Smarter...
And less cohesive
New Singapore generation makes consensus harder to achieve. By Seah Chiang Nee.
Apr 3, 2005

AFTER 40 years of independence, educated Singaporeans are becoming less cohesive and more argumentative, a trend they can't even agree is good or bad.

Broadly speaking, the country still retains its multi-racial harmony. Race and religious differences remain but they appear to have significantly declined in recent years.

It is not a disunited country between rich and poor since the vast majority of people are middle-class.

Neither has there been any ideological split between left and right or a divide based on class or educational levels. Singaporeans are largely pragmatic.

But beneath these broad fundamentals loom profound changes among the educated, Internet-savvy youths.

Unlike their less educated and less opinionated parents, they are developing into a more diversified, plural lot with their own individual views.

With the education system gearing to mould a society with questioning minds and critical thinking, this trend is set to spread in future.

A major contribution is the Internet and an increasing number of students in the West.
As a result, society is becoming more argumentative and beginning to follow the footsteps of America where every topic can throw up several opposing viewpoints.

Generally, Americans have little consensus whether on euthanasia or abortion, on Iraq or gun-control laws. There is, however, no denying it's a land of fresh ideas and innovation.

Singapore is far from there. But the pluralism is making Lee Hsien Loong's job of governing Singapore tougher than when his father, Lee Kuan Yew, was Prime Minister, where people were more trusting and cohesive.

Rising education, a worldly-wise citizenry and a fast-connected lifestyle are speeding up the process. It is changing the country, but is it good or bad?

To the liberals, it is just what the New Economy needs.

To make Singapore as vibrant as America, it has to encourage pluralism and establish a mindset to challenge every conventional wisdom.

When people speak out and even disagree, it brings out fresh ideas and alternate viewpoints that benefit the country and helps people to take the right options in life.

Others, however, disagree, maintaining that diversity often leads to disunity and weakens a country's resolve, especially if it is as small and young as Singapore.

Too many disagreements and constant bickering would create a querulous nation.

"Imagine a family whose members sit over dinner and argue over everything, from choosing a curtain to planning a holiday. Give me a cohesive country any time," said a retired teacher.

When the government relaxed the Mandarin Language entry criterion for university, there was a sigh of relief among many students and their hard-pressed parents.

These were mainly from English-speaking homes, which found the language hard to master although they did very well in Mathematics, Science and other subjects.

A small number had even migrated because their kids could not cope with the mother tongue. So I told myself: This must be one of the most popular decisions coming from the Education Ministry.

How wrong I was!

It wasn't long before some counter-reaction emerged from the Chinese traditionalists, who were already unhappy about the declining importance of the "majority language".

Although their numbers have declined over the years, the community still exerts a strong political influence that no leader in a one-man-one-vote society could ignore.

There were other debates all going on at the same time, some heatedly in a dozen or so Internet chat-rooms whose influence to mould Singaporean public opinion is increasing.

In one corner, men and women exchange verbal blows over who makes a lousier spouse or causes marriage to fail.

To the men, the women are arrogant, materialistic and unable even to do household work like cooking. The women hit back with "Singapore men are longkang (gutter) fish, boring and dull".

These exchanges are, of course, done in the name of fun. A more serious dissension is the men's resentment of falling behind women in careers because of the two-year national service. And "the unfairness" of the Women's Charter.

Elsewhere, people are arguing about gay parties and rising cases of HIV/ AIDS. A sustained passionate debate, which is ongoing, is whether Singapore should build a casino (the public is equally split).

One that will probably go on and on is the conservative-liberal argument whether we're moving too fast on censorship, or we're not doing enough.

Singapore is undergoing a transformation, but it has not reached the American stage of diversity where disagreement is a virtue and every subject churns out two or three opposing viewpoints.

Ten days ago, Lee Hsien Loong raised an issue that had long been a subject of voter unhappiness - elitism.

Lee defined "elite" as an inclusive group with members from all walks of life, regardless of social and family background, and from a wide spectrum - be it business, sports or government.

He named them as "a core group of people who occupy key positions of power and influence, and set the direction for the whole society and country".

However, he warned against the elite entrenching themselves and becoming exclusive.

He also said the political leaders should dress down and eat at hawker centres. "We must maintain this informal tone in order to keep this an egalitarian society," he said.
Even this has raised disagreements.

One writer says Singapore should get rid of this word. "Why must there be an elite class to lead the non-elite?

"I would prefer we based leadership on symbiosis or synergy. Why must the leader be elite if leadership cannot be accomplished without the synergy of society in unison?"

Another writer adds, "It's like communism, calling upon the elite to make contributions or telling oil and water to mix and blend in together."

Then this: "It's all about who's taking the burden and who's not. By the way, the elites include non-Singapore-born 'citizens' and residents."

Some dissenters use the Net to campaign against government policies. One collected signatures of people who oppose the casino project. Two students campaigned against any increase in public transport charges.

This extent of public dissension is something that was unimaginable during Lee Kuan Yew's leadership. And the pace of change quickens.

(This is an updated version of an article that was published in The Sunday Star)