Yeo Lay Hwee
SEPT 9 — I am always amused by how much we are “mesmerised” by numbers, statistics and rankings.
National Day Rally speeches of the past have often contained a spreadsheet of growth numbers, figures and facts.
So it was indeed quite a change at this year’s Rally that the focus was not on macroeconomic numbers and statistics to convince the people that the government is well aware of the problems and doing the right things but instead relying on narrating a few heart-warming stories of new immigrants making contributions to the Singapore economy and a difference to the society.
However, from the vitriolic comments in parts of cyberspace after the National Day Rally, and the ongoing discussions about citizens and foreign talent, one could not help but wonder if the message has indeed gotten across.
I also have a nagging feeling that the unhappiness about the large influx of foreigners is only a symptom of some larger issues and questions. It is not about us and them, but it is a question of who we are, what kind of society we want to build and what kind of Singapore we want to have.
I have been brought up to believe wholeheartedly the Singapore story, “From Third World to First”. I have no doubts that many people born in the ‘40s to ‘60s have also bought into the narrative of a highly capable, determined, and incorruptible government that transformed Singapore from Third World to First in a matter of decades. The “Third World to First” story engages my generation and those borne at a time when Singapore was indeed struggling to emerge from the Third World.
However, for the younger generation who were born when Singapore was already a First-World nation, this story no longer engages. The question for many of us is what and where we go from here. We now have to think of a narrative that will take us from First World to XXX — the unknown? We need a new narrative, a new story that can engage. And this story can no longer be written by the government alone.
I have my doubts that a narrative that continues to start with “The PAP government will do this and that ...” will continue to engage citizens. Our society is much more diverse, our people are much more educated, the issues we have to deal with are far more complex and the world has become smaller. The story that can engage our imagination must begin with a “WE”. It has to be a story that as many people who want to participate in the writing must be given the opportunity to do so.
It has to be a story that we all believe in.
Over the years, the government has no doubt become more consultative and made serious attempts to explain its policies. Yet as the distance-based fare controversy shows, much more needs to be done in the communication.
Similarly, in the story on the need for immigrants, we have been told out of the blue that Singapore needs to have 6.5 million people and then when things get a little too crowded for comfort, we were told maybe 5.5 million is enough. How are these numbers derived? What assumptions went into the modelling to arrive at these figures?
With a far more diverse audience, the government needs not only to communicate clearly, credibly, and intelligently, but also deliver it with empathy and humility.
Jean Chalaby, an academic specialising on media history and transnational media, said in one of his articles how the fate of governments are “inextricably intertwined” with the structure and capacity of communications. This may seem a little too far-fetched in our context, but it is a sober reminder of the importance of good communication.
There will also be Singaporeans who are not content with only being told why policies are made in the first place. They want to be consulted and engaged in meaningful debates, and they are the ones who want to participate actively in the writing the Singapore story.
It is not enough to tell these people — come and join the government or enter politics if you want to shape the policy agenda and decide on the future of Singapore. We have to find other ways to engage those who do not want to be full-time politicians or government officials.
The government is certainly making efforts to consult, but besides strengthening government-to-citizen consultation, we need to also find space and develop processes to allow citizens to engage one another directly.
Will the government have enough trust and faith in its ability and capacity to reach out to a more diverse and demanding citizenry through better communication, meaningful consultation and active engagement? Will the citizens have the Singapore spirit to make things work and do things the right way?
These are essential questions that will decide if Singapore will move from being First World in infrastructure and have the hardware to be the best in civic consciousness, community spirit, graciousness and a welcoming place for all. — Today
* The writer is a senior research fellow at the Singapore Institute of International Affairs.
In an interview with the New York Times, the 86-year-old Minister Mentor reflectively expressed that the first regret he had of his colourful career was having been “turfed out” of Malaysia.
The published interview did not feature his remarks on Malaysia. They were contained in a transcript of the interview published on the official website of Singapore’s prime minister’s office.
In his conversation with the New York Times, Lee claimed that if Malaysia’s founding father Tunku Abdul Rahman had decided to keep both nations together 45 years ago, much of what Singapore had achieved today in terms of equality among the races would be likewise be achieved in Malaysia.
“I think if the Tunku had kept us together, what we did in Singapore, had Malaysia accepted a multiracial base for their society, much of what we’ve achieved in Singapore would be achieved in Malaysia,” he said, according to the transcript of the interview, conducted on September 1.
Lee, Singapore’s longest serving prime minister, claimed that if Singapore had not seceded from the then-Federation of Malaya, Malaysia would today have improved inter-racial relations and an improved holistic situation.
“Now we have a very polarised Malaysia — Malays, Chinese and Indians in separate schools, living separate lives and not really getting on with one another. You read them. That’s bad for us as close neighbours,” he said.
He pressed on with his belief that all ethnic communities should free themselves from the shackles of racial segregation in order to promote fairness and equality among the races.
“We made quite sure whatever your race, language or religion, you are an equal citizen and we’ll drum that into the people and I think our Chinese understand and today we have an integrated society.
“We will not as a majority squeeze the minority because once we’re by ourselves, the Chinese become the majority,” he said.
Lee took a dig at the Malaysian scenario, pointing out that the Singaporean Malays were English-educated and were no longer like the Malaysian Malays.
“You can see there are some still wearing headscarves but (are) very modern looking,” he said.
Lee noted that using racial politics was the “easy way”, claiming that if he had used this method in Singapore to gain the majority vote, its society would eventually be destroyed.
“Because if you play it that way, if you have dissension, if you chose the easy way to Muslim votes and switch to racial politics, this society is finished.
“The easiest way to get majority vote is — vote for me, we’re Chinese, they’re Indians, they’re Malays.
“Our society will be ripped apart. If you do not have a cohesive society, you cannot make progress,” he said.
He explained that while he was satisfied with race relations in Singapore, it still remained his regret that this could not have been done on a larger scale together with Malaysia.
As such, Lee expressed fear that the next generation of Singaporeans would take his achievements for granted and allow them to eventually phase out.
“The regret is there’s such a narrow base to build this enormous edifice so I’ve got to tell the next generation, please do not take for granted what’s been built.
“If you forget that this is a small island which we are built upon, and reach a 100-storey high tower block and may go up to 150 (storeys) if you are wise.
“But if you believe that it’s permanent, it will come tumbling down and you will never get a second chance,” he predicted.
Lee also cautioned the youth of today that racial harmony was not something that could be placed on “auto-pilot”, reminding them that the social network connecting the different racial communities was a fragile web that could easily be destroyed.
“I believe they (the youth) have come to believe that this (racial harmony) is a natural state of affairs, and they can take liberties with it. I know this is never so.
“We (Singapore government) have crafted a set of very intricate rules — no housing blocks shall have more than a percentage of so many Chinese, Indians, Malays. All are thoroughly mixed.
“Your neighbours are Indians, Malays, you go to the same shopping malls, the same schools, same playing fields, you go up and down the same lifts — we cannot allow segregation,” he said.
Lee, known to be a strong-willed and strict leader during his tenure, insisted that such rules could not afford to be loosened as it could easily become issues if they were challenged.
“We’ve got here, we’ve become cohesive, keep it that way. We’ve not used Chinese as a majority language because it will split the population.
“If you want to keep your Malay, or your Chinese, or your Tamil, Urdu or whatever, do that as a second language, not equal to your first language. It is up to you, how high a standard you want to achieve,” he said.
Lee acknowledged that he had been a tough leader in his time but insisted that the job had to be done for the greater good of the nation.
“Malaysia took the different line; Malaysians saw it as a Malay country, all others are lodgers, ‘orang tumpangan’, and they the Bumiputeras, sons of the soil, run the show.
“So the Sultans, the Chief Justice and judges, generals, police commissioner, the whole hierarchy is Malay,” he said.
Lee added that in Malaysia, since the Malay language was used as the teaching medium in schools, the Chinese and Indians had to find their own independent schools to teach their respective languages.
This, he claimed, did not help them find jobs.
“It’s a most unhappy situation,” he said.
The Charade Of Meritocracy
By Dr.Michael D. Barr
"The legitimacy of the Singaporean government is predicated on the idea of a meritocratic technocracy. A tiny number of career civil servants play a leading role in setting policy within their ministries and other government-linked bureaucracies, leading both an elite corps of senior bureaucrats, and a much larger group of ordinary civil servants. Virtually all of the elite members of this hierarchy are “scholars,” which in
Scholars not only lead the Administrative Service, but also the military’s officer corps, as well as the executive ranks of statutory boards and government-linked companies (GLCs). Movement between these four groups is fluid, with even the military officers routinely doing stints in the civilian civil service. Together with their political masters, most of whom are also scholars, they make up the software for the entity commonly known as “Singapore Inc.”—a labyrinth of GLCs, statutory boards and ministries that own or manage around 60% of
The basis of the scholars’ mandate to govern is not merely their performance on the job, but also the integrity of the process that selected them. The educational system is designed to cultivate competition, requiring top students to prove themselves every step of the way.
These scholarships typically require several years of government service after graduation, and the scholars are drafted into the Administrative Service, the officer corps of the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF), or the career track of a statutory board or GLC. The government insists that all Singaporeans have equal opportunities to excel in the system, and that everyone who has made it to the top did so purely by academic talent and hard work. Other factors such as gender, socioeconomic background and race supposedly play no more than a marginal role, if they are acknowledged as factors at all.
On the point of race, the
But this system conceals several unacknowledged agendas. In our forthcoming book, Constructing Singapore: Elitism, Ethnicity and the Nation-Building Project, Zlatko Skrbiš and I present evidence that the playing field is hardly level. In fact,
At the peak of the system is the network of prestigious government scholarships. Since independence in 1965, the technique of using government scholarships to recruit cohorts of scholars into the administrative and ruling elite has moved from the periphery of Singaporean society to center stage. Even before independence, a makeshift system of government and Colombo Plan scholarships sent a few outstanding scholars overseas before putting them into government service, including most notably former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong. Yet as late as 1975 this system had contributed only two out of 14 members of
By 1994, however, the situation had changed beyond recognition, with eight out of 14 cabinet ministers being ex-scholars, including Prime Minister Goh. By 2005 there were 12 ex-scholars in a Cabinet of 19. Of these, five had been SAF scholars, including Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. A perusal of the upper echelons of the ruling elite taken more broadly tells a similar story. In 1994, 12 of the 17 permanent secretaries were scholars, as were 137 of the 210 in the administrative-officer class of the Administrative Service.
The government scholarship system claims to act as a meritocratic sieve—the just reward for young adults with talent and academic dedication. If there is a racial or other bias in the outcomes, then this can only be the result of the uneven distribution of talent and academic application in the community. As Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong put it when he spoke on national television in May 2005, “We are a multiracial society. We must have tolerance, harmony. … And you must have meritocracy … so everybody feels it is fair….” His father, former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, was making the same point when, in 1989, he told Singapore’s Malay community that they “must learn to compete with everyone else” in the education system.
Yet if
• Of the top 30 GLCs only two (6.7%) were chaired by non-Chinese in 1991 (and neither of the non-Chinese was a Malay).
• Of the 38 people who were represented on the most GLC boards in 1998, only two (5.3%) were non-Chinese (and neither of the non-Chinese was a Malay).
• Of the 78 “core people” on statutory boards and GLCs in 1998, seven (9%) were non-Chinese (and one of the non-Chinese was a Malay).
A similar outcome is revealed in the pattern of government scholarships awarded after matriculation from school. Of the 200 winners of
If we consider
Although only indicative, this table clearly suggests the Chinese dominance in SAFOS stakes: 98% of SAFOS winners in this sample were Chinese, and about 2% were non-Chinese (counting Mikail Kalimuddin in 2005 as non-Chinese). Furthermore I found not a single Malay recipient and only one Muslim winner (Mikail Kalimuddin). A similar picture emerges in the lower status Singapore Armed Forces Merit Scholarship winners: 71 (25.6%) of 277 (as of late 2005) scholars identified, with 69 (97%) Chinese winners to only two non-Chinese—though there was a Malay recipient in 2004, and one reliable scholar maintains that there have been others.
The position of the non-Chinese in the educational stakes has clearly deteriorated since the beginning of the 1980s. According to the logic of meritocracy, that means the Chinese have been getting smarter, at least compared to the non-Chinese.
Yet the selection of scholars does not depend purely on objective results like exam scores. In the internal processes of awarding scholarships after matriculation results are released, there are plenty of opportunities to exercise subtle forms of discrimination. Extracurricular activities (as recorded in one’s school record), “character” and performance in an interview are also considered. This makes the selection process much more subjective than one would expect in a system that claims to be a meritocracy, and it creates ample opportunity for racial and other prejudices to operate with relative freedom.
Is there evidence that such biases operate at this level? Unsurprisingly, the answer to this question is “yes.” Take for instance a 2004 promotional supplement in the country’s main newspaper used to recruit applicants for scholarships. The advertorial articles accompanying the paid advertisements featured only one non-Chinese scholar (a Malay on a lowly “local” scholarship) amongst 28 Chinese on prestigious overseas scholarships. Even more disturbing for what they reveal about the prejudices of those offering the scholarships were the paid advertisements placed by government ministries, statutory boards and GLCs. Of the 30 scholars who were both prominent and can be racially identified by their photographs or their names without any doubt as to accuracy, every one of them was Chinese. This leaves not a shadow of a doubt that those people granting government and government-linked scholarships presume that the vast majority of high-level winners will be Chinese.
The absence of Malays from the SAFOS scholarships and their near-absence from the SAF Merit Scholarships deserves special mention because this is an extension of discrimination against the admission of Malays into senior and sensitive positions in the SAF that is officially sanctioned. The discrimination against Malays has been discussed in parliament and the media, and is justified by the assertion that the loyalty of Malays cannot be assumed, both because they are Muslim and because they have a racial and ethnic affinity with the Malays in
This discrimination hits Malay men hard, first because it deprives many of promising careers in the army, and second—and more pertinent for our study of the elite—it all but completely excludes potentially high-flying Malays of a chance of entering the scholar class through the SAF. A Chinese woman has a much better chance of winning an SAF scholarship than a Malay man.
Yet even before the scholarship stage, the education system has stacked the deck in favor of Chinese, starting in preschool. Here is the heart of
The early outward signs of the Sinicization program were the privileging of Chinese education, Chinese language and selectively chosen “Chinese values” in an overt and successful effort to create a Mandarin- and English-speaking elite who would dominate public life. Two of the most important planks of this campaign were decided in 1979: the annual “Speak Mandarin Campaign” and the decision to preserve and foster a collection of elite Chinese-medium schools, known as Special Assistance Plan (SAP) schools.
The SAP schools are explicitly designed to have a Chinese ambience, right down to Chinese gardens, windows shaped like plum blossoms, Chinese orchestra and drama, and exchange programs with mainland
For instance, in the early 1980s, when there was a serious shortage of graduate English teachers in schools, the Ministry of Education ensured there were enough allocated to SAP schools “to help improve standards of English among the Chinese-medium students, in the hope that they will be able to make it to university”—a target brought closer by the granting of two O-level bonus points exclusively to SAP school students when they applied to enter junior college. By contrast, neither Indians nor Malays received any special help, let alone schools of their own to address their special needs. They were not only left to fend for themselves, but were sometimes subjected to wanton neglect: inadequately trained teachers, substandard facilities and resources and the “knowledge” that they are not as good as the Chinese.
This account of discrimination against non-Chinese might lead the reader to assume that the quarter of Singaporeans who are not Chinese must form a festering and perhaps even revolutionary mass of resentment. Such an assumption would, however, be a long way from the mark. Non-Chinese might be largely excluded from the highest levels of the administrative elite, but just below these rarefied heights there plenty of positions open to intelligent and hardworking non-Chinese—certainly enough to ensure that non-Chinese communities have much to gain by enthusiastically buying into the system, even after the glass ceilings and racial barriers are taken into account. There are many grievances and resentments in these levels of society but the grievances are muted and balanced by an appreciation of the relative comforts and prosperity they enjoy. For most, any tendency to complain is subdued also by knowledge that it could be worse, and the widespread assumption among members of minority communities that it will be if they seriously pursue their grievances. As long as the
While this discrimination is not sparking a reaction that threatens the regime in the short term, the resulting injustices are certainly undermining the myth that the regime operates on meritocratic principles. This is worrying in the longer term because this myth, along with the capacity to deliver peace and prosperity, is one of the primary rationales by which Singaporeans reluctantly accept the many unpopular aspects of the regime, such as the lack of freedom and democracy, the intrusion of government into most aspects of private life, the pressure-cooker lifestyle and the high cost of living.
The rhetoric of meritocracy has given Singaporeans the consolation of believing that their ruling elite are the best of the best and can therefore be trusted almost blindly on important matters, even if they are highhanded and lack the common touch. As this illusion gradually falls away—and today it is already heavily undermined—the trust that Singaporeans have for their government is becoming increasingly qualified. It remains to be seen how long the regime can avert the logical consequences of the contradictions between the myth and the reality."
Mr. Barr is a lecturer at the
There is a lot of close collaboration on the ground, he said, although fundamental differences on both sides remain.
He cited collaboration between the two governments in the areas of security and law enforcement as an example.
“On terrorism, on drug smuggling, there’s very low-key but very close collaboration, because it is in both our national interests, and that goes on all the time,” he said.
He was replying to a question posed by Foo Chi Hsia, a Foreign Ministry official, who asked for his view on the paths both countries will take and areas they could work on.
She noted that since Separation in 1965, both countries had embarked on very different social, cultural and political paths, resulting in divergent outlooks.
Said Lee: “There’s a clear division between the public rhetoric and the quiet official national interest.
“The public rhetoric from Malaysia, especially for the Malay newspapers, is that Singapore is a troublemaker and everything we do is wrong.
“That view is not shared by the Chinese or Indian papers.”
Still, he felt that both sides “will become very divergent societies” because they hold fundamentally different views on what a nation should be, with one believing in meritocracy and the other, a race-based political system.
Back in the early 1960s when Singapore was part of Malaysia, Singapore leaders had urged the establishment of a Malaysian Malaysia — as opposed to a Malay Malaysia — and was told to leave in 1965.
“When we parted after less than two years in Malaysia and at the raw end of the minority race, we decided to do the opposite,” Lee said.
“For the last 44 years since 1965, we have assiduously insisted on ‘regardless of race, language or religion’ in everything we do: schools, housing, health, jobs, education, promotions. So we are becoming an integrated society.”
The emphasis on English as a common language created a slightly more cohesive society in Singapore, although Lee was unsure it would stay so in a time of stress.
Malaysia, by contrast, had segregated vernacular schools, which meant communities grew up separately, and had differential yardsticks for jobs and contracts.
“It’s openly a Bumiputera country,” he said, referring to the preferential treatment of indigenous groups.
“I’ve often said this about Malaysia … If you would educate your Chinese and your Indians like we do our Malays and others, you will equal if not surpass us.”
Can the countries simply acknowledge they are organised on different principles and yet seek to work together in areas where their interests converge?
Replied Lee: “You are assuming they can have two compartments in their minds.
“With the Malaysians, if you read the Malay papers, there’s a certain regret that they allowed us to be independent.
“They didn’t expect us to succeed. But we have, and our very existence is a challenge to their policies.
“And so they say, look, our Malays are dispossessed, are oppressed and so on. But they come down (to Singapore) and they know it’s not true, that the Malays are completely part of our society,” he said.
“They share the same benefits in housing, health, education, everything. They have their mosques, they’re not deprived of any freedoms as Malays. So the angst is there (in Malaysia).” — The Straits Times
Lee Kuan Yew has urged Singaporeans not to delude themselves that they are a part of the First World in South-east Asia.
Singapore is situated in a region with ‘special features’ which makes it particularly vulnerable, so to keep its competitive edge and be relevant to the world, it must stay a cohesive, multiracial, multireligious nation based on meritocracy, he said.
“Our region has its own special features. Singapore’s destiny would be very different if we were sited in Europe or North America.
“We cannot transplant our island elsewhere. Therefore, a recurrent issue for Singapore is how to differentiate ourselves from our neighbours in order to compete and survive, and also get along with them,” he said.
Mr Lee made these points in a prepared lecture to 500 Foreign Service officers, diplomats, and guests at the annual S. Rajaratnam Lecture, an event organised by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Diplomatic Academy and named after Singapore’s first foreign minister.
related article
Further cracks are appearing among the top echelon of PAS over Hadi Awang’s calls to talk to Umno. KUAN YEW STILL KEEN TO KNOW ABOUT WELFARE OF CHINESE IN MALAYSIA WHY YOU BOTHER THE THE MUSLIMS
Highlighting the fundamentals of Singapore’s foreign policy, he said that as a small country, Singapore “must seek a maximum number of friends, while maintaining the freedom to be itself as a sovereign and independent nation”.
To survive, it must stay relevant to the world, find its competitive edge, and rise above geographical and resource constraints.
“Had we disported ourselves like our better-endowed neighbours, we would have failed,” he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment