The Cost of Pragmatism in Singapore

Over the past 50 years, Singapore has developed tremendously. To facilitate such a transformation, the government has propagated a national identity based on “survival” and pragmatism. Singaporeans must constantly be in competition with other countries, to gain an upper hand to remain sovereign as a nation. In my opinion, while the government has managed to develop an identity of pragmatism for Singaporeans, this identity fails in promoting loyalty to the country. Instead, this identity has led to an overemphasis on economic growth, an overbearing policy approach by the government and an erosion of culture and history within Singapore.

In this paper, I will be discussing ideas from four articles. They are “The state, citizenship and nationality in Singapore”, a chapter in “The politics of nation-building and citizenship in Singapore” by Michael Hill and Lian Kwen Fee, “Bicentennial: a chance to tell warts-and-all history of Singapore” by Elgin Toh, “The PAP and the people – A Great Affective Divide” by Catherine Lim and “Singapore: Place or Nation?” by Linda Lim. Hill and Fee talk about the processes in which Singapore develops a national identity within Singaporeans. Toh talks about the upcoming Bicentennial, and the opportunity it provides to open further discourse in the realms of Singapore’s history and immigration policy. Catherine Lim describes what she calls, an “affective divide”, where citizens do not love Singapore because of its inextricability from the ruling party. Linda Lim talks about the lack of ties between Singaporeans and the country they stand on.

Economic Emphasis

Ever since Singapore found herself free from her union with Malaysia, the leaders of Singapore have consistently driven a narrative of “survival”. They pushed forth the ideas that the country has no natural resources and demands rapid industrialization to survive. With only a short history and several ethnic groups to appease, the government looked toward the future and the importance of economic achievements to articulate the conception of the nation. This governmental focus on the future has allowed them to bring together groups of different ethnicities under a common banner, allowing them to espouse values like multiracialism and meritocracy (Michael Hill 1995).

However, attaching the identity of Singaporeans to the economic well-being of the country presents major problems. For one, citizens are given no reason to remain in Singapore outside of economic opportunities. As such, the loss of locals to other countries is likely to happen if opportunities are deemed to be better overseas. This issue is only further exacerbated by the ease of movement between countries, resulting in a situation where “many of the nation are not to be found in the place” (L. Lim 2006). Loyalty is not directly furnished to the state, but rather the life it can provide, which can be transferred to any other country with suitable opportunities. Similarly, due to this focus on economic growth and prosperity, Singaporeans find it difficult to express qualitative issues regarding their quality of life, given the excellent quantitative quality of life available to the public (C. Lim 1994). Instead, the disaffected retain their discontent personally, without communication to the government. Since the government is Singapore is viewed like the country itself, this unhappiness felt toward the government is transferred to the country. Through this discontent, association with the country becomes weaker and negative feelings about the country simmer below the surface, pushing Singaporeans out of the country in times of hardship when they are needed the most.

Singapore – the Paternalistic State

Additionally, the sharp focus on economic growth in the country has brought about the rise of a government that is heavily involved in the lives of its citizens. In the name of progress, the country implemented several policies that can be viewed as draconic. For example, the glossing over of Singapore’s colonial history by the founding fathers to maintain positive ties with Britain and the West for Singapore’s development (Toh 2018), or the implementation of English as the common language on economic grounds (C. Lim 1994). The government constantly feels like it must exert itself on the populace of the country, failing to provide the space for the development of entrepreneurs (L. Lim 2006) or even interpretations of history (Toh 2018).

By denying the citizens the space to develop their own ideas, it creates dependency and apathy within citizens (L. Lim 2006), which fails to provide incentive for Singaporeans from engaging in the duties of citizenship (Michael Hill 1995). While the government has attempted to develop more people-centric policy (C. Lim 1994), development of the economy often side line community concerns. An obvious example of this is the establishment of the casinos within Singapore, against national objections (L. Lim 2006). This presents a serious problem within Singapore, since for a democracy to function, the citizens of the country must be willing to take risks and be willing to participate in the political system. The government is only formally accountable to the public (Michael Hill 1995), wielding a large amount of executive power opaquely. Without this engagement, Singaporeans will not feel like they have a stake in the country, since their voice is inadequately represented by the government. Without sufficient representation within the country even when times are good, it reduces the likelihood of Singaporeans remaining within the country when times get harder, when citizens are not given sufficient voice in the direction of the country.

Loss of Culture and History

One of the most egregious examples of the government intervention is seen through the erosion of history and culture in Singapore. In the quest for the government to rapidly industrialise Singapore, the government has failed to keep track of the roots of the country, or in some parts, removed them entirely as they hindered with the development of the economy. One of the prime examples of this is the adoption of English as the language of instruction in Singapore (Lim, 2006). Implemented to help advance Singapore industrially, the prominence of using a language native to no speaker also resulted in an unfortunate side effect of causing Singaporeans to lose touch with their cultural past. Singapore has attempted to rectify this though incorporating “Asian values” to stabilise the identities of Singaporeans, while keeping an overarching theme of “pragmatism”, keeping racial identities separate from the public sphere. (Michael Hill 1995) This approach has mixed results, given the misapprehension of English-educated Chinese from the introduction of Confucian Ethics from the 1980s (Michael Hill 1995).

An example of the loss of history is the rigidity of the dominant template espoused within the country. Only recently have the government begin to entertain the idea of presenting a more nuanced view of our colonial history and have no intentions to do so with regards to Singapore’s lead up to merger with Malaysia, one of the most politically diverse times in Singapore’s history (Toh 2018). This refusal to grapple with this tumultuous time could lead to the loss of valuable primary sources worsening our understanding of Singapore’s lead up to merger as the main actors in that period pass away. This erosion of cultural identification further removes the idea that the citizens of the country are in fact tied to the land that they live in. Through the watering down of culture and history within Singapore, the citizens of the country will be less able to identify with Singapore, having a lower sense of shared identity and community. Without this common experiences and identity, citizens can find it difficult to empathise with one another, or the positions of the country (L. Lim 2006), likely resulting in a populace that will more likely run than stay and work for the nation in times of crisis. There is a greater need to tie in the Singaporean identity to both her history in its entirety and the different cultures that have brought them together to increase the sense of belonging that Singaporeans feel to Singapore.

Conclusion

The government has managed to develop a nation that is based of pragmatism, meritocracy and multiculturalism. Rather, it is the ramifications of this specific identity of “surviving” that unsettle and bring across problems which will need to be solved if the country is to remain more than simply a piece of land with transient peoples upon it. Without a greater inculcation of uniquely Singaporean values and common experiences, Singapore will continue to struggle to retain her talent as they look abroad to better opportunities.