The Culture of Denial
“A Singapore culture is unlikely to emerge - not even in the next few hundred years, predicted Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew yesterday.” Straits Times, 6th September 2006
To gain a better understanding of what our MM has predicted for the country in the “next few hundred years”, we must first have a firm grasp of the meaning of a Singapore culture. What we are evoking is the idea that there can be an expression of traits, characteristics, behavioural patterns and arts that is special to Singapore. While doing the “Uniquely Singapore” campaign and the Singapore Tourism Board a huge disservice, the MM has also signalled to the nation that he does not view having a Singaporean culture as important.
This is highly confusing, especially after years of national education telling us how we must be proud of how the nation has come back from the dead and progressed miraculously from Third World to First. I can almost hear the strains of “We’ve come so far together/our common destiny…” ringing in my head. Doesn’t forging a strong bond with the nation and feeling close to our roots (however shallow) as Singaporeans go hand in hand with developing a unique cultural identity for ourselves? Whatever happened to “We are Singapore… Singaporeans…”?
Of course, by now we well know that “our common destiny” is fast becoming making more money and “We are Singapore” because we run our country like a business. Anything that doesn’t serve an economic goal gets ruthlessly cut away. Our MM himself reiterated that “societies like ours have no fat to spare. They are either lean and healthy or they die.” Having grown up when Singapore had already achieved its affluence, I am inclined to believe this. The oft-repeated argument that Singapore is small and vulnerable and has no margin for error also comes to mind. But there is intrinsic value in forging a culture that we can identify with. It appeals to an almost primal instinct for a need to feel that we belong somewhere. To deny that we have something to call our own is to deny us from feeling attached to the nation.
This divorce of nationalism and cultural identity puts us as citizens in an awkward position. Sure, we can take the whole loyalty to country thing and try to prescribe to it, but there must first be something about our country that we be loyal to. The idea of a country does not stand by itself. The pillars that prop it up are its history, traditions, in some cases religion and ethnicity, but most importantly, culture. These ideas are dependent on one another; remove either one of them and the whole sand castle comes crashing down.
Is it then so hard to understand why Singapore is afraid of brain-drain? It isn’t a matter of there being too many push factors in our country and pull factors in another. Sometimes, there’s just nothing here that keeps us from wandering away from our home. Having been taught that a better life is what we should strive for, can Singaporeans be blamed for being a “quitter” if they see that Australia provides them with that better life? Thinking that there is no Singaporean culture to identify with leads to our country being no different from another, and it is no wonder then that some of us do not feel that it is emotionally difficult to leave this so-called home. National pride is just not enough without cultural identity.
In his argument, the MM has forgotten, or chosen not speak about, something very fundamental: Language is the root of all culture. Lest we too forget, we already have a language unique to Singapore – Singlish. While steadfastly trying to weed out the use of this colloquial way of communication, the government has also curbed the development of what could become a Singaporean culture. Of course, I speak of culture as if it is well-defined. We all know that not to be true, especially in Singapore’s case. But, cultural identity being a vague idea shouldn’t prevent us from developing and thinking about it, much less deny its existence.
To gain a better understanding of what our MM has predicted for the country in the “next few hundred years”, we must first have a firm grasp of the meaning of a Singapore culture. What we are evoking is the idea that there can be an expression of traits, characteristics, behavioural patterns and arts that is special to Singapore. While doing the “Uniquely Singapore” campaign and the Singapore Tourism Board a huge disservice, the MM has also signalled to the nation that he does not view having a Singaporean culture as important.
This is highly confusing, especially after years of national education telling us how we must be proud of how the nation has come back from the dead and progressed miraculously from Third World to First. I can almost hear the strains of “We’ve come so far together/our common destiny…” ringing in my head. Doesn’t forging a strong bond with the nation and feeling close to our roots (however shallow) as Singaporeans go hand in hand with developing a unique cultural identity for ourselves? Whatever happened to “We are Singapore… Singaporeans…”?
Of course, by now we well know that “our common destiny” is fast becoming making more money and “We are Singapore” because we run our country like a business. Anything that doesn’t serve an economic goal gets ruthlessly cut away. Our MM himself reiterated that “societies like ours have no fat to spare. They are either lean and healthy or they die.” Having grown up when Singapore had already achieved its affluence, I am inclined to believe this. The oft-repeated argument that Singapore is small and vulnerable and has no margin for error also comes to mind. But there is intrinsic value in forging a culture that we can identify with. It appeals to an almost primal instinct for a need to feel that we belong somewhere. To deny that we have something to call our own is to deny us from feeling attached to the nation.
This divorce of nationalism and cultural identity puts us as citizens in an awkward position. Sure, we can take the whole loyalty to country thing and try to prescribe to it, but there must first be something about our country that we be loyal to. The idea of a country does not stand by itself. The pillars that prop it up are its history, traditions, in some cases religion and ethnicity, but most importantly, culture. These ideas are dependent on one another; remove either one of them and the whole sand castle comes crashing down.
Is it then so hard to understand why Singapore is afraid of brain-drain? It isn’t a matter of there being too many push factors in our country and pull factors in another. Sometimes, there’s just nothing here that keeps us from wandering away from our home. Having been taught that a better life is what we should strive for, can Singaporeans be blamed for being a “quitter” if they see that Australia provides them with that better life? Thinking that there is no Singaporean culture to identify with leads to our country being no different from another, and it is no wonder then that some of us do not feel that it is emotionally difficult to leave this so-called home. National pride is just not enough without cultural identity.
In his argument, the MM has forgotten, or chosen not speak about, something very fundamental: Language is the root of all culture. Lest we too forget, we already have a language unique to Singapore – Singlish. While steadfastly trying to weed out the use of this colloquial way of communication, the government has also curbed the development of what could become a Singaporean culture. Of course, I speak of culture as if it is well-defined. We all know that not to be true, especially in Singapore’s case. But, cultural identity being a vague idea shouldn’t prevent us from developing and thinking about it, much less deny its existence.
posted by Eagle Eye at 8:18 PM
<< Home