What is the Singaporean core?

There has been much debate on this "Singaporean core" which is a vital part of the government's white paper on population - allow me to reflect on the issue of what this could mean, or if it is possible even to define it.  Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in his Lunar New Year Message, said the best way to strengthen the Singaporean core is to encourage more Singa­poreans to marry, and have more children. Okay, by that token, does being born in Singapore automatically make one part of this Singaporean core? Let's analyse this concept.

This has been termed by some as the "nativist" argument: this camp believes that to be Singaporean, one has to be born and bred here. Do I agree with this argument? The simple answer is no, I don't. I remember my time in NS (national service) where different male Singaporeans of different ethnicities, cultural backgrounds, education backgrounds and religions were thrown together and made to serve together - now, everyone knows that Singapore is a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, multi-cultural country, but is there a strong enough shared national identity to bring all these people together in the period of their national service?

Hell no - that's my answer. Cliques began to form pretty quickly along either ethnic lines or class lines. For example, even amongst the Singaporean-Chinese soldiers, the A level cohort would tend to stick together and speak to each other in English whilst there were those who preferred to speak in Mandarin and those who spoke Hokkien by choice in order to alienate those who were non-Hokkien speaking. It's not to say that there was any hostility amongst these different cliques, you simply treated others outside your clique with a certain kind of professional politeness that was reserved for colleagues rather than friends.

The acid test is really whether the act of serving in the army together can break these traditional socio-economic lines of division in the long run - and the answer is no, the men simply go back to socializing with people who share far more similar socio-economic backgrounds once they are back in the civilian world, rather than reach across the social divide. Is this any surprise? Hardly, this is exactly the same thing that happens in seemingly homogeneous countries like Japan and South Korea - it is a trait of human society. Except of course, in a country like Japan, everyone shares the same language and culture (though they may experience it very differently) whilst in Singapore, the society is made up of very different, diverse groups of people living together.

Can you ever forge a coherent nationality identity amongst these groups? The answer is yes - with some difficulty. You can look at various countries which follow this pattern: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Canada, Argentina, Brazil and Chile. I could name more, but these are countries which have been settled mostly by immigrants (with a small local indigenous population). Let's pick Australia since it is the closest country to Singapore - now Australia has been settled by European migrants since the late 18th century. This is comparable to the time period when modern Singapore was founded by Sir Stamford Raffles in 1819. Most European settlers who migrated to Australia knew that they were not going back to Europe - they were willing to make Australia their new home and there was a genuine desire to become Australian. Compare that to the time when Singapore was a colony of Britain - the white British colonials knew that they would probably return to Britain one day and many of the Asian immigrants saw Singapore as a place to work but most thought they would return one day to China or India to retire at the end of their working lives (or after they've made enough money for retirement).

Take my father for example - he was born in Malaysia in 1938 and moved to Singapore in 1951 back then it wasn't seen as an international cross-border migration per se as Singapore was still a part of British-Malaya. He was simply being sent to school in another part of the same country. It was only when Singapore separated from Malaysia in 1965 that he found himself in a different country and had to choose between retaining his Malaysian nationality or naturalizing as a Singaporean citizen - he chose the latter as he had already met my mother then (a woman born and bred in Singapore) and was about to marry her. So for him, that border between Singapore and Malaysia was an artificial construct that took him by surprise at the age of 27 and he had to get used to having a new nationality.

Compare this to our friends in Australia - many of them have parents, grandparents and great-grandparents who have grown up being completely Australian. They have had a lot more time to develop and nurture this concept of a national identity and thus it is far more easy to define what it means to be Australian. Let's further this comparison between Australia and Singapore.

Language(s)

Australia: English is the de facto national language - there are about 70 indigenous Aboriginal languages but this is spoken by about 0.22% of the population only. Australian English though, is instantly recognizable because of its very distinctive accent.

Singapore: English is the de facto national language of education and commerce - though officially, Chinese, Malay and Tamil also have official status. There is also Singlish, a local patois which is widely spoken but has no official status - this is however, very similar to Manglish - the Singlish equivalent from Malaysia.

National heroes

Australia: Ned Kelly, Daniel Daniehy, Henry Lawson, Banjo Paterson, Jack Lang, Russell Crowe, Nicole Kidman, Geoffrey Rush, Kylie Minogue, Hugh Jackman, Guy Pearce, Matthew Mitcham, Shane Warne, Cathy Freeman, Olivia Newton-John, Rolf Harris, Julia Gillard and Victor Chang - I could go on!

Singapore: Check out my list here.

National songs

Australia: Check out this list here.

Singapore: Check out my commentary on that issue here.

What the world remembers the country for

Australia: Kangaroos, Koalas, Ayers Rock, Sydney Harbour Bridge, Qantas, that uncanny Aussie accent, a friendly laid-back relaxed attitude.

Singapore: A super clean country, no chewing gum, caning Michael Fay, a city skyline full of skyscrapers, Singapore Airlines, that uncanny Singaporean accent, a Kiasu attitude

So as you can see, it is somewhat unfair to try to expect Singapore to have the kind of national identity that Australia has, given that Australia has had a head start in the process - but when you consider that this was a gradual process for Australia from the late 18th century to evolve from a colony to a sovereign nation, it is hardly fair to expect Singapore to zip through that process is less than 50 years. Some things you just can't rush - such as the evolution of a national culture. Now the concept of Australia as a distinct entity has been around for over 200 years whilst people like my dad had to struggle within his lifetime to get used to the fact that Singapore was no longer a part of Malaysia. Perhaps given another 50 years, the concept of a national identity for Singapore would be far clearer by then - but in the meantime, it is frustrating to see how Singaporeans have been using the concept of 'othering' to try to define themselves - I have described how it is a very dangerous slippery slope to find yourself on here.

Are Singaporeans having an identity crisis?

But returning to that brilliant article on the Malaysian Insider, allow me to quote the alternative view offered:

"The second position, perhaps best dubbed the constructivist camp, is of the belief that while Singapore awaits TFR boosting measures to take effect, Permanent Residents (PRs) and naturalised citizens may be used to augment the Singapore core. Several holders of this position have employed S. Rajaratnam’s oft-cited belief that being a Singaporean is “not a matter of ancestry” but based on “conviction and choice”, in order to highlight how inconsequential one’s birthplace is in defining identity."

This does make more sense to me at least, given how practically all Singaporeans can trace their ancestry back to somewhere like China, India, Malaysia, Indonesia or any other country but Singapore. Indeed, having been working in different parts of Europe and the Middle East over the years, I have found that one's cultural identity has far more to do with one's personal decisions rather than where one is born. Indeed, things like culture and language are often not automatically passed down from generation to generation - it takes a conscious effort by parents to want to pass it on. 

Limpeh at a rehearsal in Belgium.

I am a hyperglot, a linguist who speaks over 10 languages and gets by in over 20 - yet I do not speak a single word of my dad's mother tongue Hakka. Why? He didn't want me to speak it - he never taught me Hakka, he never spoke a word of Hakka to me when I was a child, so I grew up with no knowledge whatsoever of the language. Ironically, I am totally fluent in Hokkien which I do regard as my mother tongue - why? It was the language I used with my mother and maternal grandmother as a child growing up - it was a language that I was taught as a very young child. Whilst I don't really need it any more, particularly since I have lived in the West since 1997, I want it to remain a part of my life and identity because it reminds me of where I came from. I suppose as a linguist, I could learn Hakka - there's nothing to stop me doing so, yet I choose to study other languages like Welsh, Korean and Russian instead. I have allowed Korean culture to play a much greater part in shaping my cultural identity and have chosen to effectively ignore my Hakka heritage. So sue me - it's my choice. 

In the last 15 years, I have lived and worked in various countries and have always made a genuine effort to assimilate and fit in no matter where I went - it was indeed a "conviction and choice" for me to do so each time even if it meant learning a brand new language (which was the most interesting part for me, since I am a linguist). I have met groups of immigrants who have successfully assimilate into their new countries - and those who were the complete opposite. But in any case, for those new migrants who do want to assimilate and become more Singaporean - do we even have a template as to what they should become? 

Unfortunately, there isn't and what many Singaporeans default to is this really nasty, simplistic, stupid and downright idiotic anti-foreigner rhetoric. This pisses me off big time because it is so fucking stupid. There is this expectation that foreign workers and new migrants should be 'grateful' to the local population for 'letting them in' - says who? As a foreign talent who has worked in several countries, I knew I was going to a new country to do a job, to earn money for the simple reason that they couldn't get anyone local to do it - that's why they had to get an expatriate like myself in to do the job. This was especially the case when I had a stint in Singapore back in 2011 - my company decided it was far more suitable to transfer me from London to Singapore than to try to get a local to fill the post in Singapore. What the hell was there for me to be 'grateful' for? My work contract was between me and my employer - no one else. There was no 'social contract' between myself and the wider Singaporean host population. I didn't need their permission or approval - hell no, it was a private arrangement between myself and my employer, so who the hell are you to tell me that I should've been grateful to be allowed to work in Singapore when you have absolutely no say in the issue? 

I get so freaking irritated when I see some Singaporean Facebook groups post some picture or video of a foreigner saying something negative about Singapore, inviting others to leave a caption - this usually attracts a barrage of xenophobic racist anti-foreigner comments and I'm like, no no no no no! Stop being xenophobic! If all you freaking idiots had directed your anger and resentment at the PAP at the last election and voted them out of office, you wouldn't be in this ridiculous situation in the first place! Direct your anger at the PAP who caused the problems in the first place, not the foreigners! I get so bloody exasperated with Singaporeans who refuse to blame the PAP for this mess Singapore is in! What is wrong with you people?! 

If you are not happy with the amount of foreign workers flooding into Singapore - then the answer is clear: it's the PAP who have opened the floodgates, vote them out of power if you want to shut those floodgates. You can't expect to keep the PAP in power and expect the floodgates to somehow close? Imagine you're in a lift, there are two buttons "doors open" and "doors close". If you want the doors to close, then can you figure out which button to press? It seems that Singaporeans are incredibly confused over what is an extremely simple matter! They keep pressing "doors open" but expect the doors to close. Duh. Like, are you guys really that freaking stupid? Come on, you know I hate the PAP more than most Singaporeans - that's why I left Singapore in the first place. It's not hard to figure this out. 

Do you understand which button to press?

Given time, a clearer concept of what it means to be Singaporean will evolve and emerge - but this is a process that will take a few more decades, the question is, what do you want it to be? Do you want Singapore to be the kind soulless business city dominated by expatriates like Dubai? What kind of future do you want your children and future generations of Singaporeans to have? Do you see a future for Singapore with the PAP in charge or a real democracy with multi-party politics? Is a Singaporean defined by political empathy and a mindless desire to follow the rules without ever asking any questions? Or is the Singaporean soul a bit more intelligent than that? You tell me, don't be shy now - kindly leave a comment below, thanks and happy Valentine's day to you.

Update: http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/my-reaction-to-hong-lim-park-protest.html