The Meaning of Citizenship
by singaporearmchaircritic
A survey conducted by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) in 2012 asks Singapore-born citizens and foreign-born citizens what it takes for immigrants to be considered “Singaporean.” And this issue marks the widest divergence in the opinion of the two groups: sending one’s children to serve National Service (NS). Whereas 69% of Singapore-born citizens take this as a yardstick that qualifies immigrants to be Singaporeans, only 43% of foreign-born citizens think so.
Why do Singapore-born citizens think sending one’s son(s) to serve NS is such an integral part of being Singaporean? Because it entails sacrifices and risks on the part of the young man and his family. Not only does it take up two years of a young man’s life; it also means going through some hardship and perhaps getting injured in training. And although we live in peaceful times, there is still the possibility that Singaporean men may be conscripted in the event that war breaks out.
For sure, we can opt to leave this country and give up our citizenship. But because we are born and bred here and bonded by ties to our family and friends, uprooting is easier said than done. For those of us who stay put, it is a sacrifice we make or simply a duty we perform. It is part and parcel of being Singaporean and the ultimate test in one’s commitment to be a Singaporean.
So naturally we apply the same yardstick to immigrants who choose to come to Singapore and take up citizenship.
To Be or Not to Be
The crux of the matter is this: the 57% of foreign-born citizens who do not think having their sons serve NS is such a big deal actually know it IS a big deal.
Here in Singapore, it is mandatory for second-generation male PRs to serve NS. Unless they give up their PR status, that is. And this is precisely what one-third of all male PRs at the age of 18 did over the last five years. Figures released in 2011 indicate that 4,200 male PRs at the age of 18 renounced their PR status while 8,800 were enlisted and served NS.
On an Internet forum, an expatriate rants about why he does not see the need for him or his sons to serve NS:
I’m here for work, nothing else. Why the hell I need to fight for this country? Loyalty, gratitude, none of that applies. I pay my taxes, I get services in return. I’m not a bum and I earn my keep. It is a mutually beneficial, money driven relationship between myself and SG. PR is a convenience sort of renewable PEP that’s all. If they made PEP renewable I’d not need PR at all.
I can always transfer to KL as I have no issues with living in Muslim country . . . or even Bangkok. It is just taxes in KL are higher and that’s the ONLY thing SG has for me. Do you really think I should put mine and my sons lives down for that? Contrary to what you said I’d rather fight for an idea than stupid sh.t like low taxes. And if push comes to shove I’d rather be in US army, even if at this point US establishment is f…ked up, the idea (I’m pretty sure you have gone through pages of your US passport) is certainly worth fighting for.
They can close the loop holes all they want, I’ll just move on, no big loss for me, extra 7-8k in taxes per year is worth not wasting 2.5 years of my kids time, especially if reasons given I consider not worth paper they are written on. At this point for me SG is not inherently better than MY for example or TH for that matter. Nothing distinguishes SG from MY/TH that touches me and would make me want to keep and fight for SG the way it is. (emphasis mine)
Ouch.
But I suspect our government will feel the sting of his cold, calculating words more than we ordinary Singaporeans who know all the while that liberally giving out citizenship/PR doesn’t instill loyalty.
Every Man for Himself?
Why is loyalty expected of foreign-born citizens or PRs?
The simple answer is this: because citizenship entails not just rights and privileges, but also duties and obligations.
In the U.S., for instance, these are:
Rights of U.S. Citizens
- Vote in federal elections
- Serve on a jury
- Bring family members to the United States
- Obtain citizenship for children born abroad
- Travel with a U.S. passport
- Run for federal office
- Become eligible for federal grants and scholarship
Responsibilities of U.S. Citizens
- Support and defend the Constitution
- Serve the country when required
- Participate in the democratic process
- Respect and obey federal, state, and local laws
- Respect the rights, beliefs, and opinions of others
- Participate in your local community
Similarly, there are rights and duties for Canadians, British citizens and others.
In Singapore, the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) has drawn up a table of rights and obligations of Singapore citizens versus PRs. Only two rights – the right to vote in parliamentary elections and the right to stand for election and become a Member of Parliament – are listed while the rest are just technical information on taxes, CPF, subsidies and housing schemes.
So blunt as the expatriate’s words may be, they hark back to some important issues brought up in my previous post on the Singapore identity.
When it comes to the crunch, citizens, Singapore-born or otherwise, won’t fight for a country because they like the low tax rates and subsidized education. They fight for a country because they love the country and what it stands for. They fight for a country not only because their families and friends are here, but also to protect a way of life they treasure, the freedoms they enjoy, and the values they believe in. These are the essence of citizenship.
But in the context of Singapore, what exactly are these?
Part IV of our Constitution does address the “fundamental liberties” of Singaporeans, such as freedom of speech, assembly and association, but as we all know, these liberties are greatly curtailed.
I would like to invite readers to participate in this little exercise. Write down in the comments column what rights and responsibilities you think Singapore citizens should have. It doesn’t matter if these have not materialized yet, or are not supported by our law.
Next week, we can then delve into the conditions that make citizenship meaningful based on your response.
Singapore Armchair Critic 
I think the answer to the Rights & Responsibilities question is self-evident in our national pledge:
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.
Thus, Rights, which IMO should be entitlements earned through Achievement:
1. Freedom to pursue happiness. Fundamental to this should include freedom of speech (to be able to define what makes us happy or unhappy, and to define what is progress to us), freedom of media (for the same purpose), and freedom from exploitation, discrimination, abuse and oppression.
2. Freedom from poverty. Fundamental to this should include unbiased and unpenalised access to government subsidies, scholarships and public welfare schemes for all citizens; unbiased and unpenalised access to HDB flats regardless of age or marital status for all citizens; and the right to determine our own CPF savings meaning any changes should be held to referendum and the fund be held publicly accountable.
3. Freedom to progress. By this, I mean the right to challenge archaic legislation and constitution, incompetency and corruption, especially if these cause impediments to the first 2 core freedoms above.
4. Freedom participate in democratic process, including voting and standing for elections and referendums. The first 3 Rights shall also follow the democratic process as pledged. This freedom shall be the main moderator for the above 3 Freedoms.
Responsibilities, I feel that the US model is sufficient, with some modifications:
1. Support and defend the Nation and Constitution (not the ruling party!), unless there is conflict with the 3rd Freedom
2. Serve the country when required
3. Participate in the democratic process
4. Respect and obey federal, state, and local laws
5. Respect the Rights, beliefs, and opinions of others
6. Participate in your local community
I agree with Ryan. The Pledge sums it up. I would ask for one small change; that the last line read, “progress for us ALL”. See http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2012/08/12/why-i-oppose-the-national-pledge/ for a discussion.
There should be no problem with this for those who believe the ‘nation’ is everyone living in Singapore, including non-citizens. There is a problem for those who equate ‘nation’ only with the interests of the rich & powerful.
ricardo, I would have to disagree with you regarding “including non-citizens”. To say this would mean any other person can automatically feel entitled to a SC’s rights just because he/she comes over to Singapore, leech our resources, but when called to fulfil the responsibilities, well, the above rant quote sums it all. Also, there is the issue of infringement of our sovereign rights, if non-citizens are allowed to participate in our democratic and legislative process as outlined in my response. Given the high rate of foreigners and PRs nowadays, especially from a few dominant Asian countries including one ‘peacefully rising’ giant that is getting more aggressive and assertive against its neighbours, it is all too easy for us to lose our hard won independence and prosperity.
Yes, I agree with Ryan. I think Alex Au is concerned that “nation” and other concepts in the pledge are “hijacked” by the ruling elite in Singapore, and the “collectivity” thus defined serves the interests of the ruling class. But this does not have to be the case. We ordinary Singaporeans can start to take ownership and define the concepts ourselves.
And the national pledge is certainly reserved for citizens only. “Citizenship” is exclusive by definition and “nation” refers to all Singapore citizens as a whole. It is also not so easy to separate the individualistic and collectivist elements in citizenship — it contains both. At the individual level, the notion of citizenship provides a space that allows the individual to pursue his/her interests and rights; at the collective level, citizenship also entails responsibilities we as citizens have to bear in order to sustain this community and environment. The difficult part is striking a balance between rights and responsibilities. And right now in Singapore, the problem is precisely an imbalance between the two.
I think singapore should really & truly exercise the right to freedom of speech,,,,and i mean not only on paper, but also in practice, let us speak, do not hinder us from telling you what we would like you to do. If singapore preaches democracy, then it should practice what it preaches and afford her citizens to speak out loud without the fear of being incarcerated.
How can one say the R&R of a citizen is already inscribed in the pledge, while the Leaders have made it clear at one point they are merely aspirational? This is your one-sided wishful thinking?
Where, in real life, does one see the nation “building a democratic society” where your civil rights, freedom of speech & information etc are not even accorded to you in basic ways? When the rights, beliefs and opinions of “some” people (especially if you are Opposition, LBGT, Singles etc) that are constantly not recognized in this society? And let me remind you, how our esteemed leader said if “you” (the married & coupled ones) will not reproduce, the country will fold up?!! What does that leave the rest of us (the segment who can’t produce children) as? Liabilities of the society or the Real contributors of a productive society? How is that inclusive and democratic? And how are you participating to make all these areas better and more democratic without restricting your rights to only voting once every 4 years?
Lastly, I don’t see anywhere that says ‘happiness, prosperity and progress’ for our nation requires we spend up to 15% of our GDP budget on defense and warheads, consistently over the last 4 decades. Progress for our Defence Team and their ever-upgrading tools and machines for sure, but how does that relate to common citizens? And yes, I agree with Yawning Bread – that nation here means “the SG Inc co”. Yes — because only businesses can fold up, a nation doesn’t. It is implicit that we the citizens are the employees. An Employer wants the company to do well (for stocks, for share, for profits) etc, whatever it takes (singaporean employees or not) who will help them achieve it.
That in sum, is the meaning of citizenship in Singapore’s context today.
Hi Cheng,
I do agree with you on all the problems your brought up. But I also think we can at least try to take stock of all the issues we have with the current state of governance and make some efforts to improve the situation.
That the pledge is aspirational is not a problem to me — many universal values and ideals are already enshrined in it, and while it will not be easy, we can nonetheless endeavor to work towards these goals for our society. We aim high and try to hit high too. Even if we don’t achieve all that we aspire to, at least we tried. And if our calls for change are brushed aside, there’s always the next GE to let the government know what we think of being sidelined yet again.
Hi Cheng,
I was referring to the Pledge as an ideal model for R&R, not taking it as granted. Of course I am aware that so much of what should be our true R&R (IMO), is still being withheld from us.
Ryan, Ricardo and Sammy,
Thanks to you all, especially Ryan, for your great comments & ideas. I will take a good look and think hard about the issue too and hopefully will be able to write something as a follow up next week. Till then, cheers!
no, thank you for the thought provoking post and efforts to research. too many armchair critics just criticise based on anecdotal ‘evidence’, if you know what i mean. looking forward to your follow up.
[…] of the nation-state, moreover, owe allegiance to their government and are, therefore, entitled to its […]