Howard Lee
My personal experience was indicative of something in Australian culture that speaks of a nation’s psyche when approaching race issues, or national issues as a whole. That something, I believe, is the prevalence of honest, audacious and open public discourse.
When asked about racism in Australia, I always have this story to share.
I spent my graduate years in Perth, Western Australia, at a most uncomfortable time in its history – Pauline Hanson won a seat in Parliament and her allegedly racists remarks against Asians were well documented.
My parents got wind of it and did not fail to remind me, in our weekly trunk calls, to take extra precautions and avoid crowded places.
But Fremantle’s Café Strip is a favourite hangout and unavoidable. It was also a well-known spot for activities of all kinds, from buskers with daring acts to activists promoting animal rights.
I was approached by a girl, I suspect a student not much different from me, waving a petition that demanded the state government ban Pauline Hanson from delivering any speeches in Perth. “We think Pauline Hanson is a racist, and we do not welcome her here,” she declared. Or something like that.
Of course, I signed it, but I do not remember if that petition was successful. What stuck in my mind was this one fact: the girl was Caucasian.
An Australian, a total stranger, who by her heritage and the colour of her skin has every reason to believe in Hanson’s doomsday predictions and push for stricter immigration policies, chose to fight for my rights in her own country. In that one moment, the “why” for her actions was secondary. If I was ever a migrant searching for a place to call home, that moment would have decided it.
But I ask the “why” question now, as it might shed some light on our predicament at home. Singapore is heading into unfamiliar territory, where relations between foreigners and locals are becoming increasingly strained, and citizens are searching to better define the value of their citizenship.
Social tolerance: challenged, tested, redefined
The resolution of racism and immigration issues in Australia is far from ideal. Indeed, recent incidents of “curry bashing”, for all its loaded semantics, does little credit to a nation trying to position itself as welcoming foreign talent.
Yet I would argue that my personal experience was indicative of something in Australian culture that speaks of a nation’s psyche when approaching race issues, or national issues as a whole. That something, I believe, is the prevalence of honest, audacious and open public discourse.
When Hanson first broke onto the Australian scene, I remember then Prime Minister John Howard defended her rights to air her views, and was immediately chastised for his Voltairean approach. Subsequently, Hanson’s allegedly racist views pervaded every media – the news, talk shows, stand-up comedies, from broadcast to print, were threshing out her story, and in many cases, trashing her up. Some were serious discussions, others were comical parodies.
Suffice to say that in that short period, debating on Hanson became a national past-time, more engaging than Aussie Rules football. While the media might have gone overboard in turning it into a spectacle, the spill-over into everyday life was more real and forceful, with lobby groups and protestors taking their own swipes. In addition, I would say that the media coverage did play an important part in getting people aware and engaged.
Interestingly, the publicity given to Hanson did not result in civil unrest, as some of our leaders in Singapore might have feared. Of course, the rebuttal would be that Singapore’s society is not as “mature” as Australia’s to take such public dialogue, but do also consider that Australia’s long history also means that race issues are strongly entrenched – from indigenous rights to migrant needs, each issue a political minefield.
Comparisons aside, the Hanson saga is more meaningful if viewed, not in the final result it generated, but the public conversations that surrounded it. The incident, especially with One Nation (then Hanson’s party) winning a seat, gave Australia a rather bad international reputation as a migrant-intolerant country.
But there was a very different mood at ground zero. It spoke of a people willing to take up issues, call it their own, divide and debate, and ultimately agree that the stand they take is meant to make theirs a better society, respecting the views of others while creating an ideal space for themselves.
Internally, Australia reflected the social divide that prevails in all nations open to migration, yet this divide was openly shared and vigorously discussed, rather than suppressed for fear of social disharmony. Put in another way, social disharmony was accepted as a natural occurrence – it was through public discourse that citizens attempted to understand and bridge divides, if not to resolve them.
Stagged harmony/hegemony
The paralysing fear that has gripped Singapore for decades is that emotional debate on race issues can lead to widespread social conflict. Historical examples are often cited to support this belief.
However, references to the 1964 and 1969 race riots are almost always made in isolation without a justifiable comparison to the difference in social context between then and now. At the very least, it is scare-mongering and a challenge to anyone who dares to even suggest racial politics. At its worst, it paralyses us with self-censorship, preventing us from engaging in meaningful debate. It buries, layer upon layer with each cited and policed incident, the desire and need to engage in a proper conversation to better understand our fellow citizens.
Effectively, race relations in Singapore are currently managed with two tools. The first is the arcane Internal Securities Act and other similar laws. The second is the $10 million Community Integration Fund, in addition to other “soft” initiatives.
The role of citizens is perceptibly delegated to subjects – we are requested to subscribe to broad out-of-bounds markers on the one hand, and actively participate in top-down, structured and committee-approved cohesion events on the other. Social harmony is a manicured garden, where we stroll through holding hands with fellow citizens, to appreciate the act of holding hands, or the park ranger will kick out the anti-social.
Yet, reality suggests that the ground is a lot different from this utopia-in-progress. Recent incidents of youths (it has to be that rowdy bunch) posting racist comments online (it has to be that wild, wild web), possibly only ripples in our social fabric, the surface over deep undercurrents of resentment.
While we might have gotten by preaching racial tolerance, the dynamics of modern society, fueled by globalisation and rapid immigration, can only strengthen these undercurrents. Things will boil over eventually.
Consensus vs Conflict
When I explained Singapore’s shared values to Australian course mates, many were perturbed by this one – consensus, not conflict. “I would have thought that consensus can only be attained through conflict?” one of them quipped.
Perhaps our cultural differences give rise to different understandings of this phrase. But it is only through open engagement that our society can prevent the subversion of our identity, and return some semblance of genuine harmony through frank discussion, passionate debate, fostered understanding and acceptance.
Before we can embark on this, I believe a few conditions need to be established:
- Media unleashed – the local media’s reserved reporting is doing us a huge injustice, and more harm than good for long term social harmony; the media must be able to report openly on sensitive issues without fear or favour, showing awareness and acknowledging that each reporter is necessarily biased, and no one has all the answers
- Policies disengaged – we have to understand that identities exist before policies; no amount of coercion or social engineering can remodel that, but only subvert and suppress it, leaving only the empty shell of a conceptualised national identity
- Diversity celebrated – much as we fancy ourselves a multi-cultural society, the dogmatic reverence we pay to social cohesion effectively speaks the opposite; there can be no cohesion without genuine understanding, and understanding is not created by just focusing on similarities, but also on differences
If not, what we stand to lose
Last week, Pauline Hanson revealed that she would emigrate to the UK. Her public reason for doing so was that the current Australian government lacks people to voice contrarian views for the benefit of Australians. This time, I am not in Australia to appraise the situation, but I speculate that part of her disappointment has to do with Kevin Rudd’s fresh approach and a welcoming foreign policy.
Notwithstanding the ironic turn of events, Hanson’s departure is a good reflection of what could happen to nations in a globalised world – failing to find their space in their home country, citizens who feel sidelined leave for a place they believe they will be included.
Australia might well be able to afford it, for now. Its population base is wide, and I would even say that because of the prevalence of public discourse, such rends are quickly patched, and the Australian identity will redefine itself.
But not for Singapore. We have only so many people whom we can call citizens, and while we might be able to import more, new-comers do not carry our history and culture. For sure, culture will grow from them, but with the pace of growth and our dogma on cohesiveness, this will be a prescribed cultural position at best.
New citizens do not have the luxury or time in our urgent economy to ponder and think about how they will fit into our culture. They are simply assimilated into the ideal template. To top it off, the media, hell-bent on trumpeting official soundbites and reluctant to question and play devil’s advocate, plays to the same merry hegemonic tune.
We can only become poorer for it. If we feel not the loss of citizens, we can certainly realise how little we truly understand our neighbour and how disengaged we are from many issues that plague our society. Too often we rely on the government to define our social positions and resolve differences.
To end, I refer to the view suggested by Dr Lee Wei Ling in the Straits Times (14 Feburary), that a unique Singaporean culture will eventually develop over time.
I beg to differ. The Singapore culture is already being developed, in the hearts and minds of the citizens, and is constantly evolving, if not fading from lack of everyday application. The question is whether this culture can be recognised and acknowledged by our citizens as their own, forged from a public discourse that they participate actively in, or a fabricated structure determined by authoritative policies that are guided chiefly by the principles of survival and economic progress, not the need for identity.
___________________________________________________________
Cannot cannot! We are Singaporeans. Everything shocks us and scares us. We need our media and our leaders to protect our fragile and pure souls. People speaking in loud voices and making views that are different from ours make us uncomfortable. Anything that deviates from the status quo prescribed by our esteemed and glorious leaders will lead to western style mass suicides, violence, riots and civil war.
a poignant read..it goes back to the fact that Singapore has always a top-down approach in doing things and resolving issues, so much so that many citizens have come to expect the government to act every time something crops up.
it’s like a catch-22 in which the government by being reluctant to let the citizens take greater charge in these national issues will further stifle active citizenry participation in these issues. the mindset has been entrenched and will take a generation or so to be overcome, that’s assuming it can be.
there are some things that legislation can only do so much- it’s more of a crude approach in dealing with problems. u can cure the symptoms but not the cause…even then its effectiveness is questionable. honest and active discussion of these pertinent issues may well a better approach.
Letting citizens do things for themselves means the govt takes a backseat, becomes irrelevant. This, our govt will never do.
It is about being relevant so as to stay in power.
The People generally BoChap about many things.This is the Disease and thats our problem.
They never experienced as citizens of a vibrant democracy before. At most they see from news and tv. But they never experienced 1st hand. visiting another country is not experience. its called a tour.
When people are not involved, they are BoChap as in Apathetic.
They have no 1st hand experience as citizen, liberal democracy to know if it suits the country.
singaporeans have been well known for being Kia Si, Kia Su, Kia ……many things.
They are not vocal generally and have no strong identity.
Using Australia as an example of good race relations…hmm…..wonder if the Aborigines who have been dispossessed, disenfranchised and marginalised have as rosy a view as you do.
I remember the big race issue in New Zealand in 1960 when I was there as a student in Auckland. The Kiwis wanted the rugby crown but they had to play the mighty Springboks in South Africa and the Kiwi team could not include any Maori.There was a big debate over it and finally the rugby lovers won as the All Black or Kiwi team went without any Maori although everyone knew that every year a few Maoris made it through sheer abulity.
The cry of the protesters was, “Rugby is my God, colour is my crime.” Some white Kiwis were against this tour and they said, “No Maori, no tour.” But, they lost. The lure of getting the rugby crown was so great that they were prepared to dump the ‘real’ Kiwis, the indigenous Maoris and they all knew that they as the white people were not only immugrants but they had stolen the land from them and carried out a genocidal campaign against the Maoris. But, by the skin of their teeth the Maori race survived though at one stage there were only 50,000 of them, from a pre-European time population of about 250,000.
I joined with about 20 protesters and they were white though a few claimed to have some Maori blood. As the plane that were carrying the team taxied on Whenupai airport we ran towards the runaway to lie flat on the runaway so as to stop the plane or be run over by it. Perhaps, the pilot saw us running and he revved the plane to taxi at an incredible speed and sped all the way to South Africa.
The press people got us in their lenses and a few hours later the Auckland Star, the evening paper had our photo on its headline section.
While there were people who protested but there were only a few – university types, intellectuals, Maori sentimentalsists and the odd persons- like me.
Then the police tried to arrest us and two were fined 20 pounds and it was a lot of money then. I got scot free and I think it was my young and innocent face. A cop stopped me and said it cannot be me as I looked OK.
What was quite clear even though it was 50 years ago was that the debate was open and there was no sign that it could lead to any kind of violence. The nearest to any kind of violence was that group of uni types that tried to carry out a chicken challenge to the plane with its load of rugby players and officials who were hell bent on getting the much coveted rugby crown to the shores of NZ.
How about NZ?
Open liberal discussion is an ideal that can exists only when everyone is willing to accept criticism and is not to prone to violence. From history, this is highly unlikely. Just search any recent history of violence and see how it got started.
That first pic in this artilce.. wonder what will happen if Singaporeans hold placards like that?
Haha, well, we’ve already seen and know :)
I think the Singapore government is neither interested in involvement nor identity.
The writer, Howard Lee, does not have a single clue about the local situation, culture, and history of Singapore. He has no idea of how Singapore gets this far and he is thinking that political stability and racial harmony is a given in any society.
This country which is called “Singapore” is a compact society made up of citizens of various races and people of various nationalities and where its success and prosperity rest on political stability, meritocracy and racial harmony. All these do not come as natural gifts from Heaven or God. They are the results of careful policies and hard measures formulated by competent, determined, honest and fair government.
We are talking about a government who knows too well the consequences of racial riots where people of one race beaten up another race, innocent people got murdered when walking in the street on broad day-light, investors were frightened away, public services were brought to a halt and parents were constantly worried about safety of their kids! Yes, all these did happen in Singapore not too long ago! And this Howard Lee is asking the Government to bring back all those dark days, let Singaporeans’ blood flood the streets and allow the fire on your HDB flats to bright up the sky!!
Either he is mad or naive!
[i]They are the results of careful policies and hard measures formulated by competent, determined, honest and fair government.[/i]
are you gettin drunk from an overdosed of teh tarek? which part of the words HONEST and FAIR government comes into the picture when the foreign talen workers can go to the casinos for free teh tareks and sleep on the carpets with free airconditionin without payin $1 single dollar in the casinos while we the singapooriums must pay either $100 or pay a fined for sleepin in the sembawan open air park?
if you called it a careFOOL policies..you are indeed a damn INCOMPETENT ninkamput…
Thanks for that well-written opinion piece, Howard. My opinions on it will not count for much, since I agree whole-heartedly with it, albeit from the perspective of an “alien” living in the US.
As for the thoughts of My Views Feb 22, 2010 3:00, human cooperation/empathy (as with human conflict) is a part of the natural gift from mother nature. Your argument is based on the fear, drilled into you by the PAP, that human conflict is the overwhelming force in human behavior. Observe and understand the balanced approaches taken by most other societies, and perhaps you might change your mind. For now, I am inclined to consider you the naive individual, not Howard.
//My Views
What makes you think you have the right views about the local conditions?
Did you report on the homelessness in Singapore?
Dear Howard,
Thank you for the well written piece, which made me reflect quite abit about how race relations can be handled. Your counter-example of Australia’s open discourse leading to a rejection of Hanson’s racist ideology tells us there can be happy endings to open discourse.
But assuming open discourse does not lead to ‘happy endings’, what should we choose? Do we value the process of ‘open discourse’ more or do we value the outcome of ‘stability and harmony’ more?
Assuming that we all value the outcome more (unless you don’t care if we have race riots or not), I think the divergence of opinion is merely based on assumption and risk assessment. Having restricted discourse and open discourse can lead to the ‘happy ending’ but probably open discourse is more risky. For open discourse to work, you have to assume the racist voices will be drowned out by the moderates and the sensible.
What if racist people make the majority of the population and discourse swings that way, should we allow the tyranny of majority?
-RW
Racial and religious discussion must only take place in a carefully moderated and supervised academic environment where political stakeholders are not present but any potential spillover effects that threaten our social fabric contained and controlled. In an institution perhaps?
Of course, assuming that the participants are level-headed enough to refrain from hurling direct insults at each other. They should be.
“The Singapore culture is already being developed, in the hearts and minds of the citizens, and is constantly evolving”.
It will never be allowed to reach maturity as long as the PAP are in power and living under the shadow of LKY.
We need to vote in substantially more oppostion MPs.
A refreshing piece, Howard. Thank you for being the voice of sanity and guarded optimism here.
>RW
But assuming open discourse does not lead to ‘happy endings’, what should we choose? Do we value the process of ‘open discourse’ more or do we value the outcome of ’stability and harmony’ more?
The thing about racial harmony and social cohesion is that we can never make assumptions that are “inevitably” true: we can just as fairly assume that open discourse will lead to ‘happy endings’. If we already assume that open discourse would lead to ‘bad’ endings, and we take this as a factor in considering whether to value discourse (the means) or ‘stability and harmony’ (the ends), we are already presupposing that people right now judge the status quo (which is imposed in the absence of actual dialogue) as more valuable than the process that we take to reach that outcome. The value of dialogue is arguably more important than the outcome itself, I believe.
Only when we can truly discuss this in the open with each other, learning to take on the role of arbitrator rather than rely on arbiters, can we mature as a society. The government’s favourite paternalistic excuse that we are not “mature enough” to handle these issues is unacceptable because it keeps us in this so-called prescribed “immaturity” and offers no reason why we cannot be allowed to progress. We have not been given an opportunity to define our identity, our thoughts and sentiments about this identity of ours. How then can the seeds of maturity and reasoned debate grow?
Furthermore, the history of this place vouches for the fact that people from disparate ethnic backgrounds have been co-existing for quite a while. It is not as if Australia or any of the European communities had been “mature” enough when they had to accept that they could no longer portray the illusion of a homogeneous population. We, in Singapore, do not have to shed this myth of homogeneity – which I consider to be a major obstacle towards maturation in terms of social discourse about multiethnic harmony. So what excuse does the government have when we have accepted, at least partially, this reality of heterogeneity in our everyday lives?
@zft
i agree not all open discourses lead to ‘bad endings’. As you rightly point out, there are many cases of peaceful co-existence and maturity. But i’m sure you will admit not all open discourses lead to ‘happy endings’ as well.
As i mentioned before, it assumes that there is a majority of reasonable people who will drown out the voices of the racists and the intolerent. Is that always true? Again, What if racist people make the majority of the population and discourse swings that way, should we allow the tyranny of majority? Should we allow racists attacks and derogatory remarks in the name of open discourse?
If we place process over outcome, we should accept whatever open discourse leads us to- be it a more mature society or a more oppressive society. The French president called for national dialogue on french identity and started a maelstorm of anti-immigrant rhetoric. The Swiss voted to ban minarets on mosques. What open dialogue led to in these cases is the tyranny of the majority and a smaller space for minorities.
Now, my main point is not to mimic the govt’s position that it will always lead to a bad ending. Instead, my main point (in relation to this article) is I disagree with the liberal, idealistic assumption that dialogue and open discourse will always lead to a good ending. Process and outcomes are two separate things. Just like democracy can give you good & bad govt, so can open discourse lead to harmony and disharmony.
@jw
What if racist people make the majority of the population and discourse swings that way, should we allow the tyranny of majority? Should we allow racists attacks and derogatory remarks in the name of open discourse?
I’d say that not all outcomes are equally worth preserving, and that some, even if achieved and supported by a democratic majority, would surely be deserving of moral condemnation and shame by outsiders. If the outcome is as blatantly racist as the White Australia policy in the 1970s, I am of the opinion that the policy should be condemned. But the more important and trickier question is: what do we do about it then? How do we persuade the government and the public to repeal it without violating democracy in itself? I have no ready answer to this. Perhaps we simply have to let these nations bear the consequences of their choices, and hope that outsiders will bring about enough moral pressure to get them to repeal it themselves, without material coercion. Of course, that is an ideal far, far away from what we have now.
Tyranny of the majority is not defensible in the context of openly racist policies, I agree. In the French and Swiss cases, I agree with you that those who accept the process as more important than the outcome have to bear the consequences of that choice, good or bad. I have no illusions regarding the assumption that open discourse will always lead to good endings, but in relation to the Singaporean context, no discourse is harmful to us in dimensions other than the “good ending” of “stability and harmony”. Stability at what cost? An infantilised, “tolerant” society who has been told to tolerate, but whose only justification is that the government told us to do it?
Sure there is racism not only in US, but also here. I experienced it in Uni in the US. But that cannot be all of the story. Only fifty percent. As most people are pretty level headed. When I went to Shanghai to work. I noticed all my Chinese co-workers seem to think the Americans and Europeans look down on them, so they started becoming really defensive and aggressive. Isnt that a form of racism?
Look at how the PRC chinese reacted to the dalai lama’s visit. Isn’t that a form of racism as well?
http://dotseng.wordpress.com/2010/02/20/why-the-chinese-are-scared-shit-of-the-dalai-lama/
Or maybe there is something cheemer at work. You decide for yourself.
i would trade in my sg passport for any europe passport anytime. sg is so small and resourceless. sg is in between two big countries infested with terrorists. think out of the box.
Without practice, anything is meaningless. So it is with democracy and active citizenry etc etc,
@RW
If your “bad endings” means the racial majority had its ways after all public discourse, than what’s next?
I say, if that’s what happen, let history takes its course. Let Australia go back to become the South Africa of the 60′s and 70s. Go back 30-50 years. And they will get it right the next time!
If you had not gone thru this process, you are just sweeping your dirt under the carpet.
Good afternoon all,
Most interesting piece. Refreshing in it POV and genuine that I find myself nodding to this excellent article.
However, I do suspect the media plays a major role here in determining our levels of perception concerning racial divide.
It’s very hard to say whether the tail wags the dog or whether its the other way round i.e if the media did not blow it up will we even be worked up by it - if one takes the trouble to look at the curious case of Pauline Hanson could she possibly have gain such notoriety without the assistance of the hype and spin the media offered her in terms of air time, bandwidth etc -the same holds true for stereotypical depictions that he often harbor about black people, muslims and even some one who may not share the same cultural back ground and values as us.
The cure for this to try to understand there may be other ways of seeing the world, as the saying goes, ”if everyone reads the same books, then don’t be surprise, if they end up thinking the same way” - this I admit based on personal experience may even be easier said than done – seeing other worlds within worlds requires patience, intelligence and a certain level of curiosity.
To me the question is can we even afford not to see the otherside?
The cost of not seeing beyonds one’s world may IMHO be a very high one, we may even just end up being so parochial, narrow minded and blinkered that we don’t even realize that there is a whole wide world out there beyond the traditional black and white distinction.
A good illustration of how things can go so wrong is when values, beliefs and philosophies are not aligned is IMHO very well documented in this article that the brotherhood press has written.
http://dotseng.wordpress.com/2010/02/20/why-the-chinese-are-scared-shit-of-the-dalai-lama/
Do have a very productive week ahead
SD (The Internet Liaison officer of the Brotherhood – sponsored by the Interspacing Mercantile Guild)
Hello Curious,
The purpose of studying history is to learn from its mistakes and hopefully not make the same ones. I certainly disagree with you, that we should allow “history to take its course,” for that will be disastrous. Like what RW said, the question would be, how to regulate the process such that a “happy outcome” would ensue. However, i do recognize that such manipulation would deem it rather contrary to the proposed process itself, but i argue that it would be a good start. Scholars of democracy recognize that an essential component of a liberal democracy is an educated middle class. My argument here is that govt policies are stifling such a development. The concentration on maths and the sciences are reducing the talent out there for the social sciences, which is important insofar as the development of a liberal democracy is to be successful. Only with proper education would the “voice of the moderates and conservatives” be louder than bigots and xenophobs.
Open discourse has its obvious draws, but without an educated public, wouldnt it be like the blind leading the blind?
” After all public discourse”, I would assume , means open debates had been done by all parties– the voices of all—the liberals, moderates, conservatives, scholars, and men in streets are heard. By itself, it is an educational process.
And if the eventual winners are the bigots and the xenophobs, it just showed the state of that society.
By “regulating” the outcome, aren’t you planting a time bomb
‘stuck in my mind was this one fact: the girl was Caucasian.’
Could be from anywhere, originally. Eastern European origin? Just wondering only.
Howard, maybe the Caucasian girl was hitting on you..
some of the problems with taking up or debating about social/public issues:
1) remember the Catherine Lim saga? She was told that she has to be a politician to talk about things. In Singapore, you can’t think or express opinions; you have to be “quallified”, you have to be “eligible”. Free speech in Singapore is allowed, please apply for permission, that is. That’s how the Speaker’s Corner operate too, btw.
2) Which brings me to this point, that to be a president, you also have to “qualify” for nomination. With those criteria, Barrack Obama can’t be the president of Singapore, btw.
3) Very strict and blanket libel laws that puts the burden of proof on the defendant, instead of on the prosecutor. We are prolly a rare case of more developed economies with archaic libel/slander laws, and of course, the prosecutor stands a very high chance of winning. I won’t even talk about who gets the post of being a judge or Chief of Justice. I vaguely remember that a Queen’s Counsel was rejected to represent the defendant….that’s quite duh.
4) People are deemed stupid, lazy and inferior to the ruling elites. We are not drilled to believe that we are unable to make sound and good decisions, hence we need to pay exorbitant amounts of money to ensure that life goes on for us. That’s the exact justification that the Fortune 500 CEO uses. Do you think Goldman Sachs will bankrupt if they paid their CEO less? Or BoA for that matter? The truth is, no. But you are made to believe that without them, everything will collapse and burn in hell. The truth is, they are threatening you and making you pay a ransom, for something that they dun even have as collateral.
US is already being held at ransom by Corporate America, but Singapore is being held at ransom by their own politicans, who are also Corporate Singapore too, btw. In US, at least Corporate has to waste money to lobby and bribe the politicians; Singapore on the other hand, has an express way to achieve the same outcome.
5) People are too afraid to talk about politics, or have no time for that matter. With the costs of living so high, with hours at work topping the world, nobody has the time nor energy to talk about politics and stuff. Let’s just pay the bills and get some sleep ok? Don’t talk about things that we have no way to get involved. How many Singaporeans who are still alive now got to vote? If so, how many times in their lifetimes, and when?
Thank you all for your comments. Wish I can respond adequately, but maybe to touch on some that have touched me (funny bone or otherwise)…
anon, I do assure you that the girl was not hitting on me – I sported a good-haircut-and-shave-is-in-order look back then (yup, AU$26 for a visit to the barber was just too much).
Sze Keen, I do not think Australia, NZ or any country has a perfect handle on racist within their own shores, only that I doubt we had enough opportunity to express ourselves to know what we stand for, beyond a constructed image, to even be able to say “we are multi-racial” without blushing.
My View, Chee Wai, if you’d let me choose, I’d say I’m both mad and naive. But if that be the case, then we all are, for we are already participating in precisely what I am advocating – set up a public sphere, don’t dictate who is already wrong or right, and let the debate flow. But consider beyond what I have written, for we shd be doing this for every issue that matters to us, rather than let sides be defined for us in advanced.
Might seem like I am prescribing a descent into chaos. But I challenge that the notion of no-holds-bared debate seems daunting and frightening to some Singaporeans, only because we have not let it become a part of our lives to discuss things openly. Some argue it is not our “Asian culture” to do so. I say we have never given ourselves the opportunity to try to make things meaningful for our selves.
Bo Chap, pls don’t be. There is a lot that we can call our own in this country, as long as we are willing to take it into our own hand to do something. Never believed in the apathetic mumbo jumbo we have been preached, have seen a lot of passionate people to know this for sure.
Singaporedaddy, I have other (perhaps more nasty) things to say about the media. But in this case, I’d rather appreciate the wave they have created, good and bad, for both sides of the issue. Yes, Hanson’s views were hyped, but I believe it was also the good sense of a debating public that brought it back down to earth, for it is in the minds of people that public opinion matters, not in what the media says.
Btw, do hope you have the time to read a more moderate piece by Eugene Tan in last Weekend’s Today. I am agreeable with this specific quote: “Allowing for mature, robust and critical discussion and debate is often the best way to deal with lies and myths. More principled and well-informed speech is needed, not less speech.”
Generally, singaporeans are Not Involved.
After 50 years, they are the same basically.
This is a Unique situation.
What a pity.. You should’d shaved at the least.
@ curious
i agree in that case, it is a ticking timebomb.
but where we differ is how to handle a bomb. Rather than just let it explode and harm people, i think the better way is to contain the situation and diffuse the bomb- i.e. through education etc. it is easy to be dismissive, but if you and your family are one of the minorities that suffer the brunt of it, i am sure things will be different.
@zft
true,there are upsides to discourse- maturing of society and all.
i guess we agree that there can be upsides and downsides to open discourse and it’s silly to go to either extremes- open and close discourse. it’s all about balancing, so i guess it’s about finding the right point.
currently, restriction on racial discourse is limited to inflammatory comments. no one is stopping anyone from initiating inter-racial dialogue, inter-cultural exchanges etc.
Is it being overcautious that Singaporeans are prevented from insulting each other and being racial intolerent? Will Singaporean’s maturity be stunted if they are not allowed to insult each other?
“that a unique Singaporean culture will eventually develop over time.”
Suppressing UK,Japan,America,Korea,Taiwan,Australia, switzerland,finland,new zealand, or any other country’s citizens into minority and import many foreigners will eventually develop a unique culture over time,too.
There is a reason why these countries didnt do so.
In singapore current situation( about half or more of the population is made up of foreigners), if such a culture ever were to develop, it will probably be third world standard sort coming from philippine or parkistan which I find it more of a disgrace than be proud of it.
Do I misunderstand but Hanson = white Australian protesting against Asian immigration. Whereas in Singapore, no MP has taken up the mantle, instead we have many ordinary Singaporeans of all races Chinese, Indian, Malay grumbling at influx of so-called FT (some not really from so far away, and some not really talented).
Singapore is majority ethnic CHINESE Singaporean. Probably the majority of the FT they (and also other Singaporeans of minority races) all grumble about are mostly Mainland CHINESE from PRC (but there are some FT of also other races).
So the white Hanson vs Asian and racist Hanson vs non-racist Australians analogy may not quite apply to the situation here, you know.
Here it seems to be CHINESE Singaporeans v Mainland CHINESE PRC nationals. Or multi-ethnic Singaporeans vs multi-ethnic FT.
Depends how you want to look at it, I guess.
Australia has lessons we can learn. e.g. points system for immigrants. Why can’t we have a more transparent system? More points for family reunion, more points for grads and more points for jobs that we want immigrants to fill. It sounds reasonable. Instead, the benchmarks for immigrants seem to be focused on salary levels and some educational qualification. We need a more sophisticated system like the Australian points system.
As for ‘Singaporean culture’, try talking about it and inevitably someone talks about chicken rice or chilli crab and saying ‘lah’. So this is not high culture by any means. If we want high culture, we have to have higher income levels for middle class. To do that, we likely have to have fewer FT and so allow salaries to rise to levels enjoyed by north Asian countries like HK, S. Korea and Japan. If we keep allowing immigrants in, companies benefit from lower costs in paying lower salaries, but employees suffer the lower salaries and have little time for high culture. Only talk about chicken rice, chilli crab and say ‘lah’ and grumble about FT.
This is a good article. Are we a society mature enough for so many immigrants to assimilate and inculcate the Singaporean pride and mindset or is it going to be the other way of influence? Amongst several unfortunate experiences with ‘foreign talents’ I was screamed by a PRC lady once at the MRT station because she jumped queue while I was still being served by the officer and I had to remind her that I am still being served yet being responded by screaming and hurling of abusive Mandarin. Do I scream back or just ignore? I did the latter because I know I am a Singaporean of higher standard of conduct. How many of us and for how long we could accept uncouth behaviour? Can’t beat them so join them? I know I will never yield to the pressure but I know am very unhappy with what has become and what is to come.