NE Topic 1 - Lecture notes 1 PDF

Preview

Summary

NE Topic 1 - Lecture notes 1...

Description

Imagining the next 50 years (Intro) -

-

Enable you to have critical conversations that matter to Singaporeans and those with vested interests in the future of Singapore. Discuss the challenges faced by a young nation with a multi-racial population where social identities based on ethnicity and language are still evolving. Explore Singapore’s bilateral relationships and our efforts at carving out a significant role for ourselves in the region and in the world. Examine the demographics of a growing city and the societal implications of pattern changes in our population. Suggest ways to address and manage issues such as low birth rates, an aging population and a transnational populace. Focusing on Singapore’s economic development its short and long-term growth opportunities and the changing profile of the labour force. Be able to appraise Singapore’s approach to monetary policies, income inequality, the impact of government transfers, and fiscal priorities for an aging population. Examine the traditional and non-traditional security threats that Singapore faces and how we are managing evolving regional and global dynamics. Looking at society community and integration through the lands of science and technology we will further appraise how liveable Singapore is from the perspective of urban planning and the transport system An ideological note by revisiting cultural memory and collective aspirations. Questions such as: How are the principles of meritocracy and multiculturalism shaping our national narrative? What are the implications of some of our economic social and education policies on the Singapore of the future? Think deeply about the issues that's an evolving economy and a nation at 50 has to grapple with and spur you on to contribute ideas to shaping the future of Singapore.

Topic 1: Nation Building and Social Identities Introduction 

 -

-

-

-

A country's national identity is not always easy to define or characterize. Professor Kishore Mahbubani, dean of the Lee Kuan Yew school of public policy in NUS has said: “I know that I’m a Singaporean, but I do not know what a Singaporean is!” Professor Mahbubani classifies nation with a clear identity into three groups First group includes nations like China Japan and France. Citizens of these countries have an identity that is based on a common language, history, culture, ethnic homogeneity, or attachment to political ideals. Second group comprises nations like United States. In these countries new citizens lose their immigrant identities and become part of the melting pot of mosaic. They absorb values like freedom and democracy that these nations are founded on. Third group where national identity is a blend of the old and new. India and Indonesia form part of this group. They have all cultures but their sense of nationhood emerges only after the independence from their colonial masters. Singapore is a new nation and an accidental one too, as it was never meant to be an independent country. Today just over half a century as a sovereign state, Singapore has two

-

major values namely meritocracy and multiculturalism these values have shaped its evolution and progress. Questions, following issues: How has meritocracy contributed to the Singapore you know? Are there any costs associated with the practice of meritocracy? Will meritocracy bind or divide Singapore citizens as Singapore’s economic growth slows Is Singapore’s much admired racial and social harmony in natural evolution arising from rapid economic transformation or is it due to laws and regulations? Besides their national identity Singapore citizens have other identities based on the ethnic group religion and culture. How should these identities be managed alongside the need to maintain and strengthen Singapore’s still evolving national identity?

Part 1a. On Concept of National Identity -

-

-

-

-

I think before we address the issue of the strength of national identity of Singaporeans or in Singapore, we have we have to ask ourselves the meaning of national identity. Now in the most global sense of the word, we of course have national identity in so far, we are Singaporeans because when you belong to any group you actually have a psychological or social identity of a group membership. So I’m male actually I have sense that I’m male, I have a sense that I’m a professor, a sense that I’m Chinese, I’m Singaporean. So we all have social identities. National identity is actually just one type of social identity that happens to come under the concept of citizenship. National identity tends to be used only in a positive sense? Do i feel proud to be a Singaporean, to identify myself as one. Measuring identity in terms of strength. What causes the strength of a national identity those are actually theoretical and conceptual and particular questions that we can study. What causes the identity? How it then leads to certain consequences like being rooted to the country, so that in times of crisis you may still not leave the country. Using national identity to try to explain it or you may want to try to explain national identity E.g., it's multi-dimensional there are different concepts come under it and we get a sense of familiarity. For example (Common Values), we eat the same food, we think alike, or we believe in certain values like meritocracy, or we speak alike, Singlish a little bit of dialects. There's no consensus depending on how you then choose to define which dimension of national identity, we can come to different conclusions as to whether we have a strong or weak identity it is evolving. An important concept of national identity is that we only use it in a positive sense? National identity can be used in a negative sense. Identity of any group of any type can be both positive and negative. Now you may think this is radical and say how can national identity be negative and it sounds politically incorrect, but it can be. One simple example is that if we feel very Singaporean because we have a common enemy in foreigners. Let's say we just all don't like foreigners because we think the place is crowded, we don't like the way they behave, they have different values from me and because and only because we have a common enemy, we then group and bond together, we then hang around we gossip about it, we complain about it, and then we feel close about it.

-

-

An in-growth that is caused by having a shared-out group that you don't like is a form of identity. An in-group identity by nationality. Therefore, it is quite possible to have a national identity or religious group identity or racial identity that can become negative. Growing a kind of national identity that is positive healthy good for society and good for the individuals is important.

To be Singaporean of course that's the simple legal sense you need to be a citizen, then there is permanent residence which one can say intermediary. You're trying on the way for some of them to be single for instance there's non uh non-non-resident foreigners who are here to work but when we ask the question what it means to be a singaporean we are obviously interested not in the legalistic sense but in the social psychological sense that how do we define you as a singaporean and the notion then has to go back to national identity of being a singaporean and the key word is sharedness i think there must be agreement then there's something that we share so if we share certain fundamental values or we share certain fundamental beliefs or certain likings certain habits then that gives you the identity and then that gives you the singaporeans so to be singaporean the question we then ask that is there a consensus that we all agree that we believe that we share do we have that well we are not quite sure depending on who you are most of us however would agree that oh we have a clean and non-corrupt government we believe in meritocracy we believe in the importance of social harmony specifically in racial and religious harmony and we believe in some kind of understanding that at times your individual needs or your sectarian needs may have to give way to larger collective or national nationalistic needs and if we believe in all those things which i think many of us do as shown by many anonymous surveys we then have a kind of sharedness and that perhaps together define singaporeans and those are the abstract sense of sharpness the more sufficientness is a little bit easier it's like when you hear somebody speaking singlish when you're overseas ah you know that person is a singaporean or you argue that oh we are cancer we like to though we are queuing up for uh we want to be first in the queue uh we believe in division or something like that these are surface features they are not important but they are not the ones that may be fundamental they also are the ones that they could change maybe quite fast one generation after another whereas the question to ask of ourselves is whether the values will change and how long the values will last because values are the important things that drive our additives and our behavior which are much much more important than the surface features after you speak english do you like this food or that food do you queue up for hdb and things like that

well i think one of the constant things since the 60s and then it evolved into 70s and 80s is the recognition of social harmony specifically race and religious harmony not only just tolerating each other but the idea that you need to respect each other recognize that different groupings of religion and races are different and you must aim towards a situation where you give a common space for people to come together i think that has evolved to something that we all agree one quick example is that there were cases on social media where people may make comments negative comments about a particular race group and so on and what happened you see everybody coming in to score the individual and those people who speak on social media actually anonymous meaning that you're not trying to be politically correct socially desirable what that means is that we have internalized this belief and value that you need to respect different religious beliefs and racial race group cultures even though you may not even agree with them i think that has evolved in a positive sense and that

probably is something very very very valuable that we have that's not the first time you actually hear a very frank speech by a minister uh our founding prime minister mr lee kwame also makes certain comments now those are difficult issues and i think it does take courage for a political leader to say something about particular race groups i think the question is what is it that is more factual than others i think the point is not just about a particular group and in this example the muslim or the malay group it can happen to a christian group it can happen to a chinese group an indian group it can happen to a lgbt group so it can happen to any groupings but i think as secular political leaders they saw it as a responsibility and even as academics ourselves it might be our responsibility to come up and say hey it is important whichever group you belong to if it is propelling a situation whereby your in-group is the most important thing that matters and common spaces uh not to be uh taken seriously if it violates my in-group beliefs uh what that happens and what that will happen is that it will cause inter groups to stray further and further from each other that's not your worst case scenario the worst case scenario is as you cross your intergroups the different groups stray away from each other you become to see the other as a really outgroup that you dislike and anything that you have a disagreement when you are together you then react negatively i think that is the fundamental point

i think our racial harmony definitely is not natural it's not natural in the sense that it just did not happen by itself gradually or in other words if there were no laws if there were no policy intervention if there were no strong leadership if there was not a populace that actually get convinced and agree that this is the way to go it will not have happened because it is just not quite human to forget about different intergroup differences and improved similarities so it is quite obvious that it led to its own without a particular laws the strong leadership the opportunities that arise and the population that is wise enough to listen and agree and move together it would not have happened naturally precisely because many people recognize that we don't know what will happen next that's why there's so much concern and so much reaction each time race and religious issues are being brought up on one hand some may say that this is paranoid because each time you say your ob markers are about markers you can't talk about it and not talking about something may not be the best approach but on the other hand because of is being volatile and being sensitive uh maybe that is why there is such a over not uber but a strong emphasis on it i think the important thing is it is obviously important uh once the social harmony is broken it is very hard to repair it so to speak now we don't want that to happen we want to prevent that we want to have harmony the question then is do we need to adapt the way we do it the question is not is it important should we are not important depression is obviously important but the way that we have been doing it that has worked for the last 50 years will they continue to work moving forward and that's where the leadership that's where the people have to come together and say that well maybe some of these things we're going to talk about it but approach it differently and carefully and i would argue that the way to do it is to emphasize on common value so we go back to the issue of national identity so if two racial groups may disagree strongly on the value issue are there any singaporean core values that both groups agree and that they set the parameters and contacts for the discussion for the debate i think having their national identity has a very practical purpose and that is to deal with integral issues in this example intergroup differences

it depends what we mean by meritocracy obviously meritocracy when the word first started actually just means based on marriage where marriage can be defined differently by different people but

what meritocracy is clearly saying is that it should not be based on inheritance whoever my father is therefore and i get good or bad things it must be based on some kind of tested abilities or competencies or some kind of a demonstrated performance and so on just think about the example of standardized examinations preventing a job being selected from the job you know instead of who you are whether you are good looking or not what should be where today uh we let you sit through standardized exams and when you score your scoring objectively or in the workplace i promote you or not instead of looking at your hair color or whether you look pretty or not well we look at your performance so those are the meanings of meritocracy that we are very familiar with and the way to call it is performance-based or competence-based meritocracy the problem now or rather about the part of the issue now is as we evolve we then recognize that actually there is no equal opportunity to perform somebody may be born to a rich family which might be okay but because of all the social resources that the fiscal resources that he or she has due to his family background he ended up with many opportunities to perform and drink very well such as having fusion access and so somebody who may actually have that same potential but born to a poor family will not have these resources and therefore not perform well now what do we do that well what we do is we try to level the playing ground give resources to help the person and so on the question then is what concept do you use to apply to this strategy which most of us would agree it's a good one it doesn't look like performance based among uh meritocracy obviously right because it's not based on performance in fact you're giving one more than the other so what the government did or rather what the policy makers did is slowly they came up with a word such as compassionate meritocracy and all this i personally think that that may not be a good word because we are not trying to be compassionate and help you what we are trying to say is that it has not been very fair in the sense that you were not given the opportunity to perform so i want to ensure you have the opportunity i would argue that the fundamental concept is fast if we can say that not only the outcome must be fair the process must be fair and the process leading to it must involve an opportunity to perform once we accept these notions of fairness then meritocracy is just a principle of which you try to make fairness into practice and to do that you need to have performance you need to have opportunity to perform so then get expanded at the end of the day is still based on marriage but marriage is much more sophisticated now in the whole process and not just the outcome...