What Defines a Singaporean?
by singaporearmchaircritic
Two mainland Chinese were caught sitting in the first class compartment on a Hong Kong train although they had only paid the normal fare. When the ticket inspector explained to the fare dodgers that they each had to pay a HKD500 fine, the male passenger hollered, “Get your leader to come over! (叫你們的領導過來！)”. The ticket inspector coolly riposted, “Sorry but what we have here is a system, not a leader! (對不起，這裡只有制度，沒有領導！)”. And he proceeded to make the fare dodgers pay the due fine (source).
If I were a Hong Konger, this episode would fill me with pride. A Hong Kong ticket inspector stood his grounds and defended an important distinction between Hong Kong and mainland China – a respect for and adherence to established rules and regulations that cannot be circumvented through guanxi (關係, literally “relations”), i.e. who you know.
This anecdote also set me thinking: how would we Singaporeans respond in the same situation? Confronted by a brash and cocky foreigner challenging our norms and values, would we be able to hold our heads high and defend what is important to us?
So Much for Upholding Our Values
The authorities’ handling of the curry incident that enraged Singaporeans sometime ago may provide some answers. That the absurd settlement – the Indian family shall cook curry only when their Chinese neighbor is not at home – was not forced on the Indian family is not the issue.
As many Singaporeans had noted, the issue is this: the Community Mediation Centre (CMC) should not have taken up the case in the first place.
The CMC should have responded in the same manner as the Hong Kong inspector: tell the Chinese complainant that he or she did not have a case because here in multi-ethnic Singapore we have always lived by the principles of mutual respect and tolerance.
As we all know, the CMC did not. After allowing our values to be trampled upon by newcomers to our society, it even extolled the case as a “success.”
The muddled response from the CMC, a Ministry of Law agency, only goes to show how much Singaporeans can rely on a government body to defend our values, norms and way of life.
This is ironical, given that the government has always told Singaporeans not to take racial harmony for granted (read speeches here, here and here). Racial harmony is the exalted ideal enshrined in our national discourse built on shared historical memories. We are always told that it is of utmost importance because what is at stake is not just our domestic peace but also the nation’s survival as a predominantly Chinese society flanked by two predominantly Muslim societies.
In Search of the Singapore Identity
It was heartening to see Singaporeans rise to the occasion in response to the curry dispute. Flor Leow’s call to Singaporeans to Cook and Share a Pot of Curry on Facebook was an innovative and fun way to bring across to new migrants our message of love, tolerance and appreciation of a multi-cultural way of life, all embodied in a pot of curry.
What spoiled the pot of curry, however, were the name-calling and racist remarks made by some emotionally-charged netizens.
It is also disappointing that the incident did not spark further debates on what constitutes the Singapore identity. If you disagree with me that the Singapore identity has yet to evolve, ask yourself: how do you define a Singapore identity? Surely it cannot be just based on Singlish, or a love for food, or kiasuism?
In other words, we should ask ourselves: exactly what ideals and values do we Singaporeans believe in as a nation, and for which others should respect us?
In the 47 years since our Independence, this task has been left to the government. As early as 1988, Goh Chok Tong mooted the notion of “shared values,” which had not caught on among Singaporeans including myself:
- Nation before community and society above self
- Family as the basic unit of society
- Community support and respect for the individual
- Consensus, not conflict
- Racial and religious harmony
And the government’s justification for this set of values was to counter “the growing influence of Western culture on Singaporeans in the 1980s” which “led to concerns that the younger generation would not share the values and outlook of their parents and community.”
On hindsight, perhaps why the set of values had not caught on was partly because it sounded suspiciously like self-serving government rhetoric, and partly because some values were already ingrained in us.
Anyhow, if the top-down imposition of a set of values didn’t work back in the 1980s, it will never work in today’s context when skepticism towards the ruling party is at a high. In fact, things have come to a stage that the PAP can do nothing right in the eyes of its critics; its every move, well-intentioned or otherwise, is greeted with cynicism by a significant portion of the populace.
So my point is this: Singaporeans have to take ownership. We have to define our own identity instead of leaving it to the government.
Who are We?
In 2004, a group of concerned Hong Kongers, mostly professionals, issued a statement on Hong Kong’s core values: “liberty, democracy, human rights, rule of law, fairness, social justice, peace and compassion, integrity and transparency, plurality, respect for individuals, and upholding professionalism.” Since then, these values have become a part of the Hong Kong discourse that sets the city and its people apart from mainland China, and invoked whenever Hong Kongers feel their city’s autonomy is under siege.
In Singapore, sadly, no such group has come together spontaneously to articulate what it means to be a Singaporean. This is also a result of the government’s tight control on speech, silencing Singaporeans whose stance diverges from that of the ruling regime.
As long as Singaporeans are not compelled and empowered to speak up and define our own identity, we as a people cannot progress.
We are at a critical stage of nation building due to the large influx of foreigners that has brought about drastic social changes and tensions. Before we lament that outsiders or newcomers do not share or respect our values, norms and way of life, we must first be able to articulate what these are.
While the curry incident shows that Singaporeans do indeed know what we cherish as a people, nationalism has to be proactive, not reactive. Nationalism that is “thin” in content, and stoked whenever a people feel insulted by criticisms and stinging remarks, can easily degenerate into xenophobia. That is not a path Singaporeans want to take.
We can perhaps start from our national pledge and think about how we Singaporeans, not our government, define the universal values written into it:
We, the citizens of Singapore,
pledge ourselves as one united people,
regardless of race, language or religion,
to build a democratic society
based on justice and equality
so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and
progress for our nation.
What are the duties and the rights of a Singapore citizen? What do we mean by a “democratic society”? Is Singapore already a just and equal society? What do “happiness,” “prosperity,” and “progress” mean to us? How do we ensure we stand united, and that no citizen, regardless of race, language and religion, is left out in our pursuit of these goals?
There are no easy answers to these questions. And the discrepancies between our answers and the government’s will complicate the quest for a national identity. For instance, while Singaporeans may prefer a broader definition of democracy that encompasses freedom of speech, human rights and other civil liberties, the ruling party may subscribe to the narrow definition of an “electoral democracy.”
But one day, when we find the answers, we will be able to hold our heads high and confidently say,
“We are Singaporeans, and these, are the values we uphold.”
Here’s wishing all Singaporeans and residents in our island-state a Happy National Day.
Singapore Armchair Critic 
Thank you for writing this post. It resonates perfectly with me. Happy National Day to you.
You are most welcome, fellow Singaporean!
I’m of the same view, I’m also not pleased with the way CMC handled the ‘curry incident’, it annoyed me further when they even got the cheek to self praise by seeing result of it as “successs”. I think they’re not fit to be in CMC. Anyway, thanks to singaporearmchaircritic for a good article as this.
My pleasure and thanks for liking the post!
Somethings are much simpler than having to define our shared values; The CMC case brings to mind the sayings:”When in Rome, do as the romans do”. 入乡随俗。Or simple mathematical permutations that one learns playing various card games when young.
The case of the CMC is absurd because it is not based on any logical principles. What if the local Indian family sells their house to my neighbour, a foreign 3-generation Indian muslim family from Gujarat whose grandparents wake up at 4am cook then pray in the wee hours while we all sleep? It is idiocy to ask 3.5m people of (roughly) 3 cultures who have more or less accommodated each other’s lifestyles, to accommodate 1.5m newcomers of perhaps 2 dozen cultures. Only people who do not understand permutations would do what the CMC has done. Or maybe they really have a hard time recruiting half decent people at the law ministry, ended up with people who never learned above idioms in primary school.
True, by taking up the case and mediating the “dispute” that should never have been, the CMC has opened the Pandora’s Box to future disputes arising from intolerance. Really bad judgement on the part of the mediator.
so…talking about mutual rsepect, can PRC then cook stinky fermented tofu@臭豆腐 without being complaint/reported?
exactly the point made in armchair’s writeup. Over the years, we have, with some difficulty, built some degree of tolerance – not perfect but “workable”, giving each race their leeway yet not crossing an invisible line. So the CMC should not have stepped in to ask everyone to bend backwards for those newcomers not willing to tolerate. In the US you don’t find immigrant Indian Hindu families complaining about beef being served at barbeques in their neighborhoods. And btw, some foreign family did have a party a few weeks ago in our block using the lift landing area sharing their 臭豆腐. We didn’t know what it was until town council manager checked just to confirm it was not a dead cat or rat and told us about the delicacy – their version was very much “harder” than the ones we smelled in HK. Nowadays the common area in HDB flats are used for all sorts of functions, maybe soon they will host a wedding dinner occupying all 24 common areas of our 25 storey point block. If you have a few PRC friends, you know they chain smoke and drink some really hard alcohol, I am stocking up on pails, fire extinguishers, …
Our National Pledge is an oath of allegiance to our country from all Singapre citizens regardless of political affiliations. The patriotism is lacking because Singapore is not a homogenous society. It may take a generation or two to reach maturity. Think about it!
I agree with your first statement generally, if you do not equate allegiance to our country with allegiance to a political party.
If your second statement refers to Singapore’s heterogeneity in terms of race, language or religion, I do not think these stand in the way of building a national identity or a sense of community as we are already a harmonious society.
If by “not homogenous,” you mean different political affiliations, then I think you may have conflated the state with the ruling party. I quote from my earlier post: “there is a need to disaggregate the notion of the state from the ruling party. Singaporeans, especially the younger generation, are already sophisticated enough to know that the ruling party does not constitute the entire state. This means loving Singapore does not necessitate loving the ruling party, and not loving the ruling party does not mean we do not love Singapore.”
I am already a second generation Singaporean, as are many Singaporeans. So why hasn’t a Singapore national identity evolved yet? Think about it.
This post made me sad. Sad that there is no attempt to understand what mediation is. Two points. If the parties say that there is a disagreement, there is a disagreement. Insisting that there isn’t is ostrich behavior. Second, mediation does not involve a person of higher authority ordering a solution. Mediation does not work that way. Mediation is about facilitating disputants to find solutions that work for them. It is consensual and not top-down. The same people hat complain about this “incident” would also complain if mediation resulted in a top-down *order* – as it is the compromise was suggested by the Indian family iirc.
This is a wonderfully written article urging the society to seek definition of what makes or is a Singaporean and this is indeed an important question. Unfortunately, the writer is misguiding in his understanding of the mediation process and has allowed his own unhappiness of the establishment and I would even say his own tinge of xenophobia shine through via his analysis. Mediation is simply just a third party process where two parties are able to work out solutions between them in a consensual fashion. It just so happen that it was CMC as that third party. Moreover, I thought it was rather gracious of the Indian family to compromise reflecting that multi-racial and cultural understanding of what defines a Singaporean instead of the suggested bias by CMC as hinted the writer towards the PRC family.
for me being singaporean is going to ICA and demanding that they change my “race” on my IC to “Singaporean”. sadly they reply that there is no such category.
My general response to the few comments above, that I hope will serve to emphasize the importance of defining Singapore’s values and norms.
If we value racial and religious harmony and our action is guided by the principles of mutual respect, understanding and tolerance, then these principles should apply to all in Singapore regardless of race, religion, nationality, or even population size of the various communities.
Therefore, using the case suggested above as illustration, if a Chinese national or PR residing in Singapore cooks stinky toufu in his apartment, it is his right and liberty to do so (just as it is the right of the Indian family to cook curry inside their flat) because he is not doing anything illegal or hazardous within the premises of his apartment.
The universal principle of mutual respect applies even if the community of Chinese nationals/PRs is outnumbered by native Singaporeans in Singapore. So the statement “It is idiocy to ask 3.5m people of (roughly) 3 cultures who have more or less accommodated each other’s lifestyles, to accommodate 1.5m newcomers of perhaps 2 dozen cultures” is fundamentally wrong.
But of course there is a line to draw. Say if the Chinese cooks stinky toufu in the public corridor outside his apartment, then his neighbors would have a case against him, for he is encroaching on shared public space. Same with other forms of encroachment on public spaces.
The two netizens attempting to explain the mediation process totally missed the point. The issue, as I mentioned in my post and as many Singaporeans pointed out, is not about who suggested the compromise, or whether the solution was forced onto the Indian family. The point is that CMC should not have entertained the complainant in the first place.
The assertion that “If the parties say that there is a disagreement, there is a disagreement” is absurd. The CMC could not possibly entertain all complaints and should have a set of guidelines that help mediators decide which complaints to take up and which to dismiss.
Think about this, if one day a Christian family decides that their Muslim neighbors should not pray or worship inside their flat (or vice versa) and lodges a complaint to the CMC, does the Christian family have a case? Or what if a Taoist Singaporean wants the CMC to bar residents of other religions from using the void deck of his flat for non-Taoist funerals, does he have a case? What sort of message is the CMC sending out if it takes up these cases?
I think the answer is very clear to discerning readers. To me not recognizing and upholding the value of racial/religious harmony and the principle of mutual respect is “ostrich behavior.”
As for labeling others as “xenophobic” to gain a moral upper hand, my response is outlined here in an earlier post: https://singaporearmchaircritic.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/its-the-nationality-stupid/.
Where does one draw the line?
What if I like to do science experiments in my flat, mixing chemicals that produce an extremely pungent smell that is similar to that of fermented tofu. This smell permeates my neighbors’ flats. There is no racial or religious connection between me and my science experiments, but it is clearly olfactory pollution and does impact their living environment.
What if I am a devout member of a religion that requires me to chant prayers and play music loudly throughout the night? This noise is unavoidably heard by my neigbours and disturbs their sleep. It is is my religious duty and right to do so, but it is clearly auditory pollution and does impact their living environment.
Shouldn’t there be mediation?
I would just add that I am not intending to stray into a legal discussion of the tort of nuisance here. Just want to make the point that “tolerance and mutual respect” involves nuanced distinctions between behavior that may or may not be reasonably acceptable when it impacts others.
I recall cooking sambal blachan during my student days in England. Neighbour came across to complain about the “weird smell”. We tried but she really couldn’t get used to it. In the interests of good neigbourliness, we agreed a compromise. Cook it at lunch when she was usually not at home. If she was at home, she sucked it up. No mediator required and we are still good friends.
Hi, Thanks for your comments. I do not mean that there should not be mediation at all in all instances of dispute. What I tried to say in my post and my comments above is that the CMC should not entertain cases that are clearly due to one-sided racial/religious bigotry and intolerance.
The two scenarios you suggested fall in the more contentious gray area and certainly deserve the mediator’s attention, if neighbors cannot come to a resolution themselves.
Your experience in England seems similar to the curry dispute except for one important distinction – you are the outsider or new arrival in the society and your cooking of a “exotic” food had somewhat upset your neighbor, whom I presume, is a local. The roles are reversed in the curry incident, and that’s why so many Singaporeans are enraged. You don’t go to England and ask your English neighbor not to cook steak & kidney pie because the smell offends you, do you?
Thank you for your response. Let me say first that I have just started reading your blog, recommended by a friend, and have been very impressed. Also, I completely agree with the need to define a Singaporean set of values.
I am just not sure if the curry incident is the best way to highlight this. To my knowledge, this was a case where party A was regularly disturbed by a strong smell created by party B. It is neither here nor there that the smell was a curry smell, or that party A was from PRC, or that party B was ethnically Indian. It would seem to me that there is prima facie a case for the mediator to at least consider this case, in order to prevent escalation of the dispute.
Think about it. It is no different from the example of the science experiment I gave. What if two Chinese Singaporean neighbours got into a dispute because one of them was conducting science experiments that produced a strong curry smell that bothered the other. If there was unreasonable olfactory pollution, the ethnicity of the neighbours and the type of smell is irrelevant. It is illegal for restaurants in the UK to operate beyond certain hours for that very reason – irrespective of the type of cuisine (eg steak and kidney pie), it could disturb the neighbours.
Of course we should have racial and religious tolerance. But every day there are disputes between neighbours for all kinds of trivial and non trivial matters. You parked slightly in front of my gate. I played my music too loud. You created a smell that bothered me. These things are hard to define. Should we have a law saying curry smells are ok, but not steak and kidney pie smells? We need to encourage a culture of tolerance, and I think the CMC intervened with that aim.
Hi,
I really appreciate you taking the time to pen down your thoughts on my post. I just started writing this blog not too long ago, and am humbled by readers’ responses and comments.
Let me sort out my thoughts further and I will try to delve deeper into the Singapore identity/values/rights etc in forthcoming blog posts. And we can further discuss the issues you brought up from there. Cheers.
[…] deep down inside we know these are fleeting and superficial. And as this writer realized, searching for our identity can be difficult, hazy, and often, nowhere closer to the […]