the educational performance of minorities should automatically ensue.

Even so, grades can only mean so much. In 2009, PSC Chairman Eddie Teo in a speech to NUS Business School students was quoted as follows: “…..more and more people now believe that EQ and soft skills will get you further in life than IQ.” In the same year, in an open letter on PSC Scholarships, he alluded to qualities that went beyond grades and spoke of a selection process that hosted broad requirements:

“While we do select from students who are at the top in terms of academic performance, our experience shows that above a certain cut-off point, academic results cannot help us differentiate between candidates. We need to look for other qualities, such as leadership and whether he can work with others.”

“There is no single leadership model we favour because the Public Service is looking for a diversity of leaders to help manage different problems and situations in an uncertain and unpredictable future.”

“While IQ is generally not a bad predictor of success in life, it is not the only relevant factor.  Which is why some people with very high IQ do not make it in life and may even drop out of society altogether. For our purposes, high IQ and top academic results are not enough. To assess whether a candidate has the potential to make it to the top of the Public Service, we need to look for non-cognitive skills as well.”

“However, no candidate is likely to have all the desirable traits and qualities in equal abundance. All candidates, being human, will excel in some areas and will not excel in one or more of the qualities we are looking for. It is a given that all the candidates we interview excel academically. But because candidates will vary in everything else, the PSC will have to exercise judgement in making trade-offs. This is why recruitment is an art, not a science.”

“The PSC will need to be mindful of the fact that women generally perform better at interviews; they are generally more mature (at 18 years old) and confident and they often speak better than the men.”

“Candidates who come from humbler backgrounds may lack the polished exterior of their more privileged colleagues. We must look beyond appearances to determine the substance and depth of the candidates.”

In view of what appears to be a very broad selection criterion underwritten by strong academic performance, the apparently systematic under-representation of minorities becomes even harder to explain. What emerges is a perceptible pattern that indicates minority representation at the highest levels of the Singapore government will be disproportionately low for the foreseeable future.

The central question now is what can be done to bring this problem to attention of government decision-makers. For the immediate term, the expectation ought to fall on two categories of individuals. Firstly, minority PAP MPs cannot ignore the fact that the onus falls on them to raise this matter to the government. If anything, the multi-racial integrity of a Singapore 10-20 years down the road demands it. In addition, as representatives of their various communities, they cannot abdicate their community specific responsibilities especially since their political presence has been statutorily enshrined by the electoral – specifically GRC – system.

A second category of individuals that ought to be concerned are the members of the PSC commission, current PSC scholars, and private sector representatives who belong to the minority communities and who occupy leadership positions within and outside the bureaucracy. They are in a strong position to petition the government for a fairer representation of minority PSC scholars with a view to the political and multi-racial stability of Singapore.

These demands upon PAP MPs and PSC members are not particularly onerous. Minority Singaporeans are not expecting an affirmative action program, a pound of flesh or scholarship quotas, but an equitable representation that befits their status as equal Singaporeans – nothing more, nothing less.

Equally, it must be iterated that the minorities should not expect equal representation relative to their population numbers (i.e. 75% Chinese, 13% Malay, 10% Indian etc.) as far as PSC scholarships are concerned year on year. There could be some years where the numbers vary, greatly even, but over the course of an extended period time, a discernable pattern ought to emerge, one that broadly corresponds to the national demographic. As it stands, the current figures are eye opening and incongruous when cast against Singapore’s commitment to multi-racialism. From 2002 – 2010, Indians accounted for only 2.3% of all scholarship recipients, Malays – only 1.2%, while other minorities such as Eurasians and mixed-race scholars accounted for the remaining 2.3%.

In conclusion, I could not help but to opine that the comments that followed the FTP article referred to the introduction revealed an “end of history” slant to them. Francis Fukuyama in an oft-quoted 1989 thesis entitled “The End of History?” argued that the end of the Cold War corresponded with the end of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalisation of liberal democracy as the final form of government. Fukuyama’s critics countered that a deeper analysis that went beyond the superficial revealed many capitalist democracies ridden with corruption, class disparities and the like, debunking any claim to the West having “arrived”. Likewise, it would be shortsighted, expedient and ultimately inaccurate to think Singapore has achieved the status of an equal and multiracial polity.

On the back of MM Lee’s poorly conceived comments about the Malay community, PM Lee remarked, “We have made tremendous progress in making Singapore more integrated, in bringing the different communities closer together. So let’s continue to move forward together and carry on making progress. We are always work in progress, the job’s never done.”

To some extent the PM is correct, but to say that the “job’s never done” appears to favour an indifferent approach rather than pursue tangible benchmarks that measure the quality of our multi-racial compact. This can lead to a “tidak apa” and “bo-chup” shrug of the shoulders when race related issues come up for consideration, especially since they do not affect the majority, while the handful of successful minority representatives selfishly marvel at their own achievements. Rather than see the glass as half-empty, Singapore is best served by a political leadership that commits to strengthening the multi-racial bonds that bind us as Singaporeans by returning to basics in times of doubt. For a start, the poor representation of minorities at the highest levels of government represents an immediate problem that requires urgent looking into.

Useful Links

Dr Mahathir: MM Lee does no respect religion: http://sg.yfittopostblog.com/2011/01/31/dr-mahathir-mm-lee-does-not-respect-religion/

An Open Letter from PSC Chairman: http://www.pscscholarships.gov.sg/An+Open+Letter+from+the+Chairman.htm

Public Service Commission members: http://www.psc.gov.sg/AboutThePSC/Who_is_the_PSC.htm

_______

The article above was also published in TheOnlineCitizen http://theonlinecitizen.com at:

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2011/02/government-scholarships-a-case-for-greater-representation-of-minority-races/

One Online Citizen reader had some queries which I responded to (see below):

A few points:

a. It is Yaacob, not Yacoob Ibrahim.

b. To serve/test your argument, you need to make a comparison between JPA in Malaysia and PSC in Singapore if you decide to include Malaysia in your thesis.

c. How many Singaporean Malays and Indians were turned away because they were from the minority race despite the fact that their results were right up there with the Chinese PSC scholars? Malaysia turns away bright Chinese students despite the fact that they are academically more inclined than the Malays who are given the JPA scholarships instead. Does this happen with the PSC as well with regard to the Malays and Indians?

d. If you are not calling for affirmative action or positive discrimination, what would you suggest should be done to have a fairer representation among races?

e. If we take you as an example when you received a Chevening scholarship to do your Masters in the UK, was this because you were from a minority race or because it was given to you on merit? I ask this because in much the same way I assume you believe you received your chevening on merit, should it also not apply to the PSC too?

Dear Muslim Patriot,

On a) Thank you for pointing out the typo. I have since amended it on my blog.

On b) I am not sure how easy it will be to secure data on the point, to say nothing of the substantive value of comparing Singapore and Malaysia since my concern lies with the situation here. I tried to secure official information on Malaysia’s government scholarship numbers by race – this was the closest I got – a secondary source quoting that non-Malays received 5% of scholarships in the last 40 years.

http://yourkeeper.blogspot.com/2010/02/what-discrimination-there-is-one.html

If plausible, that’s only slightly lower than the same situation for non-Chinese Singaporeans over the last 8 years. I wouldn’t rely on this figure as an official source unless it comes from the Malaysian government.

This leads in nicely to point c) which I am afraid, you have to ask the PSC. I am not being facetious about this – the hard data I have presented tell us only one story. The PSC has much more information which they ought to share if we want a better understanding of the issues.

On point d) there are a number of possibilities, all of which should balance meritocracy and representation in the name of the national interest – i.e. multi-racialism.

On point e) its interesting you mention this because from the 2003 batch, 5/13 of the Chevening scholarship recipients were from the minority races. 8 were Chinese, 1 Malay-Muslim, 1 Indian-Muslim, 1 Hindu-Tamil, 1 Malayalee and me, a Sikh. Gender-wise, the representation could have been healthier – 4/13 were women (I think 6-7/13 would have been ideal).

All said, 38.5% were from the minorites – a bumper crop! Now, in this case, I can accept it if the following year, hypothetically speaking, only 10% of the recipients were minorities, because on average, the balance between representation and merit is kept in focus. From the looks of it, it does not appear as if representation is a criterion under the current PSC system. Make no mistake about it, the 2003 minority Chevening scholarship recipients were no duds. The Malay-Muslim recipient is now a Director at a government ministry!

Ends.

1.  I got whiff of some seriously disgruntled Indian Singaporeans even before the Thaipusam festivities last week. The unhappiness was apparently down to a “comprehensive guide” released by the government this year disallowing music from boomboxes, drums and gongs.

2.  A video was released a couple of days ago showing a group of participants openly defying the rules during the Thaipusam festivities proper. The PAP would do well not to underestimate the public perception of its laws on the Indian community and how these very rules could contribute to unnecessary racial tension. The public around the participants (when questioned by the police) remarked that the police would not stop a Chinese lion dance troupe (or a Chingay festival), and next time, the participants should perform a Chinese lion dance during Thaipusam instead.

3.  In the meantime, Law Minister K Shanmugam says the laws have been liberalised (see Straits Times report below) and they have been in existence since 1973 – an explanation, if true, doesn’t inform why the ban against drums and bongos was not enforced previously, and why it is being enforced from this year. I reckon former Law Minister S Jayakumar might have done a better job explaining things to the public.

4.  Separately, the drum/bongo players have just put a series of 10 videos titled “Singapore Thaipusam 2011 – Revived!”, and describe each video like this:

Source: ucsifrontiers.com

“This video is in no way a move to disregard the government and its laws. However, due to the “comprehensive guide” made public for this year’s Thaipusam festival, many questioned its rigidity. One of the rules was “not allowing music from boomboxes, drums and gongs”. The reason that was explained for this rule is due to the concerns raised that “participants use the event as an excuse to be rowdy”. But what we say is, the music and the instruments bring out the spirit of Thaipusam. Devotees, especially the kavadi bearers, depend on the music to motivate them. By not allowing the use of cymbals and drums, the festival will not be what it is. Imagine trudging along bearing the weight of the kavadi on your shoulders, without the lively beat of the drums and the singing helping you along. That’s what was sadly seen during this year’s Thaipusam. Hence, our videos. We brought along our instruments that night at the risk of getting caught as we wanted to prove something. People love the music. A festival such as Thaisupam needs such music to come alive. We decided that night, that we wanted to play for everyone and anyone. Even people we didn’t know. We wanted to show that the music is essential and we were proven right by the joy displayed by kavadi bearers and spectators. We went up to each bearer we saw and asked them if they wanted to dance. And each one said yes. The music started and the kavadis twirled and spun round and round in the true Thaipusam spirit. Spectators started clapping and dancing and people were enjoying themselves. Finally! A Caucasian lady even came up to us and said, “Thank you, you play wonderfully. I love it!”. Our point we want to make with all this is that, Thaipusam only comes around once a year. With all the strict rules and bans, we won’t be surprised if soon, the festival will see it’s last days if the mood is continually dampened and people lose interest. So with all that has been said, we hope the government would consider letting loose a little and lift the ban on musical instruments. Let’s show that Singaporeans can be AND can have fun. If only we are given the chance to. As an end it this, we would sadly like to state that in a true Singapore law enforcing move, our musical entourage that night was disbanded when the police swooped in on us and confiscated our instruments. Bummer.”

This first the 10 can be accessed from this hyperlink: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wt3wmDvO6Y

5.  A friend put it quite aptly on Facebook (by virtue of the number of ‘likes’ it garnered) – “Next time I want to celebrate Thaipusam, Chinese New Year, or Hari Raya, I will go to Malaysia instead.” There is a good video of the event as celebrated last year in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

6.  TheOnlineCitizen carried a good report on the event in Singapore as well: http://theonlinecitizen.com/2011/01/the-uproar-over-thaipusam/

Thaipusam rules not new: Shanmugam
Tessa Wong
688 words
15 January 2011
STIMES
English
(c) 2011 Singapore Press Holdings Limited
He was responding to public outcry that they were too harsh

HOME Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam reassured Hindus yesterday that public order guidelines issued on next week’s Thaipusam procession are not new, and apply equally to all religious processions.

Speaking to reporters in the wake of the varied reactions after the Hindu Endowments Board (HEB) publicised the rules last week, he pointed out that such rules have been in existence for 38 years.

Thaipusam, a Hindu festival, is traditionally celebrated here with an overnight procession from the Sri Srinivasa Perumal temple in Serangoon Road to the Sri Thendayuthapani temple in Tank Road.

The procession this year will start on Wednesday and last through Thursday.

The Straits Times reported on Jan 7 that the guidelines mirrored those previously set by the police for Thaipusam.

The report quoted procession organisers from the two temples saying that these had been put together for the public for the first time this year, to address issues of crowd and noise control.

A subsequent report quoted the HEB saying the guidelines were set by the police and were not new. But it confirmed that it was the first time these had been compiled and made public.

The guidelines state, among other things, that shouting, playing of music, and the sounding of gongs and drums are not allowed. But the singing of hymns would be permitted.

Yesterday, Mr Shanmugam said the guidelines had been around since 1973. The only new element this year was to allow the singing of hymns. ‘That represents a relaxation of the rules, contrary to the perception that has been put forward. And these rules apply not just to Thaipusam but to all religious processions.’

Mr Shanmugam, at his press conference yesterday, cited The Straits Times Jan 7 article as the report which he said was incorrect about the guidelines on religious processions being new.

Reports on the HEB’s announcement prompted reaction from the public. Some wrote to The Straits Times Forum saying that the guidelines were too harsh.

Addressing these yesterday, Mr Shanmugam said: ‘I think the concerns have been expressed by a very small number of people, based on inaccurate reports.’

The HEB has told the ministry that the temple organisers who applied for the police permit understood the need for rules.

Mr Shanmugam said the police were not behind the move by the HEB to publicise the guidelines this year.

The HEB representative did not respond to calls to explain why they did so.

Mr Shanmugam said yesterday there would be no need for a larger-than-usual police presence at this year’s procession.

He said organisers had done ‘a good job’ over the years managing crowds, and traditionally both temples relied on auxiliary police officers, and off-duty officers who volunteer with the temples.

‘Of course, some people breach the rules and so on. They will be dealt with as they have been dealt with in the past.’

The police have, in the past, acted on breaches of rules whether by organisers or participants of religious processions.

There were also a small number of cases where no further action had been taken, said Mr Shanmugam.

Mr Shanmugam also dismissed the view that guidelines were issued because foreigners living along the procession route had complained about noise.

On Wednesday, a blog post by a Singapore Democratic Party youth wing member noted on the party’s website that the route did not affect people in the heartland and asked who the real complainants were, and if they were Singaporeans.

Asked about this, Mr Shanmugam did not cite the party but said: ‘I know one or two parties have tried saying that for political advantage. And it is sad from a couple of perspectives. It’s irresponsible and also a little amusing.

‘First the fundamental underlying point is factually wrong, that these rules are new. And politicians are willing to jump on the bandwagon and blame foreigners for everything. I guess that reflects on the people who make these statements.’

Ends.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Straits Times

(c) 2011 Singapore Press Holdings Limited

EVERY Thaipusam, local Hindus give thanks to Lord Murugan for his blessings by mounting a colourful procession down Little India.

Devotees carry milk pots and kavadis – metal or wooden structures fixed to the body – to express their devotion to the deity.

But this year’s festivities were dampened by a kerfuffle over what many thought were new rules for the celebrations.

Looking back on the incident, Ms Indranee Rajah feels that better explanation and early engagement with the community could have pre-empted the issue.

In early January, the media reported that the Hindu Endowment Board (HEB) would no longer allow the playing of music during the processions, to address issues of crowd and noise control.

Music is usually played at a deafening volume to encourage those who pierce their bodies as an act of faith.

It was also reported that no shouting was allowed, and no paint or makeup could be used on the devotees’ faces and bodies. Only the singing of hymns would be permitted.

Coming only two weeks before Thaipusam, the reports sparked an outcry from the community. In letters to The Straits Times Forum Page and on blog posts, some Indians charged that the Government was prioritising the complaints of Westerners who lived in the area over the traditions of the long-standing procession.

Responding to the chorus of complaints, Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam maintained that the rules were not new and had been set by the police for all religious processions since 1973.

In fact, he pointed out, the permission for hymns to be sung represented a relaxation of the rules.

What happened was that this was the first year that the HEB had decided to compile the rules and make them public to Thaipusam participants.

‘I think what was needed was more lead time in letting people know about the formalisation of the rules,’ reflects Ms Indranee. ‘And before the formal announcement, a bit more explaining and discussion would have been helpful.’

She believes that the reaction from the Hindu community was due more to the ‘suddenness’ of the announcements, rather than to the rules per se.

The latter, after all, ‘are not so different from what has always been in place’.

She notes that the HEB had the difficult task of striking a balance between two types of feedback: complaints about the noise and revelry, and the significance devotees attached to the procession.

‘In striking the balance, the key was in the communication of how it was to be struck, and the engagement of the community in how it was to be implemented,’ she says.

‘Just like in the integration of foreigners, we need explanation, dialogue, communication,’ she stresses. ‘Then I think there would have been more of a positive response.’

Ends.

31 January 1990

The Straits Times

(c) 1990 Singapore Press Holdings Limited

The first programme of SBC’s discussion series Points of View was broadcast last week. The panel comprised Mr K. Shanmugam, MP for Sembawang GRC, Mr Leslie Fong, Editor of The Straits Times, Dr Khong Cho Onn, lecturer in the Department of Political Science, National University of Singapore, Mr Ken Lou, an architect, and Dr Hong Hai, MP for Bedok GRC. We publish below excerpts from the transcript of the discussion “Fashioning the Next 25 years”.

MR K. SHANMUGAM: It is quite easy to paint the picture of an idealist’s ideal state … economy that’s continuing to grow, greater distribution across the board of national wealth. A more just society.

But I would like to focus on one aspect of the political system which forms or provides the framework within which you try to achieve such a society.

And in my limited experience, what I think is lacking now and what I hope to see in the future is a society that’s more participative.

You can have democracies and democracies. The idea of a larger segment of society being able to operate and use the democratic process which is not, after all, just voting once in every four years. Something more than that.

I would like to see a society that’s able to understand issues, that’s willing to participate.

MR KEN LOU: What’s important now is that central to the idea of the intellect and culture is what we would like to call myth, and I think in this generation young people are beginning to look for a myth about culture.

It’s about expressions and impressions and from this creation of the myth, we would then go on to the next level of desire when we have already fulfilled most of our material ones . . .

An intellectual is a real intellectual probably only in the third generation when he’s not snatching up scraps of culture but growing up surrounded by it.

DR HONG HAI: I would put it a little differently. A human being has a body, a mind and a soul.

I think a nation also has a body, a mind and a soul. In Singapore, the body is in good shape. We have excellent infrastructure. We are quite developed as a city. The nation’s mind, I think, is doing quite well.

We are a disciplined society. We are numerate. We are literate. Our children are quite well educated.

MR LESLIE FONG: Can I jump in to say that I agree with Dr Hong Hai on broad principles, but I’m not as optimistic as he is, because I’m by nature a pessimist, and I think before we can even go to that stage, I can see quite some dangers ahead of us.

It is in this context that I give my wish list, which is my hope that in the next 25 years, we stay together as a nation because I think the chances of us staying together as a nation are by no means to be taken for granted.

I worry, in particular, about how we, as a people, would react with each other. In particular, I’m talking about relations between races and communities.

I’m beginning to see fissures opening up in our society which, if we are not careful, will lead us to grief.

In particular, I can see, for example, Malay Singaporeans going through a stage where I think, they have to decide for themselves whether they want to be more Malay or more Singaporean.

I think the rest of Singapore, in reacting with them and in trying to respond to their anxiety, must collectively, together with them, help them come to terms with themselves.

Basically, we are all Singaporeans, regardless of whatever our ethnic and religious pull.

I, for one, wish that Singapore would take pains to come to terms with these realities, and hope we can stay as a nation and build a more tolerant society because I think at the bottom of it all, must be tolerance, the ability to accept each other for what he really is, not what we want him to be.

DR KHONG CHO ONN: I would like to say I agree wholeheartedly with Leslie – that there is a need for greater tolerance in this society, a need for a greater sense of unity, a greater sense of one community in this society.

I think if we want to talk about being more Singaporean, I think all of us should talk about being more Singaporean and less Chinese, less Malay, less Indian as well.

I don’t think it’s a question of the minority races. I think it’s a question we should all address ourselves to. And perhaps this doesn’t quite find reflection in some of the Government’s policies.

DR HONG HAI: I think the way to have racial harmony is not to pretend that differences are not there.

I think it’s perfectly consistent with racial harmony for the Chinese to feel very Chinese, the Malays to feel very Malay and the Indians to feel very Indian, but at the same time, also feel Singaporean.

I think it is totally consistent with a multi-racial society that the Chinese promote the speaking of Mandarin and the Tamils the speaking of Tamil.

I don’t think we ought to pretend the differences are not there. It would only lead to more problems.

MR SHANMUGAM: That’s one perspective, I agree. But quite a different perspective could be that well, when you emphasise the individual cultural identity, you cannot pretend that they don’t exist.

But when you start emphasising it, then what? It would inevitably be at the expense of a common culture or development of a common culture even if we don’t have one now.

It’s all a question of emphasis, and I think the point that might have been made is that – is the emphasis overly on the individual races rather than a balanced approach?

DR VIVIAN BALAKRISHNAN (National University Hospital doctor): I’m of the younger generation. We’ve grown up for the past 20 years with a fairly good propaganda machine which led us to believe that we were all Singaporeans regardless of race, language and religion.

Recently, however, you have government ministers questioning the loyalty of certain segments of our society to this nation.

You can’t expect people to be loyal to you when you question their loyalty outright at the beginning. That’s your first premise.

That is the surest way of creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

MR SHANMUGAM: The way I perceive it is that for the first 25 years, the focus was on developing that common culture, a strong bond within.

And of late, the emphasis has been maybe slightly shifted. And it’s moved over to emphasising the individual cultural identities, perhaps as a realisation that we were losing what little we had by trying to forge something.

So it may be a difference of perception rather than one of a propaganda machine putting forward a certain line, trying to get to the first level of common unity, and then from there on, trying to develop individual cultural identities and hope that the common cultural identity will evolve slowly.

DR BALAKRISHNAN: How can you get to the first level by questioning someone’s loyalty?

MR SHANMUGAM: Granted, you cannot question loyalty if you want loyalty. But let me put this as a hypothesis, if you feel that a certain factual matrix exists, is it better to face it and say how you can overcome the problem or is it better to avoid it?

DR BALAKRISHNAN: Now that’s precisely the problem. What evidence does the Government have, or what facts does the Government have to make a statement questioning the loyalty of certain segments of our society?

MR SHANMUGAM: I don’t think that statement was ever made. I think that’s the way some people have perceived it.

I think what was said was with the frank attitude of trying to discuss the issue on why we have to try and bring the Malays into the mainstream, and why they are not in.

That sort of question-and-answer session, I think, has been blown out of proportion into one of questioning the loyalty.

MR KENNETH LIANG (Chairman): And if I can move on to another area of what you said, Mr Shanmugam, about wanting to see greater participation in the next 25 years, can you elaborate on that?

MR SHANMUGAM: The large majority have no intention of participating. And I don’t know that you can really proceed with the status of developed country when, a large proportion of your population is in that state.

What was said was that we could ossify. So … we certainly don’t seem to be able to encourage people.

The complaint has always been that the Government is not participative.

My own feeling, having been elected for a year, is that the people are not willing to participate.

DR KHONG: Today there is a sense of stasis, there is a sense of waiting for directives, there is a sense of people being unable to formulate coherent alternatives of their own to put forward to the Government, to the people in power.

And there is therefore a need in encouraging participation to further open up the political process, to further encourage people to come forward with ideas, initiatives and opinions. In other words, to offer alternatives to just one orthodox view of doing things.

MS GERALDINE LOH (Circulation Promotions Manager): I’d like to just elaborat e on the point that you brought up, Mr Shanmugam.

Now you said that you’d like to see more participation from the public. I think I’m from your generation, too. But I think that most people would not want to speak up simply because of the past.

And then the Government has got to ask themselves, why do people not want to speak up?

And I’d like to say something about the civil service. I used to be in the civil service and I resigned for the simple reason that you could not speak up.

If you wanted to write a letter to the Forum Page, you had to get clearance.

You’re willing to identify yourself, and yet you have all that red tape. So when the Government has barriers like this, obviously people are not going to speak up.

And from the public’s viewpoint, I think that if you’re going to open up, the civil service has got to open up first before you can expect the other people to come in.

MR FONG: I think, having watched the flow of letters to The Straits Times’ Forum Page, and having observed a lot of these discussions and participation, before we even talk about participation, I would dearly like to see people taking pains to understand issues first before they jump in with views . . . I think there is this myth about participation, everybody jumps in with a view and then if there are 75 people, there are probably 78 views. Some change their minds half-way.

I think the key to a more tolerant society, the key to a more participative society, lies in the people themselves taking pains to understand the issues . . . while it’s good to say, let a hundred flowers bloom and a thousand schools contend, we had better take pains to make sure that issues are understood in all their complexity before views are fired left, right and centre, because I think a cacophony of false voices would lead to even more confusion rather than enlightenment.

MS LOH: Next question is how.

MR FONG: The question can be answered this way. It can be achieved by first, the people who have the information upon which to make decisions or upon which to at least make contributions.

Now I think a good example would be the car issue. I could remember a time some years ago when the question was very much – why not leave things alone – why do you have to tinker with transport measures and so on?

But I think, because of constant exposure, because of information being made available to the public, Singaporeans have, by and large, moved away from questioning why something needs to be done at all, to what should be done.

And that is a step forward because people are now talking on the basis of some knowledge, that there is a finite number of cars you can allow on the road, that there is just so many kilometres of roads that you can build.

So the first step, to answer your question, is that the people who have in their possession – and let’s not just point the finger at the Government, because it is a problem that spans the whole society – people who have information ought to make available that information if that information is conducive to public discussion and the enlightenment that follows from it.

That I think is the first critical step to take.

DR KHONG: I think you put your finger on the problem. The fact of the matter is that at the end of the day, only a very small minority would be fully conversant with any given issue. There has to be a perception, among the majority though, that there has been a free open debate on that matter at the level of that minority perhaps.

There has to be a perception that there are channels of information flowing down through which people can have access to all the relevant points of view on any particular debate – not just those aspects or just those points of view which the Government wants them to be conversant with.

And I think there is a sense of misperception that this is not taking place, that only certain points of view are put forward to them.

MR FONG: I just added another item to my own wish list, which is that, let’s lay this ghost of the past 25 years to rest because there is always this constant reference a big brother Government over the past 25 years suppressing dissent and whatever.

Now I am not going to debate the rights and wrongs. I think different people have different perceptions.

MR JON ONG (National University of Singapore Society): I think that I have faith in the future. I am bullish about the next 25 years.

I mean, just judging from the things that have occurred over the past decade in Singapore gives me enough confidence that Singapore is one place that the young of today will find a place where they can express themselves more freely than their parents could ever have done.

More opportunities to break out from job moulds and other types of moulds and more opportunities for expression, not only in political matters but also in culture and the arts. I think the Government has done a great job in the past few years to bring about the environment that we have today. I believe this environment will likely prevail in the coming years, thereby giving people the opportunity to mature and, as Mr Shanmugam has said, the participative democracy will come about.

I don’t think we need to force this process. I foresee the Government, a strong Government, taking the lead.

MR SHANMUGAM: I think this was precisely the opposite of what I was suggesting because there is a tendency, I think in Jon’s perception, to equate strong government participating with the people for a more glorious future.

To me, that somehow doesn’t sound right. This total emphasis on what the Government does should no longer be the focus. It’s what the people want and what I hope will happen is that we would have a significant substratum of people who are able to engage in informed discussion and have points of view which need not necessarily tally with the Government’s. It should not be up to the Government. It should be up to the people to decide what they want.

DR BALAKRISHNAN: I like to interject on this point. There’s been a lot of discussion on this issue of leadership transition.

Most of us have thought of it in terms of the old guard passing the baton to the younger leaders but I would like to bring up the flip side of that coin. That an essential element of democracy is the option to have a smooth and peaceful transition of leadership to a group which may not be in power today and I therefore like your opinion, of the politicians here, perhaps as to that impression of the role of a future viable alternative government.

DR HONG HAI: I think it would be naive to expect a ruling government to create its own opposition, to create its own alternative and to ensure that it is competent and will take over.

It’s not done. If the PAP does weaken, if it fails to win the mandate of the people, then it is for Singaporeans to ensure that an alternative party comes up that it attracts good people and good talent and that it provides a viable alternative government.

What we have in Singapore today is what political scientists call a one-party dominant Government. You have an opposition but it’s not strong enough to form an alternative government.

One-party dominant governments are not at all uncommon. Japan has had a one-party dominant government for well over 30 years and nobody doubts that there is political freedom in Japan or that Japan is a very efficient and successful society.

DR BALAKRISHNAN: I’m just suggesting that PAP should perhaps play cricket. And give other players a chance in the field.

MR MARTIN SOONG (Business Times Journalist): I see obstacles now to freer more informed press. There is an inordinate emphasis on face-saving where political figures are concerned and this is sort of tied to deference to authority. Is there anything we can do about it or should we do something about it?

MR FONG: Let me answer it this way. If it is face-saving at the expense of truth, then as an editor I would opt for truth rather than face-saving. But as an Asian, as a Singaporean, I would also subscribe to the motion that face is very important in our society. I don’t think we have reached the level of emotional maturity where people can take . . . a drubbing in public. So where face-saving does not impede truth, I’d say, yes, by all means, let’s try to observe that.

The alternative would be a society in which everybody goes at everybody else and nothing is sacred and you can denigrate and you can mock, and you can caricature. Is that really good for us? Just because somebody else has done it does not mean we have to follow.

I think there is nothing wrong in accepting that there should be a certain degree of deference to authority because the alternative is that you again have a breakdown of social discipline and order. But it should not obsequious deference to authority, to the point where you surrender your mind.

MR LIANG: Can we just round up this discussion now with perhaps some very brief comments from the panel?

MR SHANMUGAM: I think I opened a Pandora’s box with my comments on participatory politics or participatory democracy. I am glad to have received the views. My own wish is that this sort of participation would extend down to a much greater proportion of the population. If that is achieved, I think, we would have achieved a lot.

MR FONG: I wish we could really, collectively, build a more tolerant society , with tolerance at every level, not just the political but the social, religious, community. Then there is plenty to look forward to in the next 25 years.

DR KHONG: I think the discussion has showed how difficult the next 25 years is going to be because in the past 25 years, you could set quantitative targets on what you want to achieve and you could then go ahead and achieve them. In the next 25 years, people want a diverse range of alternatives, most of which are not quantifiable, and which will therefore be harder to identify and to achieve.

MR LOU: Well, I think the basic question really is a sense of identity and a sense of place. If we have a home to call our own, we will stay here. And at the end I believe it has to do with people. We can have technology, we can have computers, we can have high-stress life. But essentially if the government and also the private sector can place more stress on meaning and what people are looking for themselves, I think that’s the society we would want for the next 25 years.

DR HONG HAI: We are worried about this problem of immigration from Singapore. I think the solution to our emigration problem is not just in making life more easy, making the growth rate, economic growth rate, higher here or better housing and so forth. These factors will help.

What is going to stop Singaporeans from emigrating is the sense that this is home, this is the place where they can identify with the sights, the smell, the sounds. This is the place where their friends are. This is what will keep Singaporeans here.

And I hope that in the next 25 years, we will develop this spirit of belonging, we will develop the culture, the arts, the unity of purpose that will make us a nation and that will keep us together here in Singapore.

Ends.

The public sale of Malaysian newspapers is banned in Singapore. Likewise, the Malaysian government does not extend the same privilege to the Singapore media. So when the main Singaporean English daily, The Straits Times carries two commentary pieces written by Malaysians in Chinese and proceeds to translate and publish them one day after another – coincidentally, one day before Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong delivers his National Day Rally – there is usually more to it than meets the eye.

On 27 Aug 2010, the Straits Times published a commentary written by Lu Pin Qiang (‘Singapore’s path to success worth studying’) that first appeared in the Malaysian Chinese daily, Sin Chew Jit Poh, where the writer praised Singapore while criticizing the Malaysian New Economic Policy (NEP) and the lack of meritocracy across the causeway.

One day later, on 28 Aug 2010, the same paper published a commentary written by Xue Shu Qin (‘Singapore through the eyes of a Malaysian here’) that first appeared in the widely read Singapore Chinese daily, Lianhe Zaobao. In the article, the writer generally pursued the same themes Lu Pin Qiang raised a day earlier, disparaging Malaysia and Malaysians (“Malaysians do not care whether Malaysia is good or bad; they care only about themselves and their community”), with the usual disclaimers (“I am not blowing Singapore’s trumpet”) that come at the end of similar pieces published in the Singaporean mainstream media.

The Malaysian road to nation-building after separation from Singapore in 1965 is often employed by the mainstream media, PAP politicians and PAP grassroots activists to amplify the apparent success(es) of Singapore in comparison to Malaysia. Specifically, the Malaysian affirmative action program that favours their local Malay community, euphemistically referred to as the bumiputera policy, is usually identified as the reason behind everything that is wrong about Malaysia today.

Introduced in 1970 in the aftermath of 1969 racial riots, many of the Malay political elite – specifically, Malay leaders in the largest Malay political party in Malaysia, the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) – concluded that the absence of an affirmative action program for the majority Malays would only serve to widen the economic gap between the Malays (then comprising about 55% of the population) and non-Malays (Chinese – circa 35%, Indians – circa 7%).

Of all the local communities, the Chinese community controlled the greatest share of the Malaysian economy following Malaysian independence in 1957. After all, one needs money to grow money, and considering the economic status quo of the 1960s, Malay leaders opined that their community would only fall further behind if some form of intervention was not taken to correct the economic mismatch.

Lee Kuan Yew’s dictum of “a Malaysian Malaysia” in the heydays of merger from 1963-65 with equality for all races as its mantelpiece – while theoretically enlightened and apparently equitable – did not adequately take into account the reality of a large majority of Malaysian Malays who were unlikely to benefit from the wonders of meritocracy given their starting position of abject poverty and low or non-existent levels of education. The latter fact is one the Singapore media almost never analyses or considers in any serious detail: The acute economic backwardness of the Malaysian Malay community in the 1960s, and its abjectly minor representation of 2.4% in the Malaysian economy.

The bumiputera policy in Malaysia was technically to have come to an end in 1990. However, its utility in keeping the Malay elite in UMNO in power and its ability to secure the Malay vote rendered it too important a political tool to be dispensed with. In more recent times, UMNO popularised the notion that the NEP has not succeeded in its initial objectives of uplifting the Malays, with figures touted to prove that the Malays still held less than 30% equity in corporate Malaysia, the original NEP target percentage. This substantively unbending stance on the bumiputera policy has driven a dagger straight into the heart of Malaysian society.

What UMNO shrewdly hides from the Malay community, is that its vision of uplifting the Malays is tied to support for UMNO. For a Malaysian Malay to succeed in modern times, it is not enough to be a bumiputera. He or she has to be an UMNO-putra as well. As things stand today, the economic performance of the Malay community in Malaysia is lop-sided. Many remain relatively poor, while the UMNO-putras are exceedingly rich.

Fortunately for Malaysia, discerning Malays have seen through UMNO’s ruse, and responded through the ballot box. In 2008, the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition lost its 2/3 majority in parliament. To a large extent, the electorate’s stance was a response to UMNO’s strategy of politically hijacking the bumiputera policy and a rejection of the endemic corruption that continues to ensue from it.

In Malaysia’s public sector today, non-Malay representation is acutely low. In about forty years, the Malaysian Chinese community’s demographic percentage has dwindled from 35% to around 25% today, mainly due to emigration and a lower Total Fertility Rate as compared to other Malaysians. In addition, Malaysia’s economic prospects are stymied partly because of the hemorrhage of Malaysian minorities to other countries. In the private sector however, the Malaysian Chinese are still doing reasonably well, with many Chinese businessmen able to negotiate the bumiputera policy with political savvy and an intimate understanding of the political economy that underwrites UMNO’s existence.

For working class non-Malays however, the only handouts they can expect from the government are tied to political support for the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition. The absence of political support from them simply translates into less or no governmental assistance for any community that does not back the incumbent political leadership.

In this regard, Barisan Nasional’s position is not too different from the Singapore People’s Action Party’s (PAP) attitude in denying government grants for the opposition-held constituencies of Hougang and Potong Pasir. In effect, the political incumbents in both countries, the Barisan Nasional in Malaysia and the PAP in Singapore, penalises citizens who exercise their democratic rights to elect political candidates who are not from the ruling party.

Today, Pakatan Rakyat, the multi-racial Malaysian opposition alliance clamours for a more equitable society. Critically, it seeks to extend the bumiputera policy not just to needy Malays, but to needy Malaysians across all races. Ideologically, the Pakatan Rakyat rightfully contend that the lenses of racial politics that have coloured Malaysian politics must be removed, a fact discerning Malaysians, and ironically, those who benefit from the UMNO gravy train, also acknowledge.

Without doubt, the political dynamic in Malaysia from the time of merger and separation in the 1960s to the reality today, is manifestly more nuanced than the mainstream media in Singapore would like to reveal. In its original form, the bumiputera policy was not about denying Chinese and Indians jobs and opportunities in Malaysia, as is perceived by many Singaporeans today. Its goal was to level up the Malays to increase their share of corporate equity and education levels while increasing the size of the Malaysian economic pie. In itself, this was not a bad thing.

But as the policy took root, it was ruthlessly employed as a political tool to entrench the political elite in the Barisan Nasional. In this endeavour, the Barisan Nasional’s constituent non-Malay parties, chiefly the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) and the Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC) were equally complicit. Race politics while distasteful to working class Chinese and Indians, created a political economy that benefited their respective political elite too, not just UMNO.

Paradoxically, the debilitating effect of the bumiputera policy in Malaysia benefited Singapore through the years. Many Malaysian Chinese and more than a few Malaysian Indians have set roots in Singapore contributing to our economy at the expense of Malaysia’s. Of these, more a large number (statistics unavailable) gave up Malaysian citizenship in favour of Singapore citizenship.

However, a not insignificant minority (statistics unavailable) have chosen to retain their Malaysian citizenship while taking up Singapore Permanent Resident (PR) status. The latter choice is not surprising. It allows these Malaysian PRs the opportunity of returning to Malaysia should the political status quo change. In Singapore, Malaysian PRs can purchase HDB flats. Some even hold superscale-appointments in the Singapore Civil Service even though they are not citizens. Quite separately, bumiputera policy or not, at current prices, retiring in Malaysia is financially a lot less burdensome than retiring in Singapore. And the dislocative effects of the bumiputera policy aside, Malaysians of all races and religions generally get along relatively well with each other, a state of affairs not too different from inter-communal relations in Singapore.

In light of Singapore’s voracious appetite for immigrants, Malaysia represents an ideal talent pool. Malaysian Chinese and Indians integrate seamlessly into our body politic by virtue of the almost identical cultural norms in both countries. Compared to new Chinese citizens from China, a Malaysian Chinese is a preferred immigrant for the same reason indicated above. It is perhaps with this policy objective that we see the contributions of Lu Pin Qiang and Xue Shu Qin finding their way into the op-ed sections of the Straits Times, views that are symptomatic of some of the real frustrations of non-Malay Malaysians today.

Lu contended that Singapore’s meritocracy is one “where people can attain their goals based on merit and not connections, nepotism or corruption, regardless of their backgrounds”. In addition, she stated that Singapore hosted a “level playing field for all, with nobody given special attention or discriminated against by national policies”. The reality on the ground is a tad more nuanced than Lu observed.

Meritocracy, like the Malaysian Malaysia of the 1960s is a wonderful theoretical ideal. In actuality, it represents a destination that must continually be strived for, with the other eye set firmly on the pitfalls of meritocracy. Singapore’s meritocracy, is far from perfect. In fact, in light of the growing gap between the rich and poor today, one would not be remiss suggesting that its utility as a national ideology to inspire Singaporeans is coming under increasing strain (A point made by Kenneth Paul Tan in the highly readable Management of Success – Singapore Revisited edited by Terence Chong [ISEAS: 2010]).

British Labour Party MP Michael Young, the man who invented the term meritocracy more than 50 years ago, warned against the dangers of a society singularly organised around merit in a book titled The Rise Of The Meritocracy, 1870-2033: An Essay On Education And Equality. Young had posited the development of a stratified polity defined by intelligence and educational selection, both of which determined social status and standing. The cream that emerged from the selection process would go on to take up the top appointments in society, and ostensibly secure top salaries.

In time however, Young predicted that what appeared to be a fair and equitable system would morph into something ugly, inflexible and downright discriminatory, with the meritocratic system revealing itself to be an age-old manifestation of the mankind’s millenarian struggle against the politics of class.

Young’s book foresaw in 2033, a Britain governed by an elite of 5% of the total population who look down on their rest of society as inferior in intelligence and education. Without access to good schools and opportunity, the less well-off members of society perform poorly in school and even worse when compared to the elite. They remain ensconced in the poverty trap and are socially immobile. Naturally, 95% of the nation regard the elites with contempt, and it only becomes a question of time before the entire society collapses into oblivion.

Young’s fictional premonition is not too far removed from the minds of some Singaporeans. The elite Administrative Service is already seeing (http://www.adminservice.gov.sg) the children and family members of some serving PAP politicians, career Administrative Service officers and top-managers in government-linked companies joining its ranks, portending the prospect of a cabal of individuals that mutually reinforce the political (PAP) and administrative leadership – perhaps even giving birth to an elite within an elite.

A separate canard to Lu’s simplistic assessment of Singapore’s meritocracy is the reality that the profile of many of government scholars entering public service does not wholly dovetail with her notion of a “level playing field for all, with nobody given special attention or discriminated against by national policies.” That said, it would be a stretch to argue that pro-active discrimination is endemic in Singapore. However, it would not be in the realm of fiction to contend that a passive, subterranean or negative form of discrimination does reveal its dark side on the Singapore canvas.

Separately, one publically available statistic in Singapore starkly portrays the growing inequality and sociological limits of meritocracy. In 2008, it was revealed that only 47% of Public Service Commission scholarship holders lived in public housing, i.e. HDB flats, where in excess of 80% of all Singaporeans reside.

Even more damaging for the long term development of Singapore, the meritocratic system has resulted in young scholarship aspirants giving textbook answers to the Public Service Commission (PSC), in tune with the political culture and the ethos that shapes the pro-PAP mainstream media policy in Singapore. In an open letter to schools, parts of which were published in the Straits Times on 25 Jul 2009, PSC Chairman Eddie Teo described how some PSC scholarship candidates,

“….would give ‘politically correct’ answers and appear to be pro-Government, thinking that would impress the interview panel….He said ‘quite a few’ candidates grew uncomfortable when asked if they would act against someone in authority. One candidate, for instance, was asked what he would do if he found his superior was corrupt. He refused to answer, ’saying he disliked dealing with such a case’.”

The most apparent qualititative shortcoming of meritocracy in the context of nation-building can be observed by the relatively poorer socio-economic position of the Malay community in Singapore. While a handful have done well, Malays are grossly under-represented at the highest echelons of the military and in the civil service. This writer is not aware of the numbers of Malays or Indians selected for the Singapore Administrative Service after their undergraduate studies. If one could hazard a guess, it would probably only reinforce the point vis-à-vis under-representation. While the relative absence of minority races at the highest levels of the executive can be explained away on the grounds of academic performance when compared against the majority Chinese, it would not be misplaced to argue that such optical disparities harm the national fabric and cast aspersions on the qualitative meaning of meritocracy in Singapore.

While no one is expecting special treatment for the Malays (or any other Singaporean) like in Malaysia, some of the questions on every fair-minded and loyal Singaporean’s lips ought to be: “How do we break the poverty cycle not just some of our Malays find themselves in, but our Chinese, Indian and Eurasian compatriots as well, and in doing so, strengthen our national fabric or the Singapore Spirit? And how can Singapore’s meritocracy become qualitatively meritocratic in line with our multi-racial and multi-religious national values?” Since the PAP’s Cabinet Ministers are the richest state-paid politicians in the world, many Singaporeans feel the answers to such questions ought to be on top of their minds, especially in view of their multi-million dollar salaries.

The questions above are not posed with an altruistic purpose in mind, complete with airy-fairy notions of a comfortable and easy life for all Singaporeans so as to create a utopic level playing field. Often, PAP MPs and grassroots leaders mind-numbingly respond to campaigns for greater support for our low-income workers with dire warnings of the welfare state. On the contrary, the question posed above goes to the heart of what it means to be a Singaporean. It must be dealt with for the sake of Singapore and Singaporeans, to say nothing of the type of society we want to become. And it needs to be addressed with the same enthusiasm displayed by PAP MPs when they wax lyrical about the amount of revenue the Integrated Resorts bring into state coffers.

In the final analysis, a move away from juxtapositions with countries that hardly make for reasonable comparison with Singapore today is in order. The Malaysian experience with the bumiputera policy does not add any real value in addressing the inequalities that are have reared their ugly head within the PAP-managed Singapore system -  inequalities which are likely to become more acute in future. In fact, comparisons with Malaysia will begin to look more like a convenient distraction for meritocracy’s shortcomings in Singapore, if the PAP does not change tack and address them with single-minded vigour. Specifically, it makes more sense for the PAP to give meaning to meritocracy in the context of a multi-racial Singapore, rather than repeatedly compare it with the lowest common denominator of the bumiputera policy in Malaysia, the results of which have long been obvious to Singaporeans. Such a tactic only serves to limit, dilute and ultimately sabotage any exercise that seeks to inject equity into Singapore’s model of meritocracy.

At his National Day Rally on 29 Aug 2010, PM Lee stated that the first generation of PAP leaders including Dr Goh and the multi-racial team comprising MM Lee, Rajaratnam, Othman Wok, Lim Kim San, Hon Sui Sen, E W Barker, Toh Chin Chye and others, had a vision to build a multi-racial Singa­pore. Although they succeeded in building a multi-racial Singapore, PM Lee observed that the work of building a multi-racial and multi-religious nation “will never be complete”. Considering PM Lee was holding audience of a National Day rally attended by parliamentarians, judges, civil servants, grassroot activists and students amongst others, he might have been better served to explain how the PAP of today plan to continue improving the multi-racial and multi-religious Singapore of his political predecessors.

For a start, PM Lee could instruct his former Cabinet colleague and PAP member, DPM Tony Tan, the current Chairman of the government-controlled Singapore Press Holdings to re-evaluate how the mainstream media is employed to crystallise perceptions of race through Singapore’s substantively monopolistic media environment. It does not take a genius to note that repetitive comparisons by the mainstream media of Singapore’s meritocracy against Malaysia’s bumiputera policy can possibility harm inter-communal harmony in Singapore. In some cases it can engender an insidious and unstated disdain for the Malays in both Singapore and Malaysia, a terrible outcome that does nothing to inoculate Singaporeans against the prospect of racial and religious disharmony. Whatever the Malaysian social dynamic, the PAP should work singularly towards building a Singapore where the public discourse is not marked by the visceral reality of race, but a qualitative and substantive meritocracy Singaporeans of all races can be proud of.

Ends.

_______________________

Newspaper Articles referred to in the opening paragraphs.

Aug 27, 2010

Singapore’s path to success worth studying

Lu Pin Qiang

I BELIEVE many people would agree if one said Singapore’s Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew was one of the most successful politicians in recent times. I believe, too, that no one would object if one said his methods of governance were worth studying.

Speaking at a dinner held recently to mark the Republic’s National Day, he said: ‘If one day, our communities become divisive and hostile towards one another; if they are not united and the bonds of national cohesion are weakened, the country will go downhill.’

MM Lee attributed Singapore’s ‘improbable success’ to four factors.

First, having leaders of integrity who have the trust of the people to build a strong foundation for nation-building.

Second, having a meritocracy, where people can attain their goals based on merit and not connections, nepotism or corruption, regardless of their backgrounds.

Third, having a level playing field for all, with nobody given special attention or discriminated against by national policies.

Fourth, using English, the most common language in the world, as the working language of Singapore. This has enabled the country to avoid marginalising minority races and to become the commercial, industrial, financial and communications hub it is today.

These remarks from MM Lee should absolutely be studied and reflected upon by all countries.

No doubt, the conditions in Malaysia are different from those in Singapore. But just think: Malaysia has plenty of natural resources and wide tracts of land, yet why is it no match for ‘tiny’ Singapore? Whether it is the economy, international fame or the credibility of its government, Malaysia is always far behind Singapore and trying to catch up.

How did it turn out this way? Singapore carried out nation-building. So did Malaysia. Singapore has joined the league of First World countries; Malaysia is still a Third World country. At bottom, there is only one answer to the question. That is, the two countries chose different paths right from the start.

The path Malaysia chose was not based on any of the aforementioned four factors which MM Lee cited for Singapore’s success. Given the political scandals and corruption controversies that have occurred in Malaysia over the years, can the country really have an upright and trustworthy leadership?

Does it have meritocracy? Under the New Economic Policy (NEP), are Malaysians living in an environment where policies favour some and discriminate against others? Has Malaysia avoided marginalising minority races?

After we have answered the above questions, Malaysians should be able to reflect on why they are what they are today. Do Malaysians continue to pin their hopes on the NEP or the National Economic Model? Are they going to stick to the same path?

It is time to change course!

This commentary first appeared in the Sin Chew Jit Poh, a Malaysian newspaper, on Sunday.

________________________

Aug 28, 2010

S’pore through the eyes of a Malaysian here

Xue Shu Qin

BEFORE even realising it, I had worked in Singapore for more than half a year. From the time I was young, I have had inexplicable feelings about Singapore – chiefly, I think, because my mother is Singaporean.

Singapore is a prosperous nation. Managing its separation from Malaysia in 1965 must have been a highly challenging task for the new nation. Fortunately for the Republic, it was brave enough to leave Malaysia, otherwise it would not have achieved its prosperity today.

During my mother’s time in Singapore, people had to rear pigs and chickens to survive. But today, Singapore is a modern nation.

This is a case where the grass is always greener on the other side. Singapore, in the eyes of us foreigners, is an advanced nation. Perhaps many would be only too glad to become its permanent residents or citizens, but I see that many Singaporeans are unhappy with their country.

Some think it is not good enough, others think it is lousy, and yet others cannot wait to emigrate from Singapore.

This is common in life. One is never satisfied with what one has, thinking that one’s neighbour has a better deal. Singapore, which is far beyond the reach of us foreigners, is nothing but a small state to some Singaporeans.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s hope that ‘the Singapore tomorrow will be better than what it is today’ reveals his expectations for the Republic. In contrast, my country Malaysia is mired in mud, rejecting help from others.

Perhaps it does not wish to leave the mud. Malaysians do not care whether Malaysia is good or bad; they care only about themselves and their community.

Having been in Singapore for a while, I miss home. But when I compare my country with the city-state, I am really disappointed with my country.

We have potential but we are not motivated. We seem to be complacent about the current state of affairs and do not move with the times.

Everyone says Singapore is a clean nation but what I find most remarkable is Singaporeans’ self-discipline. There are some black sheep among them, of course, but the efficiency of cleaners is also a vital factor in the Republic’s famed cleanliness. Everyone here exercises discipline and does not litter, while those in charge of cleanliness are efficient and perform to the best of their ability.

Everyone says Singapore is a nation with good public order but what I am struck with the most are the well-fed and well-dressed people. Who will think of robbery when his pockets are full?

Salaries here are high, but so is spending power. The prices of goods are affordable. When people are self-reliant and lead fulfilling lives, who will want to make a reckless move?

Everyone says Singapore is a tourist destination but what I notice is the Singapore Government’s untiring efforts to promote tourism. It does so because tourism promotes spending, enhances the nation’s reputation and brings about many other benefits.

I am not blowing Singapore’s trumpet. I only hope that my motherland will take a look at Singapore. Singaporeans achieved independence later than us, thus losing out at the starting line. But why is it that they have caught up?

In life, one has to always improve and update himself. Always remember that you have to keep up with the times – and not the other way round.

This commentary first appeared in Lianhe Zaobao on Aug 24.

Originally published in The Online Citizen on 23 Feb 2010.

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/02/the-rony-tan-in-each-of-us/

It grabbed one’s attention, yet sat very uneasily in the hearts of the Sikhs who read it. Slightly more than two years ago, an article titled “Why Sikhism is the best religion” was uploaded onto the Central Sikh Gurdwara Board (a gazetted statutory board in Singapore) website. Occupying a place amongst other articles that did nothing more than to detail the nature, practices and scholarship pertaining to the Sikh faith, the article in question was unusual in that it ran contrary to the egalitarian basis of a religion whose devotees are not wont to public bouts of chest-thumping and flag-waving in support of their faith, but more importantly, are obliged to respect and protect the sanctity and religious beliefs of others.

The author of the article contended that the Sikh faith did not subject people to “valueless” rituals, before going on to refer to the caste system, bathing in holy rivers, facing a certain direction for prayers, slaughtering animals in the name of God and circumcision as examples of such rituals. Needless to say, this was hardly an oblique reference to our Hindu and Muslim brothers and sisters.

Fortunately, after a complaint by a member of the Singapore’s Sikh community, the Central Sikh Gurdwara Board took down the article without fuss. In fairness to the Board, many of its members had no idea such an article was uploaded in the first place.

Interestingly however, some Sikhs contended privately that the offending article was a response to the increasingly aggressive and sustained attempts at proselytization by some members of cash-rich Christian churches. While the article in question may have been uncomfortable for some, it was a necessary response given the perception of a new climate of insecurity in Singapore’s public space viz. religion, they argued. Sikhism in Singapore needed to imbibe a “coolness” quotient, just like how some Christian ministries had done, so as to inspire and unite younger Sikhs. The way to do it was through a sharper identification of Sikh religious identity. Offence to others was incidental, not their intention, they would erroneously reason.

For sometime now, the increasingly prominent and public expansion of the Christian faith in Singapore has led to feelings of genuine discomfort among members of Singapore’s other faiths. This discomfort is not rooted in antagonism against Christianity or Christians, far from it – but solely in the insensitive proselytizing of a minority of over-zealous and small-minded Christians. Anecdotal evidence suggests that such proselytizing takes on various forms – from aggressive and unsolicited door-to-door one-on-ones with non-Christian HDB flat-dwellers, to unsolicited engagements at bus interchanges and other public places, and to other more subtler techniques. But one of its more painful and blunt manifestations was exposed by Pastor Rony Tan’s now infamous comments about Buddhists and Taoists.

In a country whose citizens live cheek by jowl, remarks like Pastor Tan’s stoke resentment and create a snowball effect, bringing out the worst in each of us. The Sikh who penned the offending article referred to above presents a case in point. The truth of the matter is that Singaporeans do not need to define themselves and their beliefs in reference to ill-conceived ideas of what adherents of other faiths purportedly lack, or do not believe in. To do so would be to exhibit insecurities about one’s own beliefs and convictions.

Separately, the fallout from Pastor Tan’s comments has had the effect of putting Singapore’s Christians in the spotlight – unfairly it must be added. A faith that has inspired so many Christians and non-Christians alike is erroneously cast as disrespectful, insensitive and exclusive because of a misguided Pastor’s callous remarks, broadcast over the Internet. The need of the hour calls for some empathy from Singaporeans of all faiths to assure our moderate Christian friends and neighbours that as a nation, we stand together with them and should put this episode behind us. Singapore’s non-Christian citizens must also remember that like the followers of many faiths (including my own – Sikhism), Christians are not necessarily a monolithic group. Many are not insensitive, but respect the boundaries of multi-racial Singapore. To surmise that the conduct of some misguided believers is representative of all Christians would not only be grossly simplistic, but more importantly, intellectually deficient.

If there is something educative the Rony Tan episode stands for, it ought to be that religious sensitivity and a respect for the secular public space must remain the central pillars of every Singaporean’s religious ethos. Apart from incidences where some members of any faith ridicule the religious beliefs and rituals of others, Singaporeans must be watchful against spreading hate against non-religious communities too, such as gays and non-believers, and call out such improper behaviour before it morphs into something uglier. In addition, our religious leaders must recognise that the advent of internet-based communication technologies have shrunk the concept of “private” space.  The scope of what constitutes as “public” necessitates greater self-policing among members of every faith in order to keep Singapore’s multi-racial landscape as free as possible from religious hatred and bigotry.

On closer scrutiny, it is clear, albeit understated that Singapore’s economic success has been partly underwritten by the leaders and members of our various religious communities who acknowledge the importance of managing inter-racial relations with sensitivity and mutual respect. As a citizenry, we would be turning the clock back if we allow religion to define, distinguish and divide us a nation. We may be Hindus, Jews, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Taoists, Jains, Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Baha’is or even atheists, but we must be Singaporeans who acknowledge that the experience of mankind so far has proved that religion is a tinderbox that needs only a small spark to engulf entire communities. There can be no greater motivation to counsel and forewarn the Rony Tan in each of us of this historical reality.

Ends.

Originally published with The Online Citizen on 18 Aug 2009.

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/08/foreign-talent-policy-remains-contentious-and-for-reason-too/

The Straits Times’ report on 14 Aug 2009, “MM: Foreign talent is vital” of MM Lee’s Tanjong Pagar GRC National Day 2009 dinner speech did not reveal anything substantively new about the Singapore government’s foreign talent (FT) policy.

Its flavour was slightly different from usual reportage on the issue insofar as it buttressed the importance of foreigners in supplementing the country’s low birth rates – an argument which could potentially resonate more deeply than one which portends the decline of the Singapore economy in the absence of foreign talent.

The lacunae in the latter argument has been variously exposed over the last few years with a broad, data-backed consensus indicating that Singapore’s low-income workers did not see a rise in their median income in line with the rest of the economy. While various government ministers have over the years accrued this to the impact of globalisation, for a significant minority of Singaporeans, the perception continues to dominate that the FT policy does not benefit them, but instead squeezes prospective job opportunities and drives their real wages down.

More recently, the government argued along the lines of worker retraining and e2i, but preceding these reactionary initiatives has been a lack of information, debate and communication concerning the ramifications of what the FT policy entails for Singapore society and our low-wage earners; evidently, the most vulnerable group of Singaporeans affected by the FT policy.

Compounding the less than enthusiastic public response to the FT policy is the term ‘foreign-talent’ itself, which has hitherto been loosely and sometimes interchangeably employed with the word ‘foreigner’ in the public domain and media. The word ‘talent’ also obfuscates, especially when MM Lee was quoted as saying, “We accept only immigrants who increase the average level of competence of Singaporeans” only for ST to report immediately thereafter, “(t)hey [immigrants] must have skills and at least, secondary, preferably tertiary education.” Clearly, in the context of the MM’s words and the subsequent reportage of the ST, ‘talent’ is a very loosely defined word, not necessarily synonymous with conventional definitions found in a dictionary.

But more importantly, the ST article’s focus on MM Lee’s remarks covering population regeneration as a goal of the FT policy, involve two separate prongs to it. One element deals with population regeneration, a goal which many Singaporeans can appreciate, until the question is posed – what is the optimum population level for Singapore?

If the goal is to maintain the population of Singapore, which for a long time stood between 3-4 million, it is rather likely that the public vitriol against the FT policy would be more subdued. It would take either a brave man or a soothsayer to conclude economic decline would as a result ensue, if Singapore’s population stabilizes around the circa 4 million figure. Even the example used by MM Lee in his speech on Japan’s falling population and the future impact on its economy was instructive – it was based on a dire economic situation in Japan contingent on a declining population, not a stable one.

It is precisely this second element of the FT policy, the very prospects of economic decline and the necessary pre-emptive measures to meet this alleged challenge, which compounds the discomfort among Singaporeans. For some, the FT policy underwrites a population surge on a very small island to a population figure Singaporeans have little clarity about. As a result, the FT policy has given birth to the very real heartland reality of a more crowded Singapore, where infrastructure, on the surface of things, does not seem to have grown in parallel with the volume of foreigners allowed entry from 1998, when the effects of the FT policy began to be felt in earnest, particularly from 2002-2007. This sense of overcrowding has subsided somewhat, thanks to the latest recession. But even today, the unusually large number of linen and work wear hung out to dry on bamboo poles from some, ostensibly let-out HDB flats and even condominiums, offer leading conclusions to the number of occupants in each apartment. The perception of stresses on public facilities like the police force and separately, on the transport system by way of jam-packed trains and buses, have been but some of the more tangible and direct repercussions of the FT policy on heartlanders so far.

On a tangential, albeit worrisome note, class distinctions have taken root under the cloud of the FT policy, since the vast majority of policymakers and ruling politicians are likely to reside in districts and estates that do not deal with the day-to-day realities of the FT policy faced by heartlanders. Even relatively well-off Singaporeans are likely to host at best, mixed feelings about foreigners living in their immediate environment with the Serangoon Gardens episode of 2008 a primer of this deep emotive.

Arguments concerning class distinctions are brought into sharpest focus when some laymen opine that the real beneficiaries of a larger population in future are big business and corporate interests, with the bulk of Singaporeans having to readjust to smaller homes, congested roads, crowded public spaces, unintelligible service staff, and the worry of a real drop in living standards as a function of the preceding compromises.

The effect of these optical and cognitive realities creates a genuine feeling of unease and insecurity among a potentially large number of Singaporeans, who viscerally cannot make sense of a ST headline which reads, “MM: Foreign talent is vital”, especially when it is they who are perceived to be paying for it. Compounded by occasional government feelers suggesting the relocation of old-folk homes to Johor Bahru, the overall perception is of a poorly articulated, poorly communicated and poorly understood FT policy that incites questions of loyalty, nationhood and national unity for native Singaporeans.

While MM Lee sounded as if he was at pains to reinforce the importance of foreign talent to Singapore, the debate and concerns of many Singaporeans have arguably moved beyond those covered by the ST report’s ambit. In fact, MM Lee hinted at this himself, although these were not expatiated upon in the aforementioned ST article. After reporting that the total fertility rate (TFR) was 1.91, 1.19 and 1.14 for the Malay, Indian and Chinese communities respectively, MM Lee was quoted as saying, “If we continue this way without the new immigrants and PRs and their children doing national service, the composition of the Singapore Armed Forces [SAF] will change. So please remember that.”

Without prejudicing other interpretations to the TFR figures juxtaposed against MM Lee’s remark, one interpretation conveys the prospect of the Chinese community’s demographic percentage dropping below the current 76%, as the community hosts the lowest TFR rate of all the racial groups in Singapore. The curious lack of rigorous public debate in the mainstream media over this prospect and the FT policy in general is noteworthy. Would the essential character of Singapore society be so fundamentally altered if the envisaged percentage for the Chinese population existed within a band say from 65-80%?

Superficially, the preceding point comes into distinct relief especially when Singapore’s population is anticipated to rise to between to 5.5 to 7.5 million, or whichever figure is eventually pursued by the Ministry of National Development. One would have thought that any change in the character of Singapore society ought to hold greater relevance for Singapore’s racial minorities, rather than for the majority community.

Separately, what the ST report did not mention was that even for the Malay community, TFR rates have been steadily dropping from 2.48 in 1998 to 2.1 in 2003. Clearly, the problem of population replacement is affecting all Singaporeans, regardless of race, since all three major racial communities are below the magic 2.1-population replacement figure.

An arguably more significant take-away from MM Lee’s remark was the reference to the SAF and the projected prospects of more Malays in uniform, because of the TFR figures in question. Speaking on a similar subject in 1999, MM Lee (then SM) opined “(i)f, for instance, you put in a Malay officer who’s very religious and who has family ties in Malaysia in charge of a machine gun unit, that’s a very tricky business. We’ve got to know his background… I’m saying these things because they are real….” While those remarks proved controversial then, on balance, at least they contained caveats in that they identified potential religious overzealousness and family ties as determining factors for military deployment, not that of being Malay in itself.

But MM Lee’s more oblique and open-ended references this time need to be unpacked, something the ST article did not do, for whatever reason. Critically, the crutch-like reliance on race-based arguments throws a wet blanket on the progress of Singapore’s nation-building efforts since independence. Should such thinking continue, the FT policy will raise even more uncomfortable questions akin to those which question the loyalty of a Malay (or any other race for that matter) soldier whose family has stayed in Singapore for generations, against that of a newly-arrived Chinese or Indian who may claim to be as loyal as a Pavlovian dog but who cannot sing the Majulah Singapore without looking or sounding like an oddball. That the insinuation of a Malay soldier’s loyalty may even be raised, is testimony to the deep, intense and unsettling emotions engendered by the FT policy. This is not to say that the racial factor is irrelevant and that MM Lee’s latest remarks were totally disingenuous. But it is hard to imagine Singaporeans enthusiastically playing their part integrating new foreigners when elements of the political leadership appear to intuitively speak the language of race as the argument of last resort.

More broadly, framing the FT policy solely through the lenses of race also threatens to roll back progress made by Singaporeans since independence in the national unity and political maturity arenas in particular. Feedback in the ST Forum over the last few months recommending the induction of English tests and other qualifying criteria for new immigrants are indicative of a public attempt at determining a minimum set of hoops future citizens ought to pass through before succeeding in their application for citizenship.

Taken further, one wonders what sort of values new citizens would bring to our shores should they come from corruption-ridden, authoritarian countries and host nary a spark of talent and with no experience of living in a multi-racial society. Singaporeans ought to welcome these immigrants if they display a desire to cast away or replace the narrow and self-serving values picked up in their former countries of domicile and commit for example, to absorb the values defined by our pledge, crafted by our first foreign minister, S. Rajaratnam.

It is for this very reason that some qualifying criteria – beyond educational standards – for citizenship based on Singapore’s shared values and a reasonable competency in English, amongst others, stand out as more nuanced and realistic requirements for citizenship, rather than an overly rigid adherence to the racial balance.

In a final message to Singaporeans, MM Lee rightfully observed that the speed at which foreigners integrated into Singapore society depended on how Singaporeans treated them. But the question remains of how far the government is willing to go to alleviate the very real concerns, repeatedly made in a variety of fora, in addressing the immediate and future social costs of the FT policy on native Singaporeans.

According to the same ST article, MM Lee asserted that the government safeguards the interest of native Singaporeans, highlighting education, housing and hospitalization policies favouring citizens over PRs. If this defence is employed to justify the government’s FT policy, it must be a highly specious one, as Singaporeans do not benefit from education, housing and hospitalization policies because of the FT policy. Therein lies the principle reason accounting for the largely insipid reaction of many Singaporeans to the FT policy – a lack of acknowledgement by the government of the very real sacrifices Singaporeans of all strata, but especially the nation’s lower and middle-classes, have to make and will likely need to make in future, to accommodate more foreigners into Singapore.

The very deep and all-encompassing changes to Singapore society as a result of the FT policy call for not only fresh approaches in dealing with concerns of the Singapore public but the slaughter of some sacred cows as a result. Significantly, a relationship based on transparency and openness with the public vis-à-vis the FT policy must represent the central pillar of the government’s efforts rather than one that sees the intermittent release of government data providing selective details on the FT policy, with no interest in revealing the guidelines that has and will shape that very policy. In the circumstances, it is unsurprising that Singaporeans continue to exhibit indifference to the FT policy. In this regard, it may serve the longer-term interests of government to appoint an ombudsman for the National Population Secretariat and National Integration Council, the two central bureaucratic organizations that oversee the government’s FT policy.

In addition, it would be in the government’s interest to develop a more inclusive policy formulation mechanism specific to the FT policy and even invite and encourage opposition parties, civil society groups and NGOs to form committees to provide regular feedback. Not only would this attract the focus and attention of Singaporeans to a policy that is likely to have a profound impact on their lives and those of their fellow citizens, it would expose Singaporeans to the realities of policy formulation in a larger way and promote the building of cooperative bonds between the executive and the populace at large. Both the government and Singaporeans at large stand to gain from such inclusiveness with the larger objective of citizen participation in the national integration project more likely to succeed.

In the final analysis, the fact that the government, through MM Lee no less, sees a need to repeat the ‘foreign talent is vital’ mantra every so often, is indicative of the mixed results of the FT policy so far. While it must be regarded as a success from the perspective of sheer numbers, the overt public skepticism against the policy for a variety of reasons alluded to earlier and other reasons this writer is uninformed about, seem to resonate more than any desire to help new immigrants integrate into Singapore society. If left unchecked, such a reality could force new immigrants to constitute one half of a bifurcated Singapore polity in future, a state of affairs that bodes ill not just for Singapore society and national unity, but also for the same SAF MM Lee frets about.

Ends.