Singaporeans have always placed things about their nation into convenient little boxes - even, or especially, themselves. Our society is divided into neat sectors; there is a box for discourse and expression labelled 'Singapore Press Holdings', outside of which there are little to no avenues of discourse available to us that cannot be accessed without wading through mountains of red tape, and our own fears that keep us holed up in our HDB cubicles - afraid, unwilling, apathetic.
There is a box for government labelled 'People's Action Party', outside of which the opposition is marginalized, meets with difficulties, and is often hounded out of the way. They're portrayed as irrelevant, inexperienced, and unnecessary. For the most part, Singaporeans accept this meekly and mutely. We cannot imagine, nor do we dare to imagine, a government in power not clad in white.
There is a box for labour movement labelled 'National Trade Union Congress', within which you may receive very congenial cards on your birthday, but outside of which any movement for a hike in wages which you feel to be your just and appropriate entitlement is quelled. The SIA pilots who attempted to demand for higher wages and better working conditions by taking 'work to rule' action (doing the minimum amount of work demanded under their contracts) were acting outside of their allotted box - their civil disobedience met with a swift and decisive end. The government promptly announced that union members were no longer allowed to vote for collective bargaining agreements, and Ryan Goh was scapegoated, accused of having no loyalty to Singapore (he had lived here for 26 years) and had his permanent resident status rescinded.
Even our people are divided into boxes, four of them - 'Chinese', 'Malay', 'Indian' and 'Others'. These boxes are juggled with careful precision in order to maintain a fragile balance. God forbid that we should open them, lest their contents prove combustible. We tiptoe around racial insensitivity, unwilling to discuss or admit to the very present stratification in our midst. Issues are laid to the grave before they are borne out to their fullest extent. And in the meantime, our posters all judiciously bear the smiling faces of the four 'races'. No one disturbs the order of things.
Our lives are led cautiously so as not to let anything leak out of their proper place. That is our Singapore; conscientiously planned and inherited, passively, by Singaporeans, from the ruling party. The space of our discussion is boxed in too, by mysterious OB markers - nobody knows what they are, yet everybody knows they're there, and that keeps us pinned with fear into our proper places. We do not build our society, we are born and bred inside the construct of its shell, the creation of which we had no part to play in.
People have asked me what my vision of Singapore is. But I think I first have to lay out my vision of its people - people who are no longer stranded in the boxes of an impersonal state's construction, but who are willing to venture out of those confines to lay down the grounds for their own lives and prosperity. People who have ownership of the terms of their citizenship, instead of having those terms dictated to them without so much as a by-your-leave. People who are mature enough to be trusted, who are dignified instead of patronized, who are able to use their '1st World' educations not just for material benefit but for the purposes of self-determination, which is fundamental to the nature of human existence.
I envision a people who govern themselves through the constructs of their shaping; independent yet responsible media, judiciary, legislative and executive arms of the state, ballot box, labour unions. Where they are the foremost judge and jury, where the government must be held accountable to them, and prove themselves capable to be their representatives, instead of the other way around. People who are proud to call themselves Singaporeans, engaged and aware of their nation and their countrymen.
Singapore, then, is a nation I have always envisaged as a child who went to sleep and, without knowing it, grew to be a man. In his slumber he aged, matured, became strong-limbed and nimble, powerful and beautiful, and yet remained imprisoned in his lethargy. Sedated by peace and numbed by comfort, he was content to lie mute, deaf, non-assertive. But of late his sleep is restless, disturbed by ugly images. His once-blissful dreams have been tinged with unease. Something has gone wrong. Something is not right. And he stirs - a little finger trembles here, a heartbeat quickens there - and soon he will awaken. His eyes will open and he will discover that he has autonomy over his self, his person, that he has power invested in those hands.
And he must do this before a child's cradle turns into a man's grave.
Only Singaporeans can awaken their nation. Only they can unpack the boxes, sort out the mess, throw away the rotten and tidy the dishevelled. Only they have the ability and the sheer will to effect change. Our country is a child no longer. It is a fledgling nation no longer. It has an identity, a consciousness, a name, a face. It must no longer be treated as an infant, unable to discern nor fend for itself. Else, if we turn away, if we stir but do not wake, then we run the risk of losing our chance to see the world - to see ourselves - as who we can be, not who they tell us we must be.
Labels, labels, boxes and labels. Stayers, quitters, 3rd world, 1st world, old, young, skilled, unskilled, English-educated radicals, Chinese chauvinists, neighbourhood, elite, moderates, dissidents, Chinese, Malay, Indian, Others. I see Singaporeans. And until we see ourselves, how do we staunch the rotting, how do we cease the diaspora, the dispersion of people emigrating from our homeland, disillusioned, discontent, now apathetic?
Sim Chin Boo December 17, 2006 09:54 PM PST To john cheo, i dedicated the post before this to you for i believe the voters should dictate and not politicians of any party.Or shall i put it that the choice belongs to the voters. Another possible choice for voters is to do away with the compulsory (to vote) ruling. So if a lone candidate gets less than fifty percent, he assumes the post of MP but the eligible voters who reject him by not voting can claim that they have not approve the mandate.
Name December 17, 2006 10:32 AM PST To be given mandate in a parliamentary voting system is by definition equivalent to voting is compulsory as required by the system. How then can mandate be acquired when no voting takes place, be it parliamentary or elected president election ? Just because there is no contesting opponent does not void the process of voting. The sole contestant(s, in GRCs) should not be given the rights to assume victory. A sole candidate (including grc) can and should be subjected to the election process. Voters will then not be denied their citizen's rights and also to validate the compulsory element in the election rule. Most importantly citizens are given the right to accept or reject the candidate be it on the standings of the candidate him/herself or the party he/she represents. This will be ideal democratic principle. Sould the sole candidate failed to garner fifty percent of the votes, he shall be considered rejected. This does not mean the constituency become autonomous or unrepresented. The failed candidate and other failed candidates of all political parties from all constituencies can then go for a second round of votings within a certain timeframe for those failed constituencies. If it results in another rejection of all candidates, an NCMP (Nominated-nonparty) will then be assign to represent the ward. This suggested process (election) to my mind will be a very equitable and therefore fair deal for voters and political parties.
john cheo December 11, 2006 04:14 PM PST "Posted by Thinker @ 05/29/2006 09:23 AM PDT
Can anyone explain to me why I have not been given a chance to vote in the last 30 years since every election is a walk over?????"
Personally, I am amazed at the question posted by this individual who apparently has the propensity to proclaim her/himself as being a thinker. Being the 'thinker' that he/she is, he/she ought to have invested deeper levels of thought into this bemusing question, which was posted with a salient sense of protest and dissatisfaction. The numerous question marks "?????" at the end of the question attests to this.
Well, in my point of view, the writer should have 'think' abit harder and perhaps that course of action will justify his/her decision to call him/herself a 'thinker'. Isn't the answer to the question undisputably obvious? Citizens in this democracy were -and sometimes, are- unable to vote during General Elections simply and pointedly because the radical Opposition in our country CHOSE not to contest in that particular GRCs, or that significant SMCs.
Before pro-Opposition idealists hurl abusive epithets at me and very fashionably or conveniently label me as 'the ideal kid and citizen of the PAP conspiracy', let me espouse on my statement.
A walkover, as the name suggests, is when the incumbent remains in office because of the absence of any opposition present during an election to challenge the status quo, or usher in better alternatives for the peoples' livelihood and aspirations.
Let us not be confused now. It is ultimately dictated by the opposition, not the ruling party. It is a very seductive argument to claim that although in theory it is dictated by the opposition, in actual Sporean context, the ruling PAP party simply has too pervasive a set of tenacles to control and coerce, to the point of ensuring that opposition doesnt show up on Nomination Day to challenge their rule in the particular area.
I am not rebuking the argument aforementioned in its entirety, but I urge and offer perhaps another point of view. The ruling regime can be, and should be expected to do all it can to prevent a faceoff with an opposition during elections for it is only natural for any political party to clamour remaining in power. So be it the introduction of the GRCs, or prohibition of funding of any political parties from foreign sources (both quickly and cynically dismissed to be completely partisan approaches and answers veiled under witty rheotric of the ruling elite), the ruling party has been observed to not encourage a level playing field in politics for the opposition to contend and challenge.
Very naturally, the next question that comes to my mind is whether or not there is such a thing as a level playing field in the contentious thing we call politics. Especially in our idiosyncratic social context. I am of the school of thought that there exist no such thing as a level playing field in politics.
It is in the interests of any ruling party to make it difficult for the opposition, just as the latter's business is in making it difficult for the ruling party. Suppose Dr. CheeSJ wins an election *God forbids*, do you sanely think he will make it easy for the opposition the next time round, if he has the means and resources to make it difficult?
Those who want to topple the government must do so with their own merits, and work around the legitimate limitations inherent in the system. LKY did not rally years and years for a more level playing field back in the 1950s when the communists were on the rapid rise and the colonial masters still hesistant about independence. LKY simply work around the limitations, collaborated with the communistst to attain short term objectives which will allow him and his party to attempt at the long term objectives. It was simply calculated risks at their best.
Obviously, I am not advocating collaboration in any sense between the opposition and the communists to achieve their political ends. In fact, I am advocating the opposition stop complaining about the various calculated pitfalls that lay conspicuously before them. Their role is to work around these pitfalls for they will perpetually be present, just in different forms imposed by different ruling party in a different era etc.
Walkovers can be arguably attributed to the ruling party for exercising so much of their resources and politcal powers to make the road ahead hard for the opposition. But a closer scrutiny at the core of issue reveals that in reality, opposition simply cannot contest in equally impressive quality and quantity as the ruling party. The WP has showed voters that they are progressing well in shedding that pathetic image of opposition by being able to field more able candidates this time round and having a larger ground support. The journey toward making walkovers a historical element in our democracy has only just begun, because ultimately and crucially, the opposition has for the longest time been barking up the wrong tree. Instead of getting their public endorsement on the increase, they have been focussed on matters largely irrelevant with the ordinary Ali, Cindy, Raja and Ah-Seng on the roads of this city.
Conclusively speaking, Thinker should really perhaps re-think the roots of her/his disillusionment with the absence of an opposition at his/her constituency. And if all theorical contentions fail to satisfy her/his bitterness toward the system, I sincerely suggests that she/he moves to a constituency in which contest during elections is assured. Potong Pasir and Hougang will be good places to start with. In my opinion, if Thinker's desire to exercise his/her democratic right to vote in elections is a firmly convicted one, moving house in the novel pursuit of pure and untainted democracy in the form of voting should not be too much of a hassle.
On another note though, Gayle, wonderful insights and writings. It would be a great pleasure to be able to hear more from you.
NameSim Chin Boo November 27, 2006 07:41 PM PST The word Singaporean will one day stands for where one is born and that's about it. And as it evolves with the many talent imports and the foreign tycoons snapping up the high end properties, it may not even represent ones' birthplace. As an original, bumi-Singaporean, I love every millimetre of this land simply because nature puts me here. Frankly, there is nothing spectacular here in terms of natures. It is flat, hot and humid, crowded, void of most other species and if you have noticed, even the birds are dull colour types. But why are we jealously loving it, guarding it, protecting it? Well speaking for myself, it's because nature put me here making me a belonging to this land. Like 'Yuefei', 'Quyuan' in Chinese history and Socrates (Greek Philosopher) who all ended up dead, two sentenced and one suicide, I believe that there are local born compatriots who will behave like the afore-mentioned. But I doubt any adopted citizen will come anywhere close, on the contrary, the latter will flee the very moment there is danger. This leads to my opening of this comment; the high number of imports, talents and otherwise could and would eventually equal or surpass that of the locals. Whence this happens, citizenship will not represent loyalty but viability and pragmatism. This country then practically speaking is good only for survival and nothing else. Pragmatism by the way is the unspoken ethos of the present system. The real danger is that pragmatism is the proverbial boat that keeps the passenger(s) above water or has the passenger drowned when it capsized. And like the fire that gives warmth, it may burn and kill. So what can we the patriots of this country do ? Honestly, I have no answer, the only solution I can think of is when the boat overturn, swim if you can and run away from any harmful fire. Selfish ?
Thinker May 29, 2006 09:23 AM PDT Can anyone explain to me why I have not been given a chance to vote in the last 30 years since every election is a walk over?????
observerII May 28, 2006 04:25 PM PDT Just a thought, have you people lived overseas?
freakkler May 24, 2006 10:15 PM PDT can't help commenting that you last line sound a LOT like SDP's CJS...IMHO only!
Rhys1066 May 22, 2006 01:49 PM PDT As a apathetic Singaporean for the past 35 years of my life, I have allowed the State implicitly to impose its world-view on me. Labels are human creations to lessen the burden of thinking. The narcotic numbness of the mind to easy categorisations is very alluring.
Most people do not like to exercise. And that includes mental processes to sieve out and think for ourselves, to *gasp* have an opinion on something. My expat JC tutor tried to do that when I was 18. It did not work, I allowed my senses to be hypnotised by the subtle scent of submission. I allowed my views to be shaped by "quitters/stayers/5Cs/nomenclature of fitting in". It is indeed sapping the very soul to be an individual in conformist Singapore.
I hope that your posts will set the flames of independent though going. As the future lies in the youth of today, who will become the adults of tomorrow.
Never stop having an opinion.
gayle May 22, 2006 01:25 AM PDT ahh, hi gayle! :) thank you for dropping by. hope all is well.
g May 22, 2006 01:22 AM PDT dear gayle,
reading this last post, i was intrigued to note that you used the concept of boxes in describing the state of singapore and singaporeans. incidentally, i happened to write something similar a year or two ago, also about the 'boxes' in our society. perhaps something to think about: boxes within boxes - the constant refrains of 'think out of the box' from the mouths of various People trying to promote creativity particularly annoyed me at that point in time when i wrote the thing i wrote, and it occured to me that sometimes we escape from a box only to find ourselves enclosed within another, albeit slightly larger, box. and you somehow get the feeling that the people who encouraged you to think out of the box Knew you'd end up still in a box. but this is probably just me ranting a bit.
and another thing: sometimes i feel that singaporeans, myself included, have become so used to being boxed in (or the feeling of being boxed in) that we create our own boxes, or else willingly enter into boxes, for we have come to the point where we do not even believe that the box is a box. what i'm suggesting is that we do this naturally or unconsciously, this creation of boxes where there actually are none in the first place. this is possibly yet another fine example of the thoroughness with which every action is carried out in singapore, a testimony to singapore's over-efficient efficiency.
just in case you were wondering, i'm the j3 ed b gayle lee. i want to say thank you for writing. please do keep on doing so (: God bless.
john riemann soong May 21, 2006 11:54 PM PDT And to add, by actually restricting of freedom of speech we allow racism and hate speech to flourish. These extremist groups are the ones who will bother to indulge in black communication and secret societies, while the sensible voice of the community, who were previously able to shout down the extremists, are now silenced.
One thing I do not get is that Singapore prides itself on being cosmopolitan, yet has this xenophobia of people who were educated overseas, hell, even though LKY was, and often it was tertiary education - primary and secondary was local. And yet, the government doesn't get concerned when apparently we seem to buy our athletes by giving them citizenship, while it is the non-government individuals who complains about this kind of "bought" nationality.
Note however, what I particularly get peeved with is when foreign analysts try to "analyse" Singapore but come up with all the wrong misconceptions and conclusions, or basically attack it as irredeemable without offering any constructive advice.
Name May 21, 2006 11:53 PM PDT A significant number of Singaporean are still at the lower level of need - food and security. Freedom of expression are within the higher level of needs - self esteem. Your observations appeal to these group. PAP fulfils needs of the former group. (note: lower level needs does not equate to lower income group and higher level needs does not equate to higher income group).
john riemann soong May 21, 2006 11:46 PM PDT Yes, yes, exactly mon sentiment, d'accord!
I was reading an article in the Library of Congress which seemed to subtly mock the "Indian, Chinese, Malay" classification of system (because there are actually so much more ethnic groups).
The thing with the racial issues, the barrier must be lifted because the sign of a mature society is when a racist makes racist comments and promptly gets slammed/shunned/ostracised for it, rather than going to jail for it. There must be more than just tolerance - there must be comfort, room to move around.
Germany actually practices such a system, and it is rather sensitive to its Nazi past, there is kind of a parallel except this extends to all concepts of "race".
The PAP is becoming less and less of a resposible guardian, and more and more like an overprotecting parent. It puts blindfolds on our eyes, for fear of them getting damaged, and plugs our ears, for fear of us going deaf from "sensitive noise", and bland food, for the fear we spoil out tastebuds (actually Singapore has pretty good food, but let me extend the metaphor here) ...prevents us from going outside, because of the fear we will get sick, and prevents us from talking, most of all, because it does not want to believe - it does not want to hear the protests.
z_z May 21, 2006 07:59 PM PDT Anonymity, deindividuation and dehumanization. I fear the day when the development of these traits through conditioning in the boxes makes us forget who we really are - Singaporeans.
A good read. Keep up the good work, cheers!
Curious May 21, 2006 06:50 PM PDT I applaud and give my support for the vision you have painted.
Before what I write below gives the impression that I prefer a benevolent tightly-controlled society, let me assure you that I am all for greater freedoms to the people. However, permit me to become a devil's advocate.
I want to paint you a picture of what can happen when there is greater freedom of speech as an illustration of what greater freedoms entail and demand of each responsible individual. An unfortunate condition of most societies is the existence of extremists, chauvinists and discontented groups. Not everyone acts for the good of the majority. The breaking up of states after the fall of the Berlin wall is a stark reminder to us what happens when traditional animosities are given rein. We don't talk about our traditional animosities because they are considered taboo and OB. We do not know of extremists who exist in our society because of tight state control. Greater freedom of speech must also mean giving these voices their day on the forum. What do we do if these voices gain the support of the majority and peaceful-minded groups become the minority? Remember that not so long ago the neo-cons were able to sway public opinion in one great democratic society.
In a society with greater freedom responsible individuals must be on greater alert against destructive elements. They must have great courage to speak out even when the majority have been seized by mob psychology. Are we ready for greater freedom? How do we get ready?
jt May 21, 2006 03:48 PM PDT I can sense that your posts are self-censored to a certain extent.
Sadly, we have to be very careful of what we post though, as we may be accused of using innuendo.(don't be surprised that even a statement of fact like this can become its own subject)
Sorry, I was just speaking rubbish.
Leopsyche May 21, 2006 12:12 PM PDT Yes, boxes. Pandora's boxes. Opening the boxes can lead to misfortune. But there is also hope...
recruit ong May 21, 2006 02:39 AM PDT i borrow this quote from Alfian Saat..
"If you care too much about Singapore, first it'll break your spirit, and finally it will break your heart."
i just want to cry when i read this... :(
Sam May 21, 2006 02:26 AM PDT thank you for indulging me.
If you don't mind, i wrote an article on our country's politics a few days back on my site.
Would you give me your views to what i have to say?
If you would, please go to the entry entitled: On Singapore's Politics
Thanx
RLSL May 21, 2006 12:51 AM PDT One day, when all our dissident on exile can come home and speak freely, when our sons and daughters who migrated came back to take part in our nation building, when we no longer feel ashame to be identified as a Singaporean, this will be the day, your vision come true.
shameless advertising if you're looking for air compressors and ancillary parts (vane, rotary, screw, etc), my dad sells them! ;)
disclaimer the author of this site has based all her personal opinions on what is known to her as fact. any error is made of ignorance, not malice, and is accordingly apologized for. any views and opinions expressed by other persons on this site are not the responsibility of the author, nor does she claim to espouse them.