Why so ungracious?

PRIME Minister Lee Hsien Loong challenged Singaporeans to be big-hearted towards one another and to foreigners.

In his National Day Rally speech on Sunday, he praised Singaporeans who worked to improve society.

But he also highlighted self-centred and intolerant behaviour: quarrels between neighbours, refusal to have homes for the elderly nearby and vitriol against foreigners, often expressed online and anonymously.



He urged citizens not to focus only on the bad behaviour of foreigners but to recognise all the good they do as well.

He said: 'It's ultimately up to us how big-hearted we want to be. We may be a small island, we cannot be small-minded.

'We cannot just be a prosperous and successful country. We’ve also got to be a caring, a generous, a decent people.'

Insight invited five Singaporeans to pen their reflections on the outbreak of ungraciousness. They are Singapore Kindness Movement general secretary William Wan, sociologist Daniel Goh, Non-Constituency MP Gerald Giam, entrepreneur and blogger Adrianna Tan and Straits Times journalist Feng Zengkun.
The Straits Times, 1 Sep 2012

'We can still revive the kampung spirit'
By Dr William Wan,  General Secretary, Singapore Kindness Movement

PRIME Minister Lee Hsien Loong's speech at the National Day Rally has certainly jump-started our national conversation. Amid the many positive things he said regarding the state of our Republic, he also served a timely reminder to all of us that certain anti-social behaviours are antithetical to nation-building, especially our unfriendly conduct towards new immigrants and foreigners.

Not surprisingly, both the traditional and social media have vigorously latched onto this last point. PM's point is that because social media is global, he is worried that this anti-foreigner sentiment taints our reputation as a people. But for some people, their reaction is simple: "We didn't cause this."

Regardless of whether such feeling is right or wrong, the fact is, it exists. The current xenophobia is by and large a direct result of the Government's immigration policies. These policies might have been vital for our long-term economic sustainability; nonetheless, they generated strong anti-foreigner sentiments, the likes of which we have not seen before.

PM rightly points out new and old Singaporeans have to find a way to live in harmony for the sake of our common future. This implies a "give and take" attitude. If there is going to be assimilation, it has to be a two-way street. It is a didacticism resulting, over time, in a synthesis of culture - an evolving national identity with fresh input from new immigrants.

After all, if the thousand or so Orang Asal who were living in 19th century Singapore were to forcefully and successfully reject the colonial British and migrant Chinese moving to the island, we would not have the Singaporean identity today. Similarly, the United States would not be the world power today if it had not embraced immigration and Australia's vibrant cities would still be sparsely populated deserts.

Even so, we need to do more than just simply brush off xenophobia and condemn it as something intolerable in a civilised society. It is here, and it cannot be cured or wished away by a National Day Rally or a newspaper column. The first step to harmony is recognising that the feelings of the native population are legitimate, even if these are unreasonable or misplaced. They cannot help feeling the way they do because for many generations now, this has been their home. The process of change is threatening their comfort zone and is difficult for most to manage.

There is much for the Government to fine-tune by way of policymaking, but it is not the only one that needs to think about what needs to be done. As unpopular as this may sound to us, our Government's priority is not to coddle its citizens but to create a Singapore that is sustainable for future generations.

Businesses need to reflect on hiring policies and focus on getting the right people for the job, not merely the cheapest ones. Media, traditional and social, should evaluate the impact of stories that edify or vilify communities by nationality. News media, in particular, should play its part in nation-building, but in properly educating us on what affects our lives, rather than just what sells newspapers or gets ratings.

The other signs of lack of grace in our society may be less dramatic but not any less serious. PM pointed out that these problems are not new and they are perpetrated by a minority. His concern is that we appear to be "getting less patient, less tolerant, less willing to compromise in order to get along".

Unlike the immigration issue, we have become victims of our own successes in these cases. Our chase to be No. 1 has made it difficult for us to compromise, or to be tolerant, or to be patient. For some, superficially at least, being competitive and not being self-centred at the same time is a contradiction.

One of the symptoms of our excessive drive to be No. 1 is the way we pressure our children to succeed at a very young age. It is good to hear the PM advising us to let our children enjoy their childhood. How we teach them sets the tone of our society for the future generation, and more importance should be placed on building a strong and kind character in them than getting straight As.

Despite our anger and frustrations, despite our fears, rational or otherwise, we should not forget we are inherently a good and kind people. Our drive to be economically successful should not prevent us from doing the right thing for the right reason - whether it is giving up our seat to someone who needs it more, or helping someone up when he trips.

Kindness and graciousness are critical to our social fabric. "Do to others as you want others to do to you" is taught by all religions and is still good advice. The ability to revive the "kampung spirit" resides in each one of us.

Lessons in tales about life, living together
By Assistant Professor Daniel Goh, Sociologist, National University of Singapore

ONCE in a while, society will launch itself into a moral panic, so as to know that it is actually doing fine, that its norms and values are still intact.

Usually, this happens when society experiences a severe economic or political crisis, or a disaster that shakes the reassurance out of its grinding everyday life.

It would seem Singapore is in the throes of a moral panic.

Last Sunday, just as soon as the Prime Minister proudly praised us all for having built a big-hearted harmonious society, he poured out a torrent of troubling signs. Singaporeans are becoming ugly and selfish, losing our kampung spirit, growing intolerant of both each other and immigrants alike.

If an acronym could sum up the examples the Prime Minister gave, it would be "Nimby" - not park in the public road that is my backyard, not put your potted plants in the common corridor that is my backyard, not put your nursing home in the open field that is my backyard, not behave in a foreign manner while in the country that is my backyard.

The Prime Minister admonishes. We need to be more gracious lest we become a small-minded people on a small island.

I believe that there is always scope for us, individually and collectively, to improve on our graciousness, and the Prime Minister has quite succinctly described the maxim by which we should try to live our social life.

However, I am quite concerned about the warning bells of moral panic that the Prime Minister has rung.

Ungraciousness has always existed in different forms. To try to wipe it out is simply utopian.

Ironically, the incidents the Prime Minister cited evoked some nostalgic memories I have of Nimby quarrels I witnessed growing up - my grandma quarrelling with neighbours over durians dropped between their kampung houses; my nanny with neighbours over the use of the lift at my HDB block that did not stop on every floor; my dad with our upstairs neighbour in the condominium about dripping air-con fluids, over which they end up as good friends.

I have been taking public transport for over 30 years. When I was a young schoolboy, I took pride in giving up my bus seat to senior citizens, as we were taught to, in civic education.

People around me used to treat this with surprise and exception. They would explain it away. "Oh, he is from a good school and a Catholic school." "Ah, he is young and idealistic, wait until he grows up."

But today, as I travel by train between Punggol and Kent Ridge, it is the other way round.

Stares may be given and requests made sometimes by daring citizens, to get young people to give up their seats to senior citizens or to give up reserved seats.

I have seen foreigners, speaking in unfamiliar tongues, give up their seats to Singaporeans who then respond appreciatively in Singlish, and vice versa.

No doubt there are little annoyances, for example, people brushing against me in the rush for trains or forgetting to stand to the left on escalators. I am guilty of it myself when I forget, in my work-burdened daze, to be gracious.

Perhaps the Prime Minister is pre-empting an anti-foreigner moral panic that is threatening because of looming economic or political crisis. Perhaps he is alerting us to a moral panic so that we would look hard at ourselves, to set the moral tone for the national conversation.

Whatever it is, moral panics in history are seldom pretty. They often result in witch-hunts and blame games that undermine social trust and encourage fear, thus producing the conditions for further moral panics.

It is the Prime Minister's place and duty to warn us of our shortcomings. While we should take the warnings seriously, we should also beware of getting into a frenzy either way, panicking about the moral decay of our society or panicking about foreigners undermining our moral foundations.

I do not think that Singaporeans are losing their graciousness, nor are immigrants tearing our social fabric to shreds.

Let's not flog ourselves silly over our imperfections or pick on those of our guests.

I prefer to look at reports of ugly incidents of what seems to be Nimby not as evidence of a trend, but instead as stories we are telling ourselves as a society.

They are fables written, shared and discussed through social media, just like how the storytellers of old would go viral with their morality tales, enrapturing audiences squatting in the candlelight, learning about life and how to live together.

Why tell these social fables of animal spirits, of people fighting over seats, parking lots, and flowerpots now?

So that we can sort through this mess together and figure out how to manage this shared backyard that is our neighbourhood, town, city, and country.

What lies beneath online vitriol?
By Gerald Giam, Non-constituency Member of Parliament of The Workers' Party

"DON'T say that! It's very rude! How would you like other people to call you that?"

That was the scolding I got from my mother when I was just six years old. I had just returned from playing with my friends from the neighbourhood - one of whom was an older Indian boy - and I thought it was be funny to hum a rhyme about him that I had learnt from another kid.

This was one of the many lessons my parents taught me about not harbouring prejudiced attitudes and stereotypes about people of other races, nationalities or socio-economic backgrounds. They not only instilled in me these values, but also lived them out in their own words and deeds.

My consciousness against prejudice was honed and heightened during the time I lived in California as an undergraduate. This is in part due to the greater level of public discourse on issues of discrimination and prejudice there. Being a minority and a foreigner there, I was also keenly aware of any behaviour by locals towards me that might hint of prejudice.

That was 12 years ago when social media was non-existent, so I did not have the same insights into the dark recesses of people's minds that are available now on the Internet. Try googling the phrase "I hate Asians" and you will get over 100,000 Web pages of uncomplimentary remarks about Asians. Online diatribes against other races or nationalities are therefore not unique to Singapore.

Fortunately, most of the vitriol against foreigners in Singapore appears to be confined largely to the online space. We do not read about hate crime being perpetrated against foreigners here. Foreign diplomats I spoke to recently said they had not received any reports from their nationals about xenophobic attacks. I have many close foreigner friends who are aware of the anti-foreigner sentiments online but have not complained about any physical aggression against them on account of their nationality.

All this is not an attempt to justify any of the baseless insults against foreigners seen on some websites. Making prejudiced remarks against foreigners is objectionable and un-Singaporean, and should stop.

However, before joining the chorus of condemnation against allegedly "xenophobic netizens", we need to ask what caused this sudden change in attitude. Haven't Singaporeans traditionally been welcoming of foreigners and diversity? Did Singaporeans become xenophobic overnight?

Anyone who examines the online comments about foreigners will realise that much of the anger is actually not directed at the foreigners, but at the Government for its liberal immigration policies.

The online diatribes could be a reflection of many Singaporeans' frustration about the huge influx of foreigners over the past 10 years. Singapore's population has ballooned by over 1 million during the past decade. Singaporeans now make up only 63 per cent of the population and 58 per cent of the workforce. The immigration boom has put a severe strain on our nation's infrastructure, especially public transport, housing and health care. Singaporeans are facing increased competition not just for space on buses and for HDB flats, but also for jobs and promotions.

For many Singaporeans, our country is much less recognisable than it was just a decade or so ago. Some feel like strangers in our own land. A friend who works as a professional in a large multinational firm confided that he is the only Singaporean in his department. He lamented that he felt passed over for promotions as he sensed that his department head, who is a foreigner, tended to promote his fellow nationals over locals.

While many other factors may have been at play, this perceived "reverse discrimination" felt by many Singaporeans cannot simply be ignored.

This push back by Singaporeans against the foreign influx has manifested itself in other less offensive ways. The recent furore over the "insult" of Singaporean cuisine by Diner en Blanc and last year's "curry incident" reflect a level of cultural nationalism rarely seen in the past.

Singaporeans had hitherto been accustomed to being "educated" by the Government on how to love our country, how to stand up for Singapore, and how to stand together as Singaporeans. Now we are standing up for ourselves without prompting. We are ready to take the initiative and organise ourselves to show our pride in local culture and traditions, without being offensive or insulting. This is a positive development for Singapore.

Therefore, when interpreting online criticisms of foreigners, we need to first identify the genesis of the collective frustrations of many Singaporeans. The target of many netizens' grouses is perhaps not at the level of the individual, but at the powers-that-be who have opened the gates to admit those individuals in the first place.

NOTE: This is a personal comment

Anti-social behaviour a symptom, not disease
By Feng Zengkun

CRACKS in Singapore's graciousness have been in the spotlight recently, but they may only be signs of more troubling divisions in the country.

Last Sunday, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong spent several minutes of his National Day Rally speech discussing the rising trend of bad behaviour.

Over the past year, Singaporeans have hit out at foreigners and their neighbours with seemingly increasing frequency and viciousness.

Self-centredness has also been on flagrant display, with cases of "Nimbyism" - shorthand for the not-in-my-backyard syndrome - on the rise here.

The incidents prompted PM Lee to note that "Singaporeans seem to be getting less patient, less tolerant and less willing to compromise in order to get along".

This selfishness and rancour towards each other and foreigners speak poorly of Singaporeans and could damage the country, he said.

He explained: "It reflects badly on us and damages our international reputation. People think that Singapore is anti-foreigner and xenophobic."

Let's be clear. Nimbyism and xenophobia are wrong and stains on the character of the country.

As PM Lee urged, Singaporeans should strive to be more gracious, kind-hearted and respectful towards each other and others.

But anti-social behaviour is usually a symptom and not the disease itself. It often signals deeper, underlying fears and problems in the country.

Behind a xenophobic attitude, for example, could be someone afraid of losing his job, or someone who is tired of waiting for three buses before being able to board one.

The naked self-interest in the Nimby cases also suggests a pessimistic view of Singapore as a dog-eat-dog society, where each person has to look out for his best interest at the expense of other people.

These are fundamental worries and disagreements about the goals and future of the country, and they need to be aired and discussed.

Unless they are resolved or addressed, calls for a more gracious and harmonious society are likely to go unanswered.

More crucially, some thought should also be given to why the culprits chose to lash out at the foreigners or at their neighbours, instead of trying to change the policies.

PM Lee alluded to this in his speech. Referring to the Government's immigration policy, he acknowledged that the influx of foreigners over the years has caused "real problems".

He said: "I think it's fair enough for people to express concerns or to disagree with our immigration trends or to oppose our immigration policies. That's part of the democratic debate.

"But I'm worried by some of the nasty views which are expressed, especially online, and especially anonymously, which brings out the worst in people."

Since the first few cases of xenophobia and Nimbyism, the Government and a battalion of community leaders have called for more healthy debate and less vitriol, but the trend continued.

This suggests that at least a segment of Singaporeans have walked away from the communal table, and feel that there is no point in discussion or lobbying the authorities to try and change things.

This is worrisome. If left unchecked, such fatalism is more insidious and destructive to Singapore's future than disagreements over policy.

Distrust loosens the bonds between the people, their government and the country, and cynicism makes discussion and compromise all but impossible.

This trust gap between the Government and the people needs to be managed, and new ways found to bridge it.

The Government seems to recognise this. It has promised a more consultative approach in formulating policies in future, and Education Minister Heng Swee Keat will chair a committee to relook current policies, with input from the people.

In the past year, alongside the chorus of selfishness and xenophobia, some Singaporeans have also spoken up to advocate for a variety of causes. These range from conserving the Bukit Brown Cemetery and forests here to protecting wild boar in the Lower Peirce area.

Since the general election last year, Singaporeans seem to be re-energised about their stake in the country, but some have used their newfound voice to bully and others to inspire.

In his speech, PM Lee asked: "What sort of people do we want to be?", and he listed generosity, decency, a warm heart and an open mind as aspirational qualities for Singaporeans.

To these, I would add: scepticism over cynicism, passion over resignation, and principled but not personal disagreement.

This road forward is likely to be more difficult and messy, and some disappointment is inevitable, but it will take us and Singapore to a better place.

It's time to be gracious to ourselves
By Adrianna Tan, Entrepreneur and Blogger

I WATCHED Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong speak about his vision for Singapore, his plan for how we can grow together, on a tiny screen in Hungary from where I streamed the National Day Rally over a slow Internet connection.

Others have already commented on the policies, especially on fertility and education, so I won't.

As a homeward-bound twenty-something year old Singaporean, who has spent much of the last few years working abroad, what made me smile was this newfound, genuine and heartfelt approach.

I think this is us telling ourselves to now build, lovingly, the software that matters, to accompany the great hardware and infrastructure that we have spent almost five decades on, to now also turn our focus on the people themselves - ourselves.

PM Lee exhorted: "It is ultimately up to us how big-hearted we want to be... we cannot be small-minded. We cannot just be a prosperous and successful country. We have also got to be a caring, a generous, a decent people: people who are gracious and warm towards one another as well as others."

His words could not have been more timely.

I've had tremendous opportunities. I've had the chance to live, work, travel and play across the world, from First World to Third.

I've long held that if we want to be a real First World nation, the size of our gross domestic product, while very important, is not all that will take us there. It is also what we do with our money, how we treat our elderly, how we welcome others, it is all these things that will make the Singapore that our children will inherit.

As I came home to find my place here again, personally and professionally, I was struck by the vitriol and anger that I saw, not just online but also in some everyday situations. This is not the Singapore I want my children to inherit, even if the roots of this anger are well-documented and much debated.

Whatever your politics, whatever your leanings on immigration or government, I hope we get to a point where we can all agree: Singapore is a better place, and Singaporeans a better people, than we sometimes give ourselves credit for.

That's not to say we should sweep our problems under a carpet. I just truly hope that we can, some time in the near future, arrive at a state of political maturity and civic engagement that will let us look back at this moment - the 47th year of nationhood - and see that we managed to channel our response to these challenges into long-lasting, productive solutions that will define our next 50 years.

In my work in the start-up community in Singapore and other parts of Asia, I see young people everywhere being the changemakers and rainmakers.

They are relentless and tireless. Innovation and clever ideas have sprung from the need to fix problems, be they in software, hardware or even in cities.

This is the same can-do spirit that attracts like-minded individuals and companies to come, set up shop, and improve Singapore with the rest of us.

To be warm and gracious to ourselves, I would like to see us learn to unite rather than divide, build rather than tear down. To not even think of people in terms of "others", "us", or "them" - there have been so many foreigners who have done so much for this country, and Singapore is their home as much as it is ours.

Lately, I've been working on several not-for-profit projects with passionate Singaporeans and Singapore residents, young and old. The response has been heartwarming: "How can I help? What can I do to help make things better for someone else?"

If that's the refrain I've been hearing, everywhere, then I'm not too worried.

It's already immediately obvious that the Singapore of my childhood, one with a ruthless focus on results and pragmatism, is fading away. It's time to write a new chapter, and this time we'll do it with a lot more inclusiveness and worldly knowledge, while still cherishing the lessons of our difficult past.To be warm and gracious to ourselves, I would like to see us learn to unite rather than divide, build rather than tear down.