I had originally taken this down because I felt the metaphor to be a bit extravagant.  Nevertheless, due to the combination of people asking me constantly where this article had vanished to, as well as the fact that I still uphold many of the observations in this article to be valid, I've decided that it will wreak no harm to re-post the copy I'd saved, just in case of a crash.

The Midlife Crisis

1.  Midlife is the old age of youth and the youth of old age. -- Proverb.

2.  "Midlife transition" is a natural stage that happens to many of us at some point (usually at about age 40, give or take 20 years).

Midlife transition can include:

• Discontentment or boredom with life or with the lifestyle (including people and things) that have provided fulfilment for a long time.
• Feeling restless and wanting to do something completely different.
• Questioning decisions made years earlier and the meaning of life.
• Confusion about who you are or where your life is going.

-- Source.

3.  A mid-life crisis is an emotional state of doubt and anxiety in which a person becomes uncomfortable with the realization that life is halfway over. It commonly involves reflection on what the individual has done with his or her life up to that point, often with feelings that not enough was accomplished. The individuals experiencing such may feel boredom with their lives, jobs, or their partners, and may feel a strong desire to make changes in these areas. The condition is also called the beginning of individuation, a process of self-actualization...

-- Source.

9th August 2006

...will mark Singapore's birthday, and celebrate its conception on 9th August 1965 as an independent state, separate from Malaysia.  The red-and-white flags paint a resplendent 41 all over the sprawling heartlands, the guns are being polished, the soldiers examine their tan-lines from hours spent in the sun with army caps and short-sleeved uniforms.  It is a landmark occasion, yes -- just like all the ones before it, and all the ones that will come after.  And even as we prepare to turn up in droves, wave our free plastic flags and collect our goodie bags from the National Day Parade, these preparations are underlined with confusion, disenfranchisement, and a need to reach beneath and beyond the orchestrated jubilation to reach the heart of what it means to be Singapore -- at 41 years old.

The old age of youth and the youth of old age.  Singapore can no longer play the child prodigy in international affairs.  For decades it has been the success story and the darling of economists eager to prove the possibilities for young, developing nations in their nascence.  Singapore has barged its way into economic success, and now has to deal with the problems and difficulties faced by other mature and developed nations; inflation, the need for quick and competent structural adjustments, and remaining relevant to the rapidly-shifting demands of the global economy.  Billions of dollars are being pumped into our biomedical and IT sectors.  We are developing new resorts, casinos, and revamping our shopping choices. We are freewheeling into a new dimension.  Lee Hsien Loong's 2005 National Day Rally speech revolved around the theme of 'Remaking Singapore'.  Our leadership has rightly acknowledged - in some aspects, at least - that we are entering an era with new demands and higher expectations.  Nothing can be taken for granted any longer.  We have reached the old age of youth, and the youth of our old age.

Discontentment and/or boredom with lifestyles that have provided fulfillment for a long time.  Reinvention, recreation, retraining: these are words which leap easily to the fingertips of our administration.  But even as we search desperately for ways to stay young, there are signs of our ageing.  Singaporeans are no longer content with toys.  Post-65ers are not satisfied with budget surpluses.  They are looking deeper, increasingly frustrated and unsatisfied with the explanations of what it means to be Singaporean.  "Who are you, my country?" is not by any means a new or radical question.  For countless years, it has been asked, and for years to come, it will continue to be heard.  No one will ever find The Answer.  In the meantime, however, what is important to note is that more and more Singaporeans are asking themselves deep-seated questions of identity.  It is a concept that matters increasingly, to an increasing number of people -- not a small number of academics from the intelligentsia, but Singaporeans who live and work as professionals, who are part of tomorrow's masses.  Abstract, it may still be.  Esoteric, it is not.

Mr brown posted a podcast entitled 'I am Singaporean', a spin-off from a Canadian advertising campaign that re-awakened Canadian nationalism.  In his podcast, he concretizes what it means to be Singaporean on a personal level, from his perspective as a middle-aged Singaporean from the heartlands.  He talks about his HDB flat, his car, his family.  Many bloggers have responded with declarations of their own which -- at times, painfully -- grapple with their Singaporean identity.

"I am a Singaporean.

I grew up in a shophouse first, then as a heartlander in a HDB flat.
But I also remember my kampung days back at the sua teng.

My 'native' language is English,
Not some Mother Tongue called Mandarin
Because my parents conversed almost entirely in English with me since young.

I speak Singlish, along with street Hokkien and rusty Cantonese with pride
Because it is uniquely Singapore
And because some older folks can only understand their dialects.

I know how it feels to be one united people
Not just at the National Stadium during National Day Parades,
But also at the opposition rallies during the General Elections."

-- gecko.

The above blogger attempts to capture the essence of his Singaporean identity through exploring his memories of childhood, political exposure, the notions of language and culture, and various other growing pains and adult burdens as experienced through the lens of a Singaporean.  Even as he builds up that identity, however, other bloggers on a similar endeavour find themselves at an impasse; a bewildering lack of, or even an outright refusal to acknowledge, that same identity -- case in point, with these excerpts from a piece that speaks with piercing honesty about disenfranchisement:

"I am Singaporean because I was born here, and I hold a red passport with two golden lions(tigers? who knows?) thrusting their chest out and sneering to rude immigration officers: let her pass, she's from a first-world country, you know, an air-conditioned nation. I am Singaporean because I have a pink identification card that conscientiously reminds me and everyone else who registers me at a checkpoint, an exam, a driving test, a club, my own wedding, that my race is Malay and I better not forget it. But of course, I am taught not to discriminate others based on what it states on their I.C.

...I am Singaporean but the cab driver cannot believe it when I say I'm Malay and I am attending university. Waaah, Malay people so smart nowaday hor. You full Malay or half Malay only?

I am Singaporean but I refuse to sing the national anthem because progress, ambition and prosperity are not my main priorities so I will not sing about them.

I am Singaporean because now, at 21, I am lost. I have spent my childhood in school, in art class, at violin lessons, being told to study, and studying hard, harder, hardest to find that I did not need to know anything I have learnt, that I know nothing worth knowing. Now, at 21, I am thirstier than ever because there are so many spaces to fill in my mind where the layers of temporary wisdom have left, leaving a pitiful vacuum full of unanswered questions.

...I am Singaporean because I don't know who I am just yet.

 I am not Singaporean if Singapore= the Government, order= hegemonic rule, if policy-making= commanding.

I am not Singaporean if debating about public policy means I will be shamed, ridiculed and punished.

They say I should love my country, hang my flag out proudly for national day, say my pledge with some measure of pride. Yet, they will never let me fly a fighter plane to defend Singapore. I am not Singaporean, but I will be "Malay" to them if we ever go to war with our neighbours.

I am not Singaporean, not at all, until they learn to respect me."

-- ballsy.

The beginning of individuation, the process of self-actualization... There are two Singapores which may arise from the rubble of such a crisis.  The first is a scattershot hodge-podge coincidence of mutual economic interests, where people live here and call themselves Singaporean for as long as it is safe and profitable to do so.  This may be perfectly acceptable to many people.  We may be witnessing, after all, the death of the relevance of patriotism in an increasingly globalized world, where the new paradigms of our 21st-century global village revolve around opportunity and self-realization.  The bounds of community and tradition, while growing stronger, such as in much of the Muslim world, or perhaps in the case of European nationalism, also seem to be losing significance in the consumerist philosophy that proliferates Singaporean society -- I have so many choices, now let's pick what's best for me.  It may well be for many people that it is unnecessary, futile and only engenders distress to invest time and effort in a place that after all, is only a construct, and an imagined community based on simple land.

If, however, we want to create a country where people have a stake; where a belief in a common destiny makes them cast their lots in with this community of family, friends and even complete strangers -- if we are concerned with the survival of Singapore as a distinctly identifiable nation, and not simply a glorified marketplace or a plot of land with added value, then this mid-life crisis may well spell out the chance to build that nation.  Cultures, communities and civilizations are jostling for space in this interconnected international arena.  If, as Singaporeans, we intend to carve out a cultural space for our little island, then we need to draw on something more real and more convincing than "Count on me, Singapore / Count on me to give my best and more".  The government may do its valiant best to engineer nationalism, but perhaps we need only look -- just for starters -- at ballsy's indirect articulation of the failure of those efforts, to discover some of the sentiments which are holding us back from giving ourselves to this country.

I'm still on blogging hiatus/study break, so I won't write much.  Just a note about the Andy Ho article of August 02 (not sure what else to call it; so far all the options I've considered seem rude).  Some choice excerpts [emphases mine]:

"Some ask if bloggers are journalists at all or merely self-indulgent, opinionated folks expressing their views."

A cheap tactic which writers employ to sell their views with supposed objectivity is to say "some ask...", or "some say...", or "some worry...", and so on and so forth.  It is a useful linguistic device when expressing a general and popular opinion that is widely believed and accepted to be held.  It is also almost always a lazy way of going about things if it is used in isolation, with no supporting evidence.  But it is definitely an irresponsible and poorly-used device when used to express the opinion of the writer that has not been voiced nor validated by the general public.  When Ho says "some ask if bloggers are...merely self-indulgent, opinionated folks expressing their views" I wonder who he's been speaking to.  I have a feeling he's been having long conversations with the mirror, the fruits of which he sees fit to publish in a national newspaper in what resembles, I must say, a self-indulgent and opinionated manner.

"Most bloggers, on the other hand, do not generally report on something new.  Typically, they report on what reporters have reported. [Note: is that a tongue-twister or what?] 

Thus, at best, they are 'meta-reporters'. Yes, in stories like a 9/11, or the July 7 London bombings, where there are crowds, citizens armed with always-on wireless connections, powerful yet inexpensive mobile digital devices as well as easy-to-use, free Internet publishing tools, citizens in many countries can do first-person, grassroots reporting."

9/11...July London bombings...wait, there's something he missed out.  Something reporters were present at but didn't see fit to report extensively about...something bloggers reported on that reporters didn't...wait, It's coming to me...AH THAT'S RIGHT! It's this!

Copyright Alex Au from Yawning Bread 

Annoying.  But what's even more annoying is that Ho ends his article with the judgment that the government should view bloggers the same way it views the mainstream media.  In other words, he is asking for them to be kept in line by the government.

I have an excellent opinion of many Straits Times journalists and staff, but once in a a while I read something like this that makes me want to tear my hair out.  It confounds my mind to think that a journalist might actually want to be subject to top-down censorship from the government.  Then again, maybe that's the safest kind of mentality that will make you into the Senior Writer that Ho is.

Some of my friends who have decided that their futures don't rest in Singapore have told me plainly they feel no reason to stay and fight for people who don't see the value of democracy or increased accountability.  I generally protest the view that Singaporeans don't want more checks and balances.  These people make my case somewhat harder to prove.  Another one: Lionel de Souza, Private Investigator and ex-policeman.  Now, I have nothing personal against this man.  It's just that his numerous (numerous!) letters to the ST Forum verge on being unconsciously satirical in their adoration for the establishment -- give it a Google search, he's written on entrapment, anonymous bloggers, the Gomez case, seeing Lee Hsien Loong at his son's NS enlistment, and so on.  I think he should get his own blog.  He'd be a big hit and a sound contribution to the dialectic.

Singapore is gearing up to receive international delegates for the approaching World Bank and IMF meetings.  We have been encouraged to smile for the cameras and beef up the quality of our service sector in order to have them feel welcome, and to make the event a successful and memorable affair.

Yet in the weeks leading up to the much-anticipated meetings, there has emerged a potential - indeed by now, a probable - point of contention between Singapore and these international institutions.  The tension in these differing opinions does not reside in how brightly Singaporeans smile, or how well the Fullerton beds are made, but rather in an issue which no doubt many Singaporeans will find strange, especially in the context of our political culture.

The World Bank wants the right to be criticized.

What silliness! What an oddity of circumstance, for a powerful, respectable institution to lobby for permission to be granted to civil society organisations to have 'more opportunity to express their views', in a manner that will most certainly be non-complimentary to the World Bank.  After all, the World Bank has been consistently criticized as an instrument of modern-day imperialism, constructed as a tool of oppression wielded by the USA in order to wreak their expansionist mischief under the banner of Pax Americana (I exaggerate, but only slightly).  Citizens of the developing world which receives loans from the World Bank and the IMF have campaigned against them, saying that they are dominated by America and Europe and thus have ulterior motives behind their actions.  Even former World Bank Chief Economist Joseph Stigliz, in his excellent and highly-recommended book Globalization and its Discontents, has bitterly criticized its sister institution, the IMF, for compromising the sovereignty of recipient countries over their economic policies with their conditional loans and their one-size-fits-all policies.  These include austerity measures that require governments to drastically decrease expenditure, often with the results of reduced spending on housing, education and healthcare.  These institutions, which are both post-WWII constructs designed to promote worldwide prosperity and the stability of the international economy, have definitely received much flak from a great number of people.

Yet why does it still want these people to be heard? Is it not afraid that such criticisms will promote cynicism and despondency? Goodness gracious, it's not like it's the role of citizens, journalists or academic to campaign for or against a particular cause, especially when it comes to the highly sophisticated workings of the international economy which are far beyond mortal understanding.

World Bank has provided the answer: It believes that 'effective inclusion of the voices of civil society is key to ensuring that the annual meetings are a success.' Instead of running away from its critics, the World Bank has decided that including them, and giving them a platform on which to speak, is the course of action that will grant them the most international legitimacy.  And thank goodness it is open-minded enough to reach that decision.  Thank goodness also, that - if not in Singapore, in only a few weeks - then elsewhere around the world, these same criticisms can continue to be voiced openly and without fear, so that the IMF and the World Bank can continue to make changes to its policies and, through a learning process, arrive at solutions through genuinely open and inclusive discourse.

The million dollar question though, is how far Singapore will go to accommodate the request of the World Bank and, no doubt, various civil organizations.  So far the response has been non-encouraging.  Outdoor protests are banned.  Wong Kan Seng said in February, that public protests ''attract severe punishment, including caning and imprisonment".  The CNA article, linked above, states implicatingly:

"Police say that they have consulted the World Bank on this.

Responding to Channel NewsAsia's queries, the World Bank says in a written response that it learned of the proposed arrangements on Wednesday and has not discussed them in detail with the Singapore Government nor considered their implications."

That's funny.  It exposes once more the Singaporean authorities' notion of 'consultation'.  They 'consult' citizens regularly on important issues by informing them when the government has reached a decision, just like the police have 'consulted' the World Bank by informing them of their decided arrangements, without having given them the opportunity to have 'discussed them in detail...nor considered their implications'.

The government can tell its citizens to put on their Sunday best and give the world a good impression.  But it is the government who is really in a position to impress, or to confirm many a negative opinion of our city-state held in the international community.  This article*, for instance, is already smothered in sarcasm over the decision.  Blisteringly, it says:

"The restrictive law against public gatherings -- where any gathering of more than four people need a security permit -- was introduced by the British when it ruled this country as part of its colonial empire. The military dictatorship in Burma, also a former British colony, keeps Singapore company by upholding the same law. "

All eyes are on Singapore - not on us, as much as it is on the government.  This will determine whether or not Singapore is suited to host other important international events in the future, or if countries and organizations will start to shy away from using our country as a venue for discussion, meeting and debate.  We are no China, to rely on vast plots of land and sprawling cities to sustain and host events like the Olympics.  Meetings such as those of the IMF and the World Bank are the type of events we rely on to promote our country as a hub for international affairs and a forum for change.  If we don't start to modernize our political culture, not just our infrastructure or our hotels, then Singapore is destined to have a short-lived career in this respect.

* It's an article from a Bangkok correspondent.  I've noticed in my research that Australian and Thai articles are often the most vehement, likely because of our negative brush-ins with those countries over incidents/issues such as the death penalty and the ShinCorp deal.  These articles don't just stay in Australia and Thailand, perpetuating a negative perspective of Singapore, but are disseminated to foreign media as well, further cementing the bad impression overseas, not just in the region.  Instant karma: you don't get away with bulldozing your way through here and there, without paying a price for it somewhere else.  With all due respect to Vivian Balakrishnan, it is narrow-minded to say that he doesn't care what foreign media think.  Foreign media companies have great reach and influence the opinions of people all over the world - opinions which actually matter in other countries, and to other international institutions, even if they don't count for much here in Singapore.  Why do you think we bothered to sue the Economist anyway.

Excerpt:

"...ASEAN foreign ministers on Tuesday released a watered-down version of a statement on Myanmar which did not mention detained opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi.

The statement said the ministers "expressed concern on the pace of the national reconciliation process" in Myanmar and called for "tangible progress" towards democracy in the country. "

So much for the AIPMC and pressing for reform over business interests.

Related news: Burma seeks nuclear alliance with North Korea.