|
Author Tay Kheng
Soon |
2000 This is a critical time to discuss civil society as
Singapore prepares to transition from an old mindset to a new one. It is time
to review all assumptions about politics, society, culture, education,
family, modernisation, modernity and the individual. Three key areas will be
impacted. Existing values and perceptions, existing rules and procedures and
existing entrenched networks of power and influence. Because of these
impacts, there will be gaps between declarations and actualities especially
given the existing methodologies and networks of interests. But one cannot
avoid treading on sacred grounds if one has to do deep review for without
depth, little will be achieved except some façade treatment. The comfort
offered by incrementalism results in the frog getting boiled in the end. But
is deep review possible because it requires the greatest of courage and
sagacity on the part of two strategic groups, the Cabinet and members of
civil society. They have much to gain and to lose. There is a third group
with nothing to lose. They are the retired activists, now in their 60’s.
These can bring fresh perspectives from a forgotten past. Tweaking the
present system without any strategic impact on the values that underpin it is
useless. WHAT IS CIVIL SOCIETY? To me, Civil Society consists of individuals. They are
autonomous persons who form that segment of society who believe passionately
in human dignity and are prepared to take personal responsibility to ensure
that it is advanced generally and in such fields as are of particular interest
to them. In the contemporary period, such individuals embody modernity. They
are therefore skeptical, critical, autonomous, secularistic, humanistic and
meritocratic. In speaking out, they are often regarded as gadflies. Though
they are individuals, as a group they are called “civil society”. Civil
society is thus, the social embodiment of modernity. A gathering of
individuals rather than a hierarchically structured group. As modern
individuals, they are driven by their modernity. Their skepticism and individualism
does not permit blind faith. Their humanism is based on a heightened sense of
altruism, that is, service to others beyond themselves. Their altruism
results in accumulation of a special kind of social capital. It is a social
capital that cements diversity rather than compromises differences.
Civil-society-values are thus vital to the making of the modern democratic,
meritocratic state. The accumulation of modern social-capital is the glue
that together with values fostered, paradoxically, by financial-capitalism.
Since conditions of trade and commerce require contractual parity,
reciprocity and performance, social capital facilitates rational transaction.
In this, therefore there is a natural but tensile relationship between
civility and finance capital. Paradoxically many civil society actors would
dismiss this relationship. WHAT
IS THE CONSTITUENCY OF CIVIL SOCIETY? Since civil society is a builder of social capital, its
role is not separate from the mass although its thinking is. Although there
also a class-gap between civil society members and their constituents. There
is however a link, given that they come from the same ancestral root. Being
from migrant stock from depressed and corrupt areas, they therefore have the
same heart-felt sense of human decency and expectation of fairplay. SENSITIVITY
TO HISTORICAL CONTEXT Singapore’s forefathers came to Singapore and Southeast
Asia to escape deprivation, arbitrary power and endemic inhumanity in their
ancestral homes there have a strong streak of self-reliance and obligation
towards mutual help. Thus the more illustrious of the early pioneers created
civic and welfare projects and institutions in Singapore and Malaya to fill
the gaps under benign British neglect. After 1945, under British Labour Party decolonisation
policy, the latent idealism of Malayans of which Singapore was always a part,
burst out in many forms of social activism; trade unions, political parties
and intellectual groups. There were many leadership-styles and political/cultural
ideas formed then. Many fell by the wayside. The ones that endured till now
were those who survived British scrutiny, accommodated socialistic
ideological prerogatives and allayed communal anxieties. The ‘Merdeka’ leaders were drawn initially from the
English-educated professional classes and from the cohorts fomenting ideas in
Raffles College, King Edward VII Medical College and later the University of
Malaya in Singapore of that period. The Nanyang Spirit of the 50’s centred in
Nanyang University was the counterpart. Their humanistic idealism was
unfortunately couched in leftist sentiment and a China orientation – both,
reactions against British colonialism and the anti-imperialist ideology of a
budding Chinese modernity. A fuller account of the Malayan armed struggle is
only now emerging. There is much to rediscover of the confusions, tragedies
and misinformation that surround that period yet to be unraveled. Still, the Nanyang Spirit galvanised the
Chinese-educated intelligentsia in their struggle for independence. Their
budding local affinity was reflected in the study of Malay and the evolution
of Malayan art. But this indigenous movement was tragically swept aside by
political events and truncated before it ever came to any conclusion. This is
a vast unfinished cultural and intellectual business for civil society to
unravel. Thus many Chinese activists were proscribed, exiled to china or
migrated, because of their support for left-wing extremism and Chinese
chauvinism. Those who joined the English-educated Merdeka leaders were
jointly successful in navigating a passage between the shoals of British
interest, trenchant proletarian demands and the various claims of primal
ethnic politics. Besides the modern institutions, which sustain the
present, which we take for granted, there are human values and inspiring
lives to draw inspiration from. Civil society must enrich the narrative of
their society. They have to be ferreted out from beneath the present burden
of constructed narrative the stories of real lives and personalities of the
past to illumine the present. While the official present account tells no
lies, it omits to tell the whole truth as all narratives do. The tale of the
vanquished has as important lessons to enrich the tales of the victor. And
only through this can some true measurement be obtained of the tragedy caused
by the methods, and motives of the insurgents of the past. We need to
juxtapose these against their ideals and their humanism as persons of flesh
and blood and not as names to hand ideologies on. The activists of the 50s
and 60s need to have their stories told. Civil society needs to seek acquaintance with its past.
Included are the lives of ordinary men and women who, in their quiet ways
forged the new generations, created the new ambience. Through their affinity
and affection for people and place they collectively made history. The
un-sung heroes are the teachers, nurses, social workers, journalists,
gardeners, doctors, poets and artists, indeed, all those generations from
which the independence spirit sprang forth. Unless present society sifts
through the debris of their past again and again and with finer sieves not
ones designed to filter out misfit fragments, the gems of the past will not
be recovered and the narrative of the present remains the only one. And so
the basis of today’s constructed order remains fragile. MODERNITY
AND THE MERDEKA LEADERS In hindsight, the Merdeka leaders succeeded because, their
politics was and still is, rooted in the people and the land in a modern sort
of way. Modern because, their conception was of the here and the now. It was
not about Britain or China or India. It was about Malaya, an economic,
cultural and political sentiment. This is the particularly modern conception
of that generation because it is derived from an autonomy of vision,
unreferenced to outside affinities, affiliations, prerogatives or
obligations. Reality is something in itself - palpable. The people, the
place. These are the only ingredients to make a new reality. It is a
secularist sentiment or vision. Those that saw their politics linked to
mainly to Communism, China or India or Indonesia failed because these ideas
struck no common chord. This is an important lesson. Even in a globalised
world, the reality of people and place is a critical factor in the
stabilisation of personality and founding of an economic and cultural
launching pad. Besides cultural diversity, nothing replaces the immediacy of
textures, colours and scents of a place in the making of the cosmopolitan
personality and economy. Indeed, this is why, there is still, a stubborn
nationalist streak in the ruling mindset in both Malaysia and Singapore.
Though Singapore leaders know full well the vital necessity of a globalised
economy, there is another side of them, which, besides political calculation,
chafes at Western presumption and the erosion of national pride. The first generation independence leaders thus made
current political reality through the social capital they amassed with which
to work the infrastructure of law, education and administration left by the
departing British. Their success was based on this. Other post-colonial
countries are not so lucky. Either their leaderships were insufficiently
modern to override primal politics and/or the social infrastructure left
behind by the departing colonial regime was insufficiently ingrained to be
the basis for a new unity. Thus, if discussion on the prospects of civil
society in Singapore is not to be sloppy imitation nor beholden to current,
formal and informal networks of power and influence, the present must be
critically re-examined and the past revisited in order to reconnect and
refresh understanding of current reality. British contribution, in their
departing years, to the birth of modernity in Singapore and Malaya is an
important feature of the landscape of our reality not to be brushed aside or
distorted too much. This essay is an attempt to provide a sketch of the
terrain. Based on this, some propositions as to what to do will suggest
themselves. CIVIL SOCIETY AND THE DILEMMAS OF ASIAN POLITICS Any discussion on the prospects of civil society, i.e.,
the process of accumulating social capital, must reckon with the overarching political and social
conditions of the place. The architecture of power and influence is crucial
to the discussion of what is possible and necessary. Singapore, like all
Asian new states, face two key dilemmas in the dynamics of power and the
consequential structuring of social space. The first dilemma is the immediate post liberation or post
independence period. It is how the ruling elite must change political
direction without seeming to renege on old positions by which they came
to power. Having roused the appetite for liberation and freedom among
colleagues and supporters, how now to curb these appetites and knuckle down to
economic construction with the aid of some of the former enemies and with or
without some former allies. Some old adversaries need to become new ‘partners
for progress’. Some old friends now block the way ahead. After having
successfully built a new economy, Singapore like every developed Asian nation
now faces the second dilemma. The
dilemma is how to rekindle the creative spirit after having successfully
curbed it and disciplined it in the preceding period but without risk of
losing the full grip on power. The handling of the first dilemma has been well
documented in the political literature. There is no need to discuss it here.
Prospects for the second is highly speculative. It is unknown terrain. There
are two key areas, I suggest looking into. The first area consists of the
assumptions that underpin the thought structures of everyday life. This is to
be found in history. The second is the relationship between family values and
political culture. This is psychology. Examining these two broad areas, namely
history and psychology, might be a useful way of prospecting the future and
to define a way of creating intellectual space between a fictionalised past
and the preoccupation with the pragmatic present. So long as the imagination
is locked either into the past or obsessively in the present there is no
space for critical examination and therefore there is no creativity. CURRENT
POLITICS VIS CIVIL SOCIETY VALUES The old politics is based on the old economy, an economy
of mass production and consumption. It is a working of the old political
ground based on answering ethnic and economic insecurity. There is no denying
that the old politics has answered the material and security needs of the
people. But it has, perhaps unwittingly, devalued the individual in
preference for the mass. Thus, personal creativity and sensibility is weak in
Singapore. But times are changing. A more highly differientated
reality is emerging. A more educated younger generation has come about.
Moreover, having caught up with the West, the West has moved on. The old
economic paradigm is bankrupt. There are too many players in the catch-up
game. A new economy also in the offing. Creativity is premium. Added to this,
a more educated and younger segment of the population want to and need to
participate in the shaping of their own environment in order to actualise
their lives through taking individual initiative. And this aspiration is
becoming more relevant in the knowledge-based globalised economy. Not only do
the poets among the young grow tired of contemplating their own navels; young
consumers, formally grist for the economic conveyor belts are getting bored
and restless with the dullness of the discipline. The combination of the two
situations create an altogether new political and cultural situation which is
symptomatic of larger societal forces in the making. In the meanwhile, there
is growing disenchantment, myopia and cynicism. These are products of too
much control and too little scope for meaningful participation. Thus goaded by the dull life they lead, small groups of
young people join the remnants of an older generation who survived the past
political progroms, to loosely form a new civil society. Inevitably, as the
young start to action their ideas, they will tread on the same turf as the
government. Some, knowing this prefer to rebel in other ways, precisely
because it is considered distasteful and impertinent. Thus, the ‘new’ civil society, in the
terms of the ‘old politics’, will be regarded, either as potential political
contenders or rude. This reaction is unremarkable in itself in a mature
modern society. But in Singapore, it is different. Activists from outside the
circles of entrenched power and taste face serious consequences to themselves
and their causes. While government wants civil society to emerge for a
variety of reasons related to the new economy, they are politically wary and
temperamentally sensitive. Thus, if they consider a person or a group to be a
threat, such a person or group may be subjected to a host of available
administrative, legal and procedural instruments designed previously to deal
with insurgents and other disruptive elements and not least, to maintain
civil service monopoly of power and prestige. If viewed as a potential ally,
they will co-opt and induct such activist and thus neutralise the outsider.
This is the current politics, it is also a dilemma for civil society, that
is, to be self-censor or to accept neutralisation. How idealism is played out
from now on will have serious consequences for Singapore in the longer term.
A weak civil society will do Singapore little good. A strong one will change
the nature of present politics. Either way concerns the ruling political
forces and its bureaucracy. How will it play? DISSIPATION
OF SELF-HELP CIVIC ORGANISATIONS Up till the 60s, the Chinese, Indians, Indonesians,
Malays and Eurasians still possessed their own civic and cultural
organisations. These initiatives have since dissipated especially the civic
ones, because the PAP government progressively assumed all the social
functions. Success in these fields gained for the ruling party political
legitimacy and the moral mantle of public approbation. It also denied access
to the ground by other political forces, which could arise from within such
organisations to threaten PAP’s dominance. For this very reason, the
overarching super community organisation, the People’s Association and all
its community centres was formed in the early days of PAP rule. It
successfully denied the communists ground and thus removed from the political
and trade union environment a disruptive element. The PAP government has thus by design and default
obviated the necessity and thus viability of the old civic organisations. Any
application for registration of any new civic organisation comes under close
scrutiny. The sponsors of the new organisation have to satisfy a host of
government requirements. This is a key component and consequence of
Singapore’s success up till now. In effect the social space was and still is controlled
by the government. The opening up of social space now has thus to contend
with finely tuned political reflexes poised to thwart and crush potential
interlopers. Furthermore, since the government has been extremely
active and effective in the provision of social services, any attempts by
others to comment or provide such services are regarded as not only
duplication but also insolence. This is certainly the attitude of the HDB
architects and administrators to criticism and suggestions by private
architects and other critics. In the field of community services, a more
enlightened outlook is evolving wherein the Ministry of Community Development
actively co-operates with religious and philanthropic groups and
organisations once the political credentials of the individuals concerned
have been established beyond any political doubt. TOWARDS
A NEW POLITICS? Is there a need to conceive of a new politics? Why
tinker with a system, which shows evidence of willingness and capability of
change? This is a question that has to be posed. What is unclear is however,
the extent to which the present system is capable of altering its operating
ideology. Can it change to a web-based, polycentric interlinked operating
system from its present input-output, pipeline operating system predicated on
a monopolistic technocratic elite. The issue of change now is technocratism
versus the web approach. For the individual it is the professional ego versus
prospects for the development of the dialogic self. A self that is open,
discussive and nurturing. How present politics can change into a new form of
engagement between the incumbent powerful and the emerging weak is crucial to
the times. In the meanwhile, how does one steer a path between the cliffs of
operational difference and manage the ensuing acrimony and suspicion? This is
the challenge. How to disagree agreeably. I know that the children of the
powerful do not agree with their powerful fathers’ working principles. These
run counter to their own expectations as modern individuals. They are a new
force! How government can accept change initiated from outside its own folds
of power without fear of losing clout is an issue of our times. How to spar
without seriously injuring the other side needs practice. It is not purely
different points of view. Some serious experimentation is necessary.
Dialogical success is necessary. What is called for ultimately is a sophisticated
political ballet. A new form. A choreography of many actors and colours not
just scripted as black and white pantomime. If such political choreography
will evolve it will be through a humane reflex. It is not natural, given the
leadership selection criteria. Leaders in every sector, not just government,
use bull-dozer methods, adopt top-down methods and are intolerant of
non-deterministic goals. This can be seen in every institution in
Singapore. For the new choreography to come about, there have to be
deliberate moves, especially in an environment, which has been depleted of
real civic initiative and loss of confidence among the people. If a new order
can come about, there will be a great leavening effect on Singapore society
as a whole. A new era of really active citizens and creativity in all fields
will propel Singapore to new heights in human development and economic and
cultural viability. For this to happen the utmost creativity and political
imagination, wise restraint and preparedness to take risks on the part of government
in its treatment of civil society is called for. Equally, civil society has
to act clearly, honestly and firmly but respectfully. This is the new modus.
The shaping of a new Singapore is at stake; A rocky road ahead is to be
expected though. The political and cultural arena will witness meanders and
reversals as powerful forces vacillate from one dilemma to another. Adding to
the confusion will be opportunists and poseurs of many kinds. In the end,
sincerity is the only criterion to judge worth. Sincerity can only be
measured by the quality and clarity of ideas and personal risks taken in the
interest of the ideas espoused. There are too many co-pilots and stewards on
the ship of state. THE
ASIAN VALUES RHETORIC Meanwhile, anxious to stem the possible contagion effect
of the democratic proselytizing by a triumphalist, post cold war West, Asian
states fear the linking of human rights with trade and Western interference
in internal affairs. What they really fear is that the democratic
proselytizing of the West may undo the political status quo. Singapore’s
political leaders, more versed in confronting Western Media took the lead in
countering the Western thrust into Asian affairs with a vigorous rebuttal in
the form of the “Asian Values” rhetoric. At the risk of oversimplification,
the rhetoric is premised on the assertion that inherent differences between
Asia and the West predicate differences in political culture and practice.
Thus politics in Asia, it is claimed, has to be essentially different. There
is, it seems, an “Asian way”, but is it a code word for strong centralist
government? Flipping to the other horn of the developmental dilemma,
Singapore and many Asian states continue to pattern themselves after America
in almost everything else. From university governance to media style to voice
of TV announcers etc., Singapore emulates America but avoids human rights
like the plague. The final defense of the authoritarian model is, “the caged
bird still sings”!
THE
ASIAN FAMILY AND THE REPRODUCTION OF AUTHORITARIAN POLITICS It is important for civil society to know itself. The
limitations of the Asian political milieu cannot be entirely blamed on
political elite’s willful domination. If this were so, the cost of
maintaining such a system would be prohibitive and governance will grind to a
halt. People make governments and governments make people in their image.
Consensus on governance is essential for efficient government. If a
government has a dim view of human nature, this is reflected in the society.
If such a view also coincides with the prevalent mentality of the society as
reproduced in families, then, the moral right to rule with a strong hand
chafes but in the end is acquiesced to by the population. In Asian families, affinities, affiliations and
allegiance of individuals are based primarily on familial obligations and
duties. The intrinsic merits of things, their properties and their potentials
are all coloured by this outlook. For the family, material security is at the
forefront. Everything other than survival and profit is subordinated or given
less weightage. Families are socialised from young to this priority. The
socialisation of family values should be a subject of intense interest for
students of politics. Unfortunately, it is also a difficult subject because
it is too sensitive and therefore difficult to study. But research in Hongkong on the
psychology of Chinese people have revealed strong co-relations between filial
piety and cognitive rigidity and conservativeness. Individuals socialised by
such traditional-authoritarian families have a limited view of reality. This
data suggests that families who stress filial piety have a strong influence
on the type of personalities it produces. Personalities with built-in
deference to authority are not likely to venture or tolerate unorthodox
views. They generally follow well-acclaimed ideas and are of course more
amenable to authoritarian structures of command and control. Conservativeness
and authoritarianism are reflections of each other. They suit each other. The problem becomes complex when traditional patterns of
family socialisation are in flux as in the contemporary situation in
Singapore, Hongkong and Taiwan. The two working parent household, the
reliance on maids in raising the children are now the norm. The effect is
pervasive and can easily be observed. In the many food centres where
Singapore families routinely dine out after an exhausting day, the slack
influence and lack of guidance exercised by parents on children is clearly observable.
The result of the laxity is seen in the predominant pattern of carelessness
in the table manners of parents and their children. Seemingly, the family is
oblivious of others and their surroundings. They were not like this in the
50s and 60s. Now, they live in their private little cocoons more than they
ever did. The same behaviour can be seen on travelators and escalators, in
public transport, along curbsides waiting for taxis etc, there is a similar
disregard for others. This form of disregard in public invites the necessity
for more government, more rules, not less. Clearly, if these families are the units of society then
the society is simply an agglomeration of cocooned individuals caring little
for the common good, sparing no time or effort to imagine any other
possibilities in life. Since caring has been delegated to some central
authority, there is now no need to bother at all. This is the present
situation. The government carries the entire burden of managing the present
and imagining the future. Government thus takes all the blame from citizens
now so used to cheering and jeering from the sidelines! Unless caring extends
beyond the family such a society will not be able to take initiative in
public or to imagine other possible avenues of action or imagine any other
kind of future except as anxious projections of the family itself. Thus, loyalty to the family is blind loyalty. How many
mothers and fathers tell their children to stand up for principle, for truth
and for beauty? How many families have clear ideal upon which family
solidarity is based? If families do not have clearly articulate ideals,
individual family members are not bound to the family by those values. Their
loyalty to each other is only based on ritualised affection and calculated
mutual dependence. In such a situation, boundaries and territories are
fearfully defined and defended exclusively on the basis of primal
affiliations alone. No inclusiveness is possible to be imagined. Thus
imagining synergistic relationships with neighbours and others cancelled out
and in its place is a negative imagination of all possible threats. The mind
is thus in the grip of a perpetual Darwinian struggle for survival. An
imaginative synergy of minds and sensibilities is closed off. The primacy of
competitive economics and politics based on deference and hierarchy is the
only operative paradigm. Closed cultures perpetuate closed families. They
feed off each other. Conversely, opening up social space opens up the
horizons of individuals and families. Families who have shared ideals are
modern families. Together, they make up a modern society. Despite its
material attainment, Singapore has not arrived at a modern state of mind yet.
This must be the aim of Singapore’s civil society, to accelerate the
process.
GOVERNMENT
HAS BECOME THE MIRROR IMAGE OF THE OVER ANXIOUS MOTHER? The significant characteristic of the East-Asian family
and the contemporary Singapore family as well is the intensity with which
parents drive their children to excel in school. This is the most discernable
expression of parental anxiety. Education is regarded as the means to acquire
advantage through qualification and not to gain education as such. The
acquisition of educational advantage is a projection of family anxiety. This
is the core of the ‘anxious mother syndrome’. I hesitated to use the term,
“mother”, I would rather use the term “parent”, and then I thought that I
have to be true to the situation. And so it is ‘mother’, after all, who is
the prime agent in the projection of anxiety in the East-Asian family. This may have to do with the position of the woman in
East-Asian society in general and in the family in particular despite
changing economic of the working woman. The availability of the maid has
postponed the value change. The anxious mother syndrome is especially strong
among the new middle classes. There, tremendous pressure is applied on young
Singaporeans by their mothers to do well in school and to play it safe.
Children are constantly told to take no risks. The government, the press and
public leaders all reflect the same anxiety syndrome. Indeed, a significant
yardstick of a civil servant’s performance his/her anticipation of every
eventuality. It is the final measurement of competence. Thus government
officers strive for total management and total supervision in everything.
They risk nothing. They provide safety barriers everywhere even where little
danger exists. A total atmosphere of anxiety is thus projected throughout the
land. Teachers dare not experiment for fear that parents will complain that
their children lose out against others who follow the tried and true. Every
slope or edge is fenced. Housing is standardised to avoid advantaging some
segment of the public. The entire Island is reduced to uniform sets of
administrative rules to share blame should any arise. Thus the government
makes the people and the people make the government. THE
OTHER FIVE ‘Cs” The development of an active civil society will not come
about naturally in the Singapore context. It will come about as the result of
inherent increase in levels of education and exposure but its form and its
contents will not grow out of a vacuum unless spurred by civil society
activism. It is important for all those who wish for a more vibrant society
in Singapore to take steps to increase the scope for individual growth and
not shelter behind group dynamics and mass mobilisation. Individual growth is
individual, not predicated on any group. While group work is a necessary
context for activism, it is not the necessary condition for the growth of
confident and creative individuals. Briefly, individuals grow through
opportunities which test self-ability in successfully undertaking tasks set
by oneself. Only thus is competence gained and internalised. So long as tasks
are set and evaluated by others, the valuation is one step removed from the
self. It is thus, secondary to the self and it reinforces the primacy of the
other. The kind of self-confidence that results from this is derived. It is
not intrinsic to the individual. It is thus dependent and fragile. This is
the psycho-epistemology of creativity. Since creativity is mysterious, at
least, one should define the staging sequences in the construction of the
creativity situation. This is as follows; the first stage is competence. This
leads to confidence which in turn results in courage; courage to face up to
conscience. Possessing all the preceding allows the individual to risk
creativity. Thus, no confidence, there is no creativity. A society living in
a perpetual state of anxiety cannot create. Necessity can only be the mother
of the confident individual inventor. The scared child displaces necessity by
fretting. The Ministry of Education and the National Institute of
Education conducted a longitudinal study of early childhood education in
Singapore over 10 years ago. The study revealed many valuable insights into
childhood socialisation but unfortunately focussed on the effect on school
subject learning performance. What will be necessary and important for the
new phase of Singapore is an understanding of early childhood socialisation
in relation to the 5Cs over and above school scholastic performance. For
example, it would be important to know how early is childhood competencies
gained in those fundamental life-skills such as competence in self-feeding,
self-cleaning and self dressing. In the West, and in Japan, most middle class
children are self-competent by age 3. In Singapore, my general observation is
that they are so only at age 6.
This is disappointingly delayed. If it is deemed vital for individuals
to acquire competencies as a basis in the acquisition of confidences, then
early childhood competencies are a crucial measurement. If a child is delayed
in acquiring self-competencies early, will this have an effect on personality
development especially in confidence, courage and creativity? How do children
acquire conscience? What is the role of history in the development of
conscience? How is compassion socialised? These are questions civil society
needs to address.
COMPETENCE
AND CONFIDENCE This is my key idea in the theory and practice of an
epistemology of creativity I am experimenting and theorising. I call it an
experiential situational learning strategy for societal creativity education.
Its consequences in those areas of competence which affect economic, and
political creativity are areas for speculation. Other areas of competence
such as aesthetics, emotional-expressiveness and physical-psycho-motor
co-ordination are emphasised and not subsidiary or supportive as in the current
education methodology. A more comprehensive array for confidence-gaining must
be and can be released through a broader range of challenges through the
situational learning strategy in developing competencies more broadly in the
society. When such competencies are gained through actual personal action,
overcoming the difficulties and risks involved, individuals become confident
and responsible citizens. The confidence gained this way will be very strong.
False confidence is avoided. In Asia in general and in Singapore in particular,
people are prone to false confidence. Any slight approbation leads to a gross
inflation of the ego. This is because of the restricted situation for real
personal development from early childhood onwards. The development of real
confidence among civil society activists is vital. These can be in any area
of interest. The confidence gained from an unrelated area of competence is
transferable to other areas of competence provided the lessons are truly
learnt in difficult and complex tasks. The greater the difficulty and
complexity, the wider the transferable confidence. Some important areas where
competencies can be gained are in running community centres, initiating and
building and managing co-operative housing projects, operating
community-based social services and running alternative experimental schools,
radio stations, newspapers and the arts etc. COURAGE Courage, especially, moral courage, is crucial to
progress in any field of endeavor. It makes a great difference when an
individual decides where the limits are, what is possible and what is not
impossible. Courage also makes an individual push the boundaries of the
possible. If a society is too calculating and too pragmatic, and if
individuals in powerful positions draw too safe a line then the innovation
and ambition to excel is curbed by subordinates at source. If the professions
are ruled by overly conservative individuals, the entire profession
under-performs. This is more so the case in a small city state like
Singapore. In large countries, there are alternative centres of excellence to
go to if one place is too restrictive. In Singapore there is only one place.
If one is rebuffed by the situation, there are only two paths open. Get out
or sulk. One either conforms or one is greatly frustrated. The irony is that
no one is the wiser as these things happen. All this takes place unseen. It
is the stuff of everyday life. Singapore cannot afford this. It has to take
deliberate action to foster innovation. It cannot relegate it to market
forces when its smallness itself is a major factor in the shaping of market
forces. Government has neglected national professional development especially
in those areas where it has in-house professionals. These are naturally
self-promoting since they rely directly on the good opinion of their
ministers and permanent secretaries to advance their careers. The net effect
is that these in-house professionals care little for their counterparts
outside the service. They dampen their private sector counterparts and that
in turn raises the prestige of the civil service as a whole. Political
capital is amassed. WHERE
DO IDEALS COME FROM? It will be interesting to now inquire as to where ideals
come from since we are concerned about a new viable Singapore that is
knowledge based. Knowledge and ideals are inseparable. One lives off the
other. It will not do to simply cast around for inappropriate ideas just
because they are new. There has to be a core of understanding, of perception,
of judgement of what is relevant and what is less so. Relevant ideas should
emerge out of the crucible of reality as it was/is lived and felt. Ideals are
the logical projections of ideas. I venture that there are three potential
sources. The
first is ideals which arise from the unfinished business of the past
telescoped into the present. The
second are ideals, which arise from the undertaking of sincere work. The
third are ideals, which arise from a broad identification with the travails
of the human condition: compassion. IDEALS
FROM THE PAST: MALAYAN MODERNITY, THE UNFINISHED BUSINESS The “Malayan” spirit has been banished from memory.
Along with its passing are the ideals of which it was made. It was the
Malayan spirit that created the Malayan Communist Party, Raffles College, The
National Library, The PAP, The Barisan Socialis, The Trade Unions, The
Socialist Club at the University of Malaya in Singapore, its publication, the
Fajar, Literary publications such as the Monsoon, Focus, Chinese community
Civic Cultural Groups, Nanyang University, The Chinese Mutual Aid Groups, The
Free Hospitals, The Schools, The Children’s Society, The Philanthropy, the
Gotong Royong kampong spirit, Research into Malayan topics, the Aesthetics of
people and place, etc.etc. It was this spirit that produced the appetite for
independence from the British and resulted in ‘merdeka’. Has this spirit so
totally died out on the arid fields of Singapore pragmatism that nothing
remains? I went to the Civil Service club at Dempsey Road for
curry-lunch the other day. It used to be the British Military officer’s mess
during colonial times. The ambience is a nostalgic trip to the 50’s. There
are the same old ceiling fans, rattan lounge chairs, wood panel walls, globe
lights and metal windows. The same old musty smell. I though to myself, if we
could time-travel what will we really experience? Sure, the textures of
everyday life would be different. We can notice this already when we look at
faded old photos of times gone past. But if we could enter into the minds of
the people we meet in the past, what will we encounter? We will probably find
the attitudes of the some of the British officers at the Officer’s mess now
Civil service club rather strange. For instance, a common assumption then was
that ‘Asiatics’ are inherently inferior to ‘white westerners’, and therefore
cannot rule themselves. We will find this view absurd. And then when we
encounter the ambivalent attitude of the ‘boys’, serving stengahs, afternoon
tea and fish and chips, we will find their differential treatment of locals
as opposed to the ‘whites’, repugnant. Then again, if we fast-forward twenty
years from now, what will we see of Singapore’s present attitudes? Will we
find some of them absurd and repugnant? One of the jobs of Civil Society is
reflection, asking what may appear awkward questions. Since most people are
caught up with the minutiae of everyday life only a few have the inclination
and capacity to scan forward and backward in time. This is the intellectual
class of which civil society inevitably consists. Some would point to improvements in various areas of
social life in Singapore and conclude optimistically that things have an
automatic tendency to mend. Others point to existing attitudes and reflexes
and remain pessimistic. Let different thoughts and utterances contend. The
truth is that no one really knows in what direction Singapore will go after
Lee Kuan Yew. This time benchmark has been generally accepted as the
definitive watershed because the former Prime Minister set the tone and the
intellectual framework of contemporary Singapore. His genius was to read the
psyche of Singaporeans so well that he could move them in the directions he
wanted. The success of his ideas has thus penetrated into all areas of
Singaporean attitudes and consciousness. Indeed, there is an uncanny mirror
image between Singapore’s developmental ideas and those of Singapore’s
mothers who fear the untoward and therefore avoid any risk in desiring only
the best for their children. And so, the risk-aversion is embedded in the style
and philosophy of governance. Thus, if the SM was to suddenly take his leave,
the sense of security, which underpins the hopes and dreams of so many
mothers and fathers, will suddenly come unstuck. If the transition is not to
be traumatic, the preparation for a new viable mindscape has to start now,
notwithstanding the politics of co-optation, neutralisation and repudiation
that will inevitably accompany the process. IDEALS
ARISING FROM WORK Meaningful work depends on an economy where ideas can be
coupled to appropriate means and methods. Even in punitive work, where a team
of prisoners is made to shovel sand in a circle, they can still maintain a
little of their own dignity by making the perfect circle. A truly punitive
system will prohibit even this. Are Singaporeans happy in their work? Can
they make perfection in their chosen fields of work? The design of work is a
crucial area for creative intervention by professional bodies, civic
organisations and the state. For a hard system to sustain itself, money has
to take the place of satisfaction. If it wants more from the people, it has
to engender ideals. The police state of Historic Venice, where the stiletto
is matched by the institution of the public debate on public issues,
sustained itself, indeed thrived on expansion of business opportunities and
creation of enchantment. It made work happy. Luckily, they had rulers who
were themselves, though determined, cultured entrepreneurs. So much so that
they could spot artistic talent, fund them and thus engender a lively
cultural climate of enchantment. They also knew how to create business
opportunities. Their sagacity was to know where and when to leave off. Their
culture bears examination when compared with the Asian tendency to over
zealous protectiveness. And so, a lively civic culture arose in Venice, even
philosophical discourse! The Singapore State as totalistic presence has to
learn to back off in certain areas at appropriate times. The drive to preside
over every facet of life and to preempt every conceivable eventuality is a
culturally based anxiety that needs to be reviewed in the light of
present-day culture. The over protectiveness of the insecure Asian mother
(parent), translated into philosophy of governance may well be obsolete. For example, the protection of bureaucratic priority may
at times go beyond the bounds of decency. In many government services
procurement procedures, there are often clauses in the specifications and
conditions of contract, which are so protective of the department and
officers in charge that a lopsided situation is created. Hopefully, the
disrespect is unintended, but may actually imply a disregard for intellectual
and professional rights of those from whom services are invited. A recent
such provision is: “By submitting their bids to this tender, each and every
participant thereby agrees that, their submissions shall become the property of the
procuring body and shall not be returnable; he/she irrevocably and unconditionally waive all rights in and to the
documents, works, designs and other materials submitted pursuant to this
tender (collectively referred to as “the said materials”) capable of being
the subject matter of intellectual property rights, which each participant
may at any time be entitled by virtue of or pursuant to the relevant
provisions of the Copyright Act, Cap 63 and any legislation now existing or
in future enacted in any part of the world (collectively referred to as “the
IPR”). To the extent that any of the IPR in the said materials may remain or
become vested in any participant notwithstanding the foregoing provisions,
such participant agrees to assign to the procuring body, IPR and to
execute all necessary documents to effect such assignment to, and vest the
IPR in, the procuring body forthwith on demand and at the sole expense of the
procuring body. Surely, this is overkill. How can Singapore attract
talent, obtain the best of ideas from them, if such attitudes exist within
the very legal and contractual relationship between the government and
creative individuals? No wonder, some of the best international architects
invited to design Singapore’s prestige buildings have achieved for Singapore
no international acclaim, referring to their work in Singapore as “bread and
butter”, projects. IDEALS
ARISING FROM COMPASSION Friends who have received medical care in Australia are
able to compare the care received there and that received in Singapore.
Despite Singapore’s high standard of medical facilities, the milk of human
kindness is not the same as that in Australia. Why is this so? The reason is
easy to see. Australians in the health services are individuals. Many are
driven by their personal natural compassion for others. To them, it is more
than a job, it is a way of life, a choice. The self is therefore involved in
the tasks and duties. There is virtue in the intrinsics not to be found in
the job description and pay package alone. Another friend, paralyzed from the
neck down fought to stay on in Australia rather than return to Singapore
because he cannot expect to get the level of care and compassion he needs
from care-givers in Singapore. He just cannot risk the doubt. This is
something to be ashamed of. There are exceptions of course among Singaporeans
but the general case is there. People are not individuals. They are roles.
They thus do not take personal care. Were it not for an army of cleaners and
sweepers, Singapore will not be as clean and green as it is reputed to be.
Any place where it is difficult to police or inspect is left in a mess. This
is where the reality is revealed about individual values. Values are not
internalised, cannot be in a massed society and culture. Virtue is
ritualised. “Knowing the rites but not knowing the Tao, there is no virtue at
all”, to quote LaoTzu. Compassion is not only a moral position, it is a way of
perceiving and relating to others. The matter of civic behaviour is just one
aspect. Ability to empathize, that is to see and feel from another’s point of
view is essential whole areas of enterprise. In marketing, product design,
all devising forms of personal and financial services, conducting
trans-cultural communication and establishing mutually satisfactory business
transactions etc. all require empathy. Empathy comes from inside an
individual. It is not a mass value. It cannot be mobilised. ALTRUISM;
STRATEGY FOR ACCUMULATION OF SOCIAL CAPITAL There are many issues to clarify in the process of
making conscious the deeply buried indigenous democratic-autonomous spirit,
without which civil society will not grow. Altruism is one of them. But
altruism is the pivot of civil society. Without altruism, service to others
is a calculation. Altruism is a value, which transcends self-imposed
boundaries. It opens up the imagination. Unfortunately, altruism has been associated with the
West. This is because of the Samaritan story. But altruism stems from human
conscience. It is the natural product of the matured self. Conscience and maturity grow from an
independent state of mind. When individuals are dependent on the web of
obligations and duties imposed through mechanisms of coping, their conscience
and maturity as persons are constrained. The adverse circumstances faced by
Asian families as the unit of survival has distorted human values. These
values are mistaken as Asian values itself. Altruism is thus not highly
featured in family values; it is easy therefore to conclude that altruism is
not Asian! Aside from dilemmas in cultural politics, altruism is
the highest form of individual expression. When individualism is developed
with conscience, altruism will be the central pillar of a healthy society.
Individuals in such a society will ‘meddle’ in the affairs of others. It can
be troublesome for monopolistic powers. When it is set aside for whatever reason
such as material progress because it is troublesome, society pays a price.
When food, shelter and security must be provided before dignity and
conscience, the society becomes crass. The political situation in Singapore
today is primarily a cultural problem. The exclusivity of the materialist
priority, coupled to the monopolistic grip on power has produced a situation
in which all finer sentiments are sidelined. Singapore has proven something.
It is that the human spirit, which has proven that it can prevail against
adversity, is defenseless against prosperity. How to resuscitate the
altruistic spirit in the populace is not going to be easy. ALTRUISM
IS STILL NECESSARY IN A MONETISED STATE In the field of social services, the Singapore brand of
pragmatism, despite its hard practical logic, premised on profit and pay, has
still to appeal to civic values. How long more can the state run its grass
roots organisations without being compromised by the mix-motives of its
volunteers? The gap between personal profit and public service must grow in a
society premised increasingly on money. The call for civic society is a sign
that the collectivised ideology of the State has reached a dangerous point
and now requires a paradigm shift to deeper values. Change is a doubly
difficult task when the future is hostaged by the successful present. CONSERVATION
OF VALUES Civic values or civility in human affairs is the
parallel of thermodynamics in physics. If Singapore is driven primarily by
money and insecurity; it will be hard to invoke personal ideals. Such a
situation tends towards dissipation. Like energy, while never lost leaks out
into the voids of outer space in the large energy cycle. A nation, which
lacks civility, loses its talent to others who have. At some point it becomes
dysfunctional. There will have to be constant replenishment of lost local
talent. Simple calculation will reveal the potential burnout rate of local
talent as they rise up the ladder. If this is the case, calls for ‘civic’
society, pruning the Banyan tree to allow light into the gloom of the forest
floor, ‘creative destruction’ to change out-moded institutions and ideas,
active citizenship to breed idealism etc. are aimed at restoring a perceived
loss of purpose even loss of identification with the place. The recent calls for participation and active
citizenship are calls for higher human values. They stand in stark contrast
to moves for higher pay for public servants. In a system, which has relied on
the pragmatics of money and power, the retention of talent through money
incentives is the only recourse to counter foreign talent raids on Singapore’s
small talent pool. This implies that Singapore has never been able to rely on
other intrinsic rewards such as job satisfaction, commitment and love of
place. Suddenly, Singapore seems to have dropped the Maslowian rhetoric that
Singapore had attained the upper reaches in the hierarchy of needs for the
“Next Lap”. Only official support for the arts remains of this rhetoric but
this is still within a version of the old paradigm. The arts is icing on the
cake. It is not a sign of a revival of the intrinsic in society. This crisis
of values lies at the core of Singapore’s dilemma at this time. It is a
dilemma, civil society must resolve through demonstration, not through
proselytizing. CONFUCIANISM,
BUDDHISM, TAOISM AND THE INDIVIDUAL But altruism is not un-Asian. Altruism can be read into
ancient Buddhist and Taoist ideas. For transcendence to occur, there must
first be the individual. For the ego to be divested there must first be the
self. Thus the transcendental self’s’ natural desire to do good and to be in
harmony with nature is a projection of individual choice and consciousness.
But unfortunately, because the notion of the transcendental self has become
cloaked in mysticism, it has been easily misunderstood or dismissed in the
contemporary context. But still, the ‘individual’ is the seed-idea of what
constitutes, in the Chinese mind the concept of the ‘proper man’ even when
the matrix of social obligations in which he or she is enmeshed subordinates
the individual’s autonomous self. The bind is that the ‘proper man’ has to
first have a ‘self’ otherwise, if he is to be a man at all. But this problem
is resolved by a side step. The individual man is defined as the relational
man in mainstream Confucianist philosophy. Similarly, the Singapore State downplays
‘self’ and prioritises the rational-reciprocal man, the one who calculates
his relations in terms of enlightened self-interest. He is the team player
who does not rock the boat. It thus suits the government who will always
place an approved individual in charge of every team it creates. Consultative
committees can thus be guaranteed to deliver no surprises. The deep cultural
issue in all of this is the relations between intrinsics and extrinsics in
the construction of everyday reality. INTRINSICS
AND EXTRINSICS This is a philosophical conundrum in both Asia and the
West and it is treated differently.
In the West, interest in the intrinsic found its form in the study of
material reality in the philosophy of science and in contested formulations
of relations between individuals and society and democracy. Democracy is the
resolution in the realm of intrinsics in political relations. In East Asia,
the intrinsic is apprehended in the ‘Tao’ and the phenomenon of “chi”, i.e.,
vital energy. LaoTzu insisted that consciousness of Tao is true virtue not
the ‘virtue’ derived from the canons of social precept and man-made rites and
rituals which Confucius specified as prerequisites. Despite the vagaries of
linguistic categories, the basic Taoist idea is important, more so at this
time of knowledge-based economic competition. It is the proposition that the
intrinsic can only be apprehended through the independent self’s conscience
and direct experiential consciousness. There is no such thing as collective
invention or creativeness. Thus Taoism is predicated on the individual in a
way Confucianism side steps. Awareness of the Tao therefore cannot be
collectivised or codified. The notion of self and intrinsics is thus a
universal issue even though the descriptive languages used can be and are
very different. Awareness of this is especially acute in the contemporary
situation where it is easy to compare and contrast all cultures. MODERNITY
AND INTRINSICS In the Western intellectual tradition, consciousness of
intrinsics, that is, consciousness of things in themselves is manifested
within social space in the idea of the autonomy of individuals and the
contemplation of things in isolation prior to integration or refutation
within existing or unfolding theory. Specifically, this is contained in three
autonomies. The autonomy of reason, aesthetics and morality. These therefore
form foundations of the modern state. It has become its culture. This idea
did not suddenly come about. The institutionalisation in secular
political-culture was indeed the Renaissance when the separation of powers
within the Italian princely states from the 15th Century onwards
allowed space for intellectual freedom. Intellectual, moral and aesthetic
space was created in the interstices between the vying powers that be. This
situation allowed the autonomies to develop and thrive. This is the secret of
the power and of the West and the source of its mastery of science and
technology. The American Revolution and later the French revolution
consolidated the idea of autonomy of the individual in constitutional and
political arrangements. In social life, in the West, autonomy is thus
entrenched in democratic institutions, a skeptical press, university
autonomy, civil rights and in general civility within the public domain. In
knowledge, it is manifested in the scientific outlook and in the remarkable
fecundity of art. TIME
COMPRESSION AND VALUE CHANGE The unnatural situation facing Asia and Singapore in
particular is that modern values exist contemporaneously with the out-of-date
ideas. Free expression is contrasted with political centralism and
subordination of individual conscience and consciousness in preference for
the greatest good to the greatest number. Mass politics has subordinated
though not eliminated the individual. Because of this situation, there is a
telescoping of different cultures and attitudes together. Prospect for
conflict across classes is poised against opportunities for cross-class
learning and transformation. The process is not going to be smooth. In
Asia, the intellectual discourses surrounding intrinsics have been
marginalised for hundreds of years on the one hand and corrupted and co-opted
into mainstream culture in the form of superstitious practices to bolster the
status quo on the other. As a result, there is a cultural/intellectual
stasis, some call it stability. This is seen in all fields of discourse, be
it in politics, science or art. Individuals who insist on autonomous
discourse are regarded as a threat to the existing order however unjust this
might be. The free-spirited thus, do so at great risk and sacrifice to
themselves, their families and their colleagues. Thus, there is a great gap
between political culture and the growth of a vigorous political, scientific
and artistic outlook. The vacuum is filled by ritual formulations, which pass
for thought. Politics is hectoring, manipulating and mobilising for a
progress defined purely as political stability and material benefit. The fact
is that, in those instances where material success and law and order are
actually produced, the diminution of the human spirit is inevitable. Its
decline may actually be fostered by the ruling regime. Next, I suggest it might be useful to look at the effect
on the rising new consciousness because more people are getting more educated
and exposed to the world. The legitimacy of the old politics is increasingly
being scrutinized by many at many different levels of thinking even while at
other levels, people cling to the secure knowledge that a paternalistic
authority watches over them. While the phenomenon has been characterised as a
contrast between the openness of the intelligentsia and the conservativeness
of the heartlanders, maintaining political legitimacy is much more complex
than filling bellies and emptying heads once society is able to get more
information. The problem is that many will rush to judgement based on
incomplete and perhaps inaccurate information believing these to be all there
is. This is natural and will cause a logjam of opinions in the future. There
is no choice but to liberalise information and freely disseminate
information. Opinion leaders and makers must be better informed and have
stakes in the opinions they express. Civil society must gain reputation as
reliable news interpreters. Curbing civil society in performing this
important role is damaging to the health the society as a whole. All this signals a more involved and participatory
society. While much has been said about this, the critical issue is that
there must be many more opportunities created for parallel distributed
processing of information and actual tasks to be farmed out of government
orbit. If the civil service and GLCs and privatised government departments
and agencies continue to monopolise key areas of nation building, a
well-informed diversity of opinion-makers in society will not come about.
Irrelevant and worse, irresponsible opinion will proliferate unnecessarily.
Feedback will be self-confirming and self-serving. Civil society, in a broad definition of the term,
consists of a collection of diverse individual activists. They are necessary
for the new stage of Singapore’s development. Possessing the best brains in
the civil service and guarding jealously their reputation is an exclusivistic
practice, which was designed to maintain the image of infallibility of
government and therefore maintain its unquestioned right to rule. Is this now
counter-productive? If there is doubt about one section of government, the
entire system risks being altogether doubted. Surely, disaggregation of blame
is a wiser strategy? TOWARDS
AN ASIAN MODERNITY At the “We Asians, Between past and Future”, conference
in Singapore early this year, the prospect of an Asian Modernity was the
topic of discussion. In a keynote paper by Dipesh Chakrabarty, an historian
and specialist on culture, noted that an Asian Modernity can grow from an
analysis and identification of Asia’s precocious moments of autonomy in
Asia’s past. He makes the point that Modernity is not the monopoly of the
West. There have been moments of Modernity in Asia that can be reconstituted
as a contemporary consciousness of Asian Modernity. This is the challenge. Once the legendary debate between LaoTzu and Confucius
is understood as a debate about intrinsics versus extrinsics and about the
autonomous versus the formulated, the process of cultural review of Chinese
culture and values can begin with vigour. This will be followed by a review
of all Asia’s traditions. For culture and tradition to be causative in
contemporary time, culture must be unfrozen. It is because culture is
auto-stereotyped in the interest of self-defense of identity. A new
revitalised Asian consciousness and creative sensibility is thus
necessary. When Buddha’s compassion can be seen as an intensely
modern personal existential quest; and when Tagore’s transcendental poetry
and his art can be seen his ability to metabolise other cultures into his own
is understood as the workings of a autonomous sensibility and when Rizal’s
deliberate sacrifice himself self is seen as a personal existential choice
contrasted against the mutuality of his intimate relationships as
manifestations of his modern morality, and when Kartini’s efforts in
emancipative education are integrated into Asia’s everyday consciousness as
endogenous modernity, a new modern Asia will be born out of the ashes of its
past and the murkiness of the present. This is when Asians will be able to
freely digest and absorb any inside or “outside”, influence even as they
freely contribute to others coherent and consistent works. Only when Asia
claims modernity as its own, will Asian contemporary consciousness finally
resolves the Modernity versus imitation of the West formulation. It is this
formulation that has left Asian contemporary consciousness in limbo.
Resolution will trigger a vigorous new creativity from within its Asia’s
newfound confidence. Innovation will then come naturally, invention;
discovery, architecture, poetry and literature will grow alongside the
economy and politics. False categories such as East and West will disappear.
Real differences will illuminate universal consciousness through the
contrasting epistemologies and spiritual realisations of East and West.
Autonomous sensibilities and intelligiences will then need no such jingoistic
distinctions. Any distinctiveness in expression arises purely from real
emotions derived from real experience and appreciation of place and time.
Aesthetic capability becomes a natural extension of human intelligence, not
the contrived province of mystical aesthetes and charlatans. Aesthetic
capability cannot therefore be implanted; it has to grow from within. It can
certainly be stimulated but it has to be metabolised by the individual. The
conditions for its growth depend on the fostering of the culture of autonomy.
Thus, a new integrative and functionally complex imagination can come out
from the responsible, intelligent and sensitive living of everyday reality. REAWAKENING
MODERNITY AFTER THREE DECADES OF MODERNISATION Indeed, in much of Asia, despite the post WW2 adoption
of democratic constitutions in some Asian countries, the political culture
practiced in such countries are still authoritarian and centralist both
within the polity and in the ruling culture. There is limited autonomy.
Reason is still predicated on the dictates of power and piety. The
patriarchal family structure remains largely unchanged and it is mirrored in
the nature of the state. The beginnings of modernity, altruism and the
individuation of self, existed only for a brief period, just before and just
after independence under the new constitution. Today, five decades later, the
budding spirit of independence has by now been buried under the burden of
everyday life and the imperatives of power, beneath the tranquil surface the
inherent spirit of freedom and modernity slumbers. The politics of new states
fear that it may awake. When it does awake, the existing political edifice
will be shaken to the core. It usually happens when the incumbent political
order has lost its mandate and its legitimacy. This was recently witnessed. RAISING
THE LEVEL OF MODERNITY IN SINGAPORE The most important role of civil society in the Asian
context in general and in Singapore in particular is in raising the level of
modernity of society so that many other capabilities of the people can be
liberated. The civil society activist is thus primarily a moderniser. In
going about his chosen field of activity the civil society activist seeks, no
less, the renovation of his or her own society from within. The process of
modernising the society should not be confused with modernisation. In
Singapore, there has no doubt been rapid modernisation but without much
modernity. Modernisation is the acquisition of and deployment of technologies
of production, consumption and administration. It is not modernity as such. Indeed, the pace of modernisation in
Singapore was accelerated through curbing critical intellectual autonomy of
its elite and as such the raising of modernity among the masses. But there is
now a crisis of capability. When the economy and the society has to move into
the information age, the lagging behind of critical sensibilities and
creative thinking is out of sync with the new world. There is thus a
different dimension behind the call for foreign talent. The great need for
foreign talent is a tacit admission of failure in the kind of modernisation
Singapore pursued till now. This has obviously not led to the creative
society required. Local talent resources are not modern sufficiently. It is
not just in absolute numbers. How many Bill Gates and Sim Wong Hoos does it
take to make a global difference? ONE
COUNTRY MANY SYSTEMS: CHANGING THE POLITICAL CULTURE THROUGH CREATING
ADMINISTRATIVE DIVERSITY No one wants disorder, least of all a civil society. The
issue for Singapore is therefore how to wake civic conscience and initiative
without disrupting social order. To do this, the issue of freeing the human
spirit has to be faced frontally and not hidden behind convenient reasons.
There has to be deliberate change in the political and administrative
culture. The state has to divest its grip on the society. It can do this by
deliberately cutting back its all-pervasive role especially in areas such as
in culture, schools, housing and community development. It has to diversify
by allowing many different schools to arise, many different affordable,
non-commercial housing agencies both public and private to cater to many
different life-styles. It has to allow a free market of ideas through freeing
up the press. This is the political risk it has to take if it wants to allow
a new society to arise, a society in which elites do not any longer have a
monopoly of ideas and information. The challenge in the information age is
how to diversify power without chaos. The answer is through the
decentralisation of opportunities to test and develop competence. False
confidence gained from untested ideas, which abound on the net is bound to
raise higher self-estimation. This can be very dangerous and thus disruptive.
Here is the paradox wherein by doing more the government achieves less. It achieves
less because it generates resentment through exclusion of participation.
Instead, it should increasingly divest those areas to civil society where
competence can be acquired and through these experiences, to activate a new
ethos, build new culture, and engender new confidence based on new
competence. CIVILITY
AND INDIVIDUALISM Civility is a personal value. It is cannot be mobilised
enmass. In contemporary centralist states especially in Asia where power and
authority is monopolized by a few powerful and charismatic individuals, such
civility as there is, is highly ritualised, even artificial, because,
individuals are submerged into collectivities manufactured by the state and
reinforced by the family and the clan. Egos are fragile. Strong egos fear no
criticism, are open to interaction. Individualism is thus not a high societal
value. In fact, it is eschewed. As such, personalised conscience is rare
because individuals are rare. Thus, civility in the public domain lags
behind. In its place is substituted a system of sticks and carrots. The
donkey plods on. SOCIETY
ABOVE SELF When the state takes on the direct role of the
collective conscience and is demonstrably effective in delivering success in
the social field as well as in the economic field, the society is
increasingly reduced to immediate family and career concerns. This of course
suits the politics of a nanny-state. It strengthens the moral and
institutional grip on power. Collectivisation of conscience absolves
individual’s conscience. It thereby severs the vital links of individuals to
the environment. No action, no feedback. Consciousness and imagination of the
possible and the poetic is scaled down. Thus, collectivised conscience
weakens individual creativity and breeds moral amnesia among citizens. Thus,
in such a situation, society as a concrete value is elevated above the
individual. Society above self has thus been inscribed in the ‘National
Shared Values’ articulated by the state and endorsed by a committee of
religious representatives. While this concept serves the powers that be, does it
really serve society in the long run? A point of diminishing returns can be
seen approaching rapidly wherein society without self is seen to be
increasingly at risk. Only profit motivates the new entrepreneurs. Basic
science, aesthetics, imagination, experimentation fundamental research etc.
declines. Prospects of success in the new economy are limited by the lack of
freely creative individuals. Profit and pay alone cannot engender those
higher ideals, initiatives and passions for new ideas and gumption to explore
unknown frontiers. Profiteers and opportunists never created any new thing.
They feed off existing institutions and systems till they are dry and then
they move on. If this is the case, Singapore, by then, will become an
automated transit centre for goods and services to serve other people’s
purposes. It will increasingly become unfit for creative human life. STARTING
AT GROUND ZERO There are many places to start in transforming Singapore
society. It is a circle of cause and effect. I suggest that we have to start
at ground zero, that is, at the level of the individual. He has been
sacrificed. In the era of mobilisation for double-digit growth, the
individual has been sacrificed on the altar of progress and political
stability. The individual has been subordinated to the collective will of the
people in the hands of the existing political order. This of course is why,
in Singapore, it has been articulated as such. Society is above self and respect
for the individual is at a lower priority in Singapore. Every committee and
every gathering of views is predicated on a consensus led by powerful
presences in every committee with even more powerful presences hovering in
the background which constrain and influence the discussion. Since the
successful state has taken over the moral duty from individuals to promote
and protect the society, any attempts by free-minded individuals to espouse
alternative ideas must indeed be regarded an impertinence and even
effrontery. The dilemma of the successful centralist state is that
over time, it breeds a population that will not and perhaps cannot fend for
itself without constant prodding and managing by the state. In a fast
changing world brought about by the Internet, there is now anxiety as to
whether such states can continue to prosper. Conscience, creativity and
initiative combined with capital and know-how have become currency in the New
World. KINDLING
A NEW ETHOS The recovery of roots of idealism is the most crucial
project of civil-society. Without an authentic basis, civil society will lack
moral stamina and depth. The active erasure of the idealism of past
generations is a violence against the whole society. Memory of the idealism
of those who did not agree with the dominant values of today have been
eliminated. Unless Singapore comes to terms with its own idealism even as it
rejects the methods employed by past idealists, Singapore people will not be
able to connect to the lost strands of their past. They will thus be denied
any of their authentic emotional foundations for the civic spirit they seek
today. The kind of fabricated nostalgia does great damage. Another issue is public confidence. In a political culture
which bases its legitimacy on omnipresence and infallibility, good ideas from
outsiders must imply criticism of the insiders in the political order as a
whole. This would be the perception of the public and certainly of the
political leadership who are noted for their extreme sensitivity to any
criticism, direct or implied. As such, the public knows that any good ideas
from outside government circles will be ignored, repudiated and rejected. It
notes cynically that much later, such ideas will resurface as the
government’s own idea. This kind of action on the part of government
systemically erodes the people’s confidence in themselves. So long as
protection of the government and its civil service’s prestige is maintained
at the expense of the people’s confidence in themselves, the people’s total
dependence on the incumbent leadership remains unshakeable. Is this what the
government wants? SHAPING CIVIL SOCIETYDespite systemic adjustments Singapore must undertake,
it must enable a new force in society to emerge to shape the new Singapore.
The government cannot do it all. Thus, this process has to involve more than
the government and in some cases in spite of the government. The shaping of
the character of civil society is thus the crucial project for Singapore’s
future. But civil society will persist to grow because it is driven by
individual acts of self-actualisation. But government will want a tame civil
society for as long as possible and thus, there will be opportunists who will
thrive on this. Because, no government will willfully undermine the basis of
its own power and authority, in its taming of civil society will create much
confusion. The fact is that the captive bird continues to sing in the gilded
cage and lives so long as it is cared for by its keeper is reason to continue
captivity. Teaching the captive bird new tricks does not teach it how to fly.
But tweaking the status quo is preferable to upsetting the entire system.
This is the tendency to be resisted. Will continued domestication of citizens do Singapore
good in a future that promises to be as wild and perhaps as wonderful as it
comes though? Can captive birds fend for themselves in the wild? A new breed
of Singaporean is needed. New conditions of life are needed. This is civil
society’s call. A vigorous civil society is necessary to make such a
Singapore possible. Making Singapore lively and livable is the people’s task.
The government must not prevent this no matter how inconvenient it is to the
administration. And there is, of course, no guarantee that a vigorous
civil-society will not produce individuals who will want to overthrow a
moribund regime when the time comes. It is a fact of life that the most
vigorous minds will not accept artificial or worse, arbitrary boundaries. And
there is nothing wrong with this if it leads to healthy renewal through the
challenge of sincere ideas. Singapore owes itself the duty to ensure that
conditions for such a contestation flourishes. Using strong-arm tactics and subtle
coercion are counterproductive. In such a situation, strong minds will ship
out as soon as they can. I sense that there exists at present political
interregnum. There is now, a certain ‘hung time’ in the affairs of Singapore.
If this is so, this is a moment not to be squandered on weak palliatives and
feeble measures, clinging to old ideas. The transformation of Singapore is
both a dilemma for the government and for all civic-minded individuals and
groups. There are political risks to be taken. HOLDING UP A MIRROR TO OURSELVESBefore we go about identifying villains and demons, it
is wise to take a good look at ourselves. A look at our own socialisation is
necessary to understand the springs of our own cultural and especially
political reflexes. We only need to review in our minds, the socialisation in
the bosom of our own families to see how the same patterns of social control
and values are reinforced in our schools and honed by our political culture.
We can see the mirror image of our parental admonitions in the political
utterances to be pragmatic, hardworking and prudent. Through consequences we
are taught not to challenge dominant beliefs and bid for power. The politics
of survival are drilled at home and then in society. It is a socialisation
that is responsible for the sustained double-digit economic growth. Parents
teach children to curb their impulses so as to be able to defer gratification
for future gain ignoring the fact that this also curbs spontaneity and
initiative is not missed in a conservative economy. COGNITIVE RIGIDITYBecause Chinese form the majority in Singapore and
because the government constantly makes reference to the virtues of
Confucianist values as embedded in family values, it is important to look
closely at what actually happens in the family and what the impacts on
individuals are. Filial piety has been held up as a virtue to be upheld. But
researchers have found that there is a positive co-relation between filial
piety and cognitive rigidity and conservativeness among Chinese families in
Hongkong. If this is true, surely, Singapore needs to research this more and
to consider its impact on the move towards creativity and innovation. While filial piety, as a family value orientation has
its virtues, problems may arise when it is obsessive. As such, it may exclude
considerations of others. If so, civic culture is impeded and when
innovativeness is required, conservativeness inhibits efforts at breaking out
of the box. Thus, the egos of individuals may be prevented from being truly
individual. There is an existential anxiety about self. Insecure selves are
referential and deferential and such selves are resentful. Thus, if the
socialisation pattern persists, there can be little care for the public
domain or others. If family is everything, and since others are by definition
are not family and the space not home, care is withheld. Such a situation
takes draconian rules and policing to curb anti or non-social behaviour. The
courtesy campaigns fail because policing contradicts the essential
volunteerism implied in the concept of courtesy. AESTHETIC DYSFUNCTIONAs an architect, I know how aesthetic dysfunction in design works. And aesthetics is increasingly important for self-fulfillment and in the making coherent and consistent products. I know that sensibility is based on individual sensitivity. The more individual a person, the more is his or her potential for sensitivity. I know that what substitutes for sensitive judgement when the individual is not truly autonomous. Such judgements are based on formula and ritualised meaning in an additive process. In the absence of aesthetic judgement, bigger, brighter, louder and more substitute for better. This is why the a | |