AUGUST 16 — I made a mistake.
Last week, when I shared how our city is a lot older than the 50 years we celebrated on August 9 — I left out a crucial word: too.
This is something worth celebrating too.
Because it would seem some (fortunately, a minority) of my countrymen are literal-minded or maybe they don’t read beyond a headline before posting an indignant and outraged response.
In the past week, I have been called obtuse, whiny, uninformed and by one particularly hilarious netizen: a member of the Indian intelligence and a goat-herder. Trolling or blind racism? Hard to say really.
The piece (Singapore is not 50 years old) was not particularly radical. I was expressing the opinion that the popular narrative fixates on the last 50 years of our history at the expense of all sorts of important things that happened during the preceding 150 years and stubbornly sticking to this story arch does a disservice to our nation.
My mentioning the Straits Settlement and our pre-1965 history points out that we didn’t just fall out of Malaysia in 1965 but instead have a distinct (non-Malaysian) history that goes back almost two centuries.
Some, such as historian Kwa Chong Guan, have gone even further, highlighting Singapore’s development as a port city between the 13th and 17th century.
It’s a perspective that adds to our heritage and arguably offers a better understanding of Singapore’s current challenges. Take for example some of the problems Singapore has been grappling with today such as manpower shortages and the need for foreigners to contribute to Singapore’s development.
These were problems faced by Singapore long before 1965, and historically, Singapore’s success as a port city, and as a society, hinged on its ability to have a population that was constantly beefed up by immigrants of various ethnic backgrounds and skill levels who could ultimately contribute to its development.
Going beyond 50 years, as Professor Derek Heng pointed out in an article in The Straits Times last year, gives Singaporeans “a more nuanced understanding that our situation as a small country finding its way in a harsh asymmetrical world order is not just a post-1965 reality.”
Is our national identity really so fragile and so tenuously linked to our economic miracle that stumbling upon alternate perspectives causes upset? Even a perspective that only adds to our heritage? That pledging allegiance to the historical narrative of a political party is now so thoroughly confused with pledging allegiance to a nation?
One such upset reaction was penned by Bilahari Kausikan, Ambassador-at-Large at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and regular columnist, a senior man of some standing.
I have to say I’ve found his candid opinions quite enjoyable in the past. The appreciation isn’t mutual though as Ambassador Bilahari calls me a “Singaporean journalist who seems to specialize in denigrating Singapore for Malaysian publications.” He adds “perhaps that’s the only way she can sell her articles to Malaysian newspapers.”
Wow.
Personally, I would describe myself as apolitical. My interest lies in issues and not politics per se. I would also identify myself as a proud Singaporean. And I think appreciating the depth of Singapore’s history by no means denigrates our country. Yet individuals like the ambassador — a representative of the government — are keener to immediately dismiss me and my point of view by making a serious insinuation: suggesting I degrade my country to make money instead of actually engaging me with a differing opinion.
This sort of condescension is in poor taste but sadly reflective of a class of thinking that increasingly just holds Singapore back. What this conveys is the basic difficulty so many Singaporean “elites” have in accepting that other Singaporeans can have opinions that differ from those of the establishment and that those differing opinions can also be valid.
This is an attitude that can only alienate the establishment from a large swathe of the population as it basically assumes a zero sum game: you either 100 per cent agree with the government view on everything or you are immediately some sort of dissident, traitor or mercenary.
But this whole premise is obviously false: of course you can love Singapore and still express a different opinion from the government. You can even be a strong supporter of the government but disagree passionately about one or two issues.
For Singapore to get to where it should be — as the leading urban centre of this century -- its ruling class needs to engage with people who care about the city even if this caring takes them away from the government line at times.
So, in the spirit of engagement: Ambassador Bilahari, a teh tarik perhaps?
* This is the personal opinion of the columnist.
