Once a year (on the second Sunday after the National Day celebration on 9th August), the Prime Minister of Singapore formally addresses the nation highlighting the key challenges that Singapore faces and the direction the nation should take under the leadership of the government to address these challenges. Key programs and impetus to drive specific agendas for coming years are announced. This address, known as the National Day Rally, can almost be compared to the State of the Union Address delivered by the President of the United States.
This year, at the disposal of the Prime Minister is an array of topics that he could have talked at length about. Topics such as the persistent European debt crisis and what it means to Singapore, the rising cost of living in Singapore (a key issue during the 2011 General Election) or other external threats on a macro level. Sure, the Prime Minister did touch on the need to reinvent Singapore (something Singaporeans have been reminded of during past rallies), the falling birth rate and strategies for the education sector with focus on the early childhood and tertiary level. However, Mr Lee Hsien Loong allocated substantial portion of his speech on Singaporeans increasing ranting at one another and against foreigners. The main thrust of his message was for Singaporeans to be a more inclusive, caring and accommodating society. As he spoke about this, his urging for the nation to be more tolerant and patient became increasingly intense as his speech progressed and at one point his exasperation with some of the social misconducts was obvious when he made the following remarks:
“We need to be people who are proud of ourselves, who have a heart, who can feel for other fellow human beings, who will be courteous, respectful and behave with others as we would like others to behave to us. It is not my job to give a lecture or a sermon, this is a speech. But I have to point this out, this is my duty”.
Singaporeans were being chided for bad behaviour on this important once a year speech. Sure, early on in his speech Mr Lee did gave heart warming examples of many folks who have done well on the economic fronts and how numerous lives have improved in just a single generation. A number of such individuals who were present at the rally were singled out and applauded for their efforts and achievements. However, he also raised his concerns of neighbours mistreating one another over trivial matters such as competing for parking spaces and noise level.
How have we as a nation arrive at a stage where the Prime Minister has to rebuke his people for self-centred behaviour at such a national platform?
Prime Minister Lee also spend substantial time commenting on Singaporeans’ xenophobic behaviour towards foreign nationals living or working in Singapore, with those from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) bearing the brunt of the abusive comments. He reserved his harshest reprimand to those who made abusive comments targeting these foreigners nationals online anonymously. He highlighted that such conducts have attracted negative reports in many foreign media. As Mr Lee flashed out examples of such negative publicities in US newspapers, it almost seemed like a parent scolding a child for the low grades printed his a report card.
Why choose to wash these dirty linen on such a public platform. Must the Prime Minister of a nation be involved in such matters as opposed to leaving them to be dealt with by his deputies? After all, it was the national day celebration. Or has the Prime Minister finally ran out of other concrete matters to speak about on his ninth rally?
These xenophobic behaviour have done substantial damage to Singapore’s international reputation as an open society. One can only can imagine the awkwardness when our nation’s leaders visit their international counterparts. So increasingly vocal have the online citizens become that Mr Lee had to use this one occasion where he knows an entire nation is listening to express his disapproval of these behaviour. It was absolutely necessary to arrest these escalating tensions. It was also necessary for the international community to know that they are still welcomed.
Mr Lee went on to cautioned Singaporeans not to become “one-eyed dragons” and focus only on the bad behaviour of a few foreign nationals whilst ignoring the positive examples of the majority. He quoted the example of a foreign nurse who was the only one who responded to assist a sick elderly lady on a bus. This incident was reported in The Straits Times. Mr Lee expressed disappointment that no commendations was forthcoming from the same online citizens who were quick to criticise profusely whenever they hear of a foreigner’s misconduct.
On balance, Mr Lee reminded that whilst Singaporeans need to be more inclusive of new citizens who are not born here, these new citizens should also make the effort to integrate.
The topic of immigration was a major issue at the last General Election. Last year, foreigners made up about 36 percent of Singapore’s population of 5.1 million. Many citizens have expressed concerns about the impact of the government’s open immigration policies on the social infrastructure (as can be observed by the overcrowded busses and trains) and dilution of national identity.
Whilst the government has since responded with a reassurance that it adopts a “Singaporeans First” policy when it comes to jobs, education and other social benefits, we need to bear in mind that foreigners form the backbone of many of our sectors such as the critical healthcare services and construction. So reliant are we on foreigners for performing the jobs they do that majority of Singaporeans understand it is impossible not to depend on the supply of these foreign manpower. Any drastic swing away from the open immigration policies may also mean that some of our Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) may be “pushed” (the very word an entrepreneur friend of mine used recently) to relocate part of their operations to regional countries such as Vietnam and Myanmar. New industries that the government is attempting to build, such as the creative industries (eg interactive digital media), simply cannot jumpstart without the contributions of foreign talents because such talents they bring with them are sorely lacking within Singapore. Since the organization (in the creative industry) I currently work for started four years ago, we have had no less than twelve different nationalities pass through our employment. These foreigners do not compete with Singaporeans for jobs simply because few Singaporeans qualify for these jobs anyway. And then of course there are the jobs that Singaporeans shun.
There are no easy fix to some of the problems that Mr Lee quoted as examples. For instance, in private estates where a family may own more than one car, problems arise when a neighbour decide to organize a party and guests start to arrive in their own cars. This is a result of affluence in an island with limited space. This is not a unique modern problem though. Thousands of years back in an Old Testament story, Abraham was migrating to a new home with his nephew Lot and both of their families have grown so affluent that members of these two clans started to get into each other ways and squabbling started to take place. To resolve the mounting conflicts, Abraham suggested that since the land before them was vast, they should spread out in opposite direction. Alas, we do not have the luxury of vast space in tiny Singapore. Here’s where creative give and take has to take place between neighbours to work out these conflicts.
On the topic of noise. A few nights ago, my family needed an early rest as we needed to wake up early the next morning for a family trip. There was a celebrative gathering happening at the void deck complete with loud music, cheering, emceeing; the works. These went on till close to eleven. Seriously, I was contemplating to call the neighbourhood police to intervene since curfew for such activities is ten o’clock. Then realising that such celebration is probably a once-a-year occurrence, I decided to be chill about it. I asked my son the next morning if he could sleep and he said to me that since he could not “beat the noise”, he decided to “join in” the celebration by observing the activities from the window in his room. I hope that members of the public keep to the curfew in consideration of those who do need early rest. And not just at void decks but from within the confine of their apartments too.
When he was Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong rallied Singapore to be a “kinder, gentler’ society”. We need a repeat of this call today. I suppose in our quest to excel and be number one in most of what we do as a nation (nothing wrong with that) this has somehow permeate down the population a “winner takes all” and “kiasu” mentality. It is time for us to aim to be number one in becoming a kinder, gentler, win-win society by looking not only to our own interests, but also to the interests of others. But until this becomes ingrained into our social DNA, perhaps in the short term we need to seriously consider Law Minister K. Shanmugam’s idea of some form of legal framework to deal with dispute between neighbours which he termed social nuisance. I prefer campaigns like “Good Neighbours Day”.
Gab & Friends 
Nicole
September 7, 2012
well-said