Uniquely Singapore?
What is Singaporean culture? Is it the uniquely cosmopolitan and collective societal fabric which the government frequently insists it is, or simply a confusing and disruptive fusion of global influences which we embrace without proper discernment.
While the facade of collectivism is conscientiously maintained in the name of racial harmony and economic progress, the social undercurrents of individualism are definitely asserting themselves gradually. This can be attributed to the increasing affluence of Singaporean society, which encourages an unhealthy desire for social exclusiveness and egocentric social apathy. Subsequently, people tend to elevate themselves on a pedestal to separate themselves from those who they deem as hailing from a lower economic class; seduced by the portrayed luxury of western cultures as put forth by the media, Singaporeans are seemingly caught up in the relentless drive for wealth, deeming it as the sole pot of gold at the end of the rainbow of a meaningful existence, selectively ignorant of the needs of other individuals in society and important community issues. The perpetuality of social ingroups is a dominant aspect of Singaporean culture, with the rampant country club culture and inherently existent racial divisions exemplifying this problem. While people seek to band themselves with other individuals who they consider similar (race, tradition, economic and social status etc.) to themselves, they undermine social dream of building a Singaporean Singapore, where citizens identify themselves as a collective unit of Singaporens, undivided and united in harmonious cohesion.
As such, social apathy seems to be the key problem which is breeding a materialistic and individualistic culture in Singapore. I recall an infamous incident some time back when a Hwa Chong student assaulted a bus driver for absurd reasons; this actually brought important attention to the ugly reality of the deteriorating social values of our culture. (http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/printfriendly/0,4139,130301,00.html) Certainly, the scandalous fact that this student was spared the deserved punishment of suspension (at the very least) by one of Singapore’s leading educational institutes, highlights the alarming acceptance of his actions as unsevere. Surely this sends out an atrocious message which promotes the protection of the selfish intentions and actions of members of Singapore’s educational elite (his academic excellence is cetainly no compensation or excuse for his behavior). In this case, the promotion of individualism (seemingly exclusive need to protect the interests of Singapore’s educational elite) compromised any claim to the collectivism of Singaporean society; a genuinely collectivist culture would have seen an overwhelming united condemnation of the student’s actions by all (public, government and administration of Hwa Chong Institution) due to shared social norms (morals and beliefs etc.), upon which, the minimal sentence would surely be have been suspension.
Due to the ethnic diversity of Singaporean society and its insatiable appetite for modernisation and development, the local culture is subjected to an overwhelming assortment of global influences, particularly from western nations. For example, the monumental construction of the Singapore Flyer is an unfortunate replica of the London Eye. Indeed,this unsurprisingly unoriginal undetaking emphasizes the enduring inability of Singapore to establish a unique character which can ensure the establishment of collectivism in our society. With no natively unique identity being handed down from earlier generations due to Singapore’s inherently dynamic and multi-faceted historical nature (beginning as a melting pot of immigrants, later marinated by the ways of British colonial rule, and its eventual ’open’ policy of existing independently based on the ‘models’ of other nations), Singaporean culture is simply a volatile concoction of external influences (my personal opinion); hence, the lack of national identity and solidarity is inevitably reflected in the individualististic ways of the locals.
‘Uniquely Singapore’ (misappropriately designated as the latest tag for our tourism endeavors) is merely a facade. With that said, I must emphasize that I am happily Singaporean; but my understanding of my own supposed ‘culture’ fails to venture beyond geographical and factual truths (such as Singapore’s likening to a food paradise). As far as I’m concerned, our culture is a product of cultural imports (deeming this as unique undermines the very concept of the word) shared by an ‘islandful’ of individualistic individuals who are unable to identify with the concept of cultural and social collectivism.
The Singapore Flyer (pretty, but barely Ours)
MK said,
March 14, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Though you have been slightly harsh on your treatment of the topic, I do agree that Singaporeans are a socially apathetic and individualistic lot, and barely understand the concept of collectivism. However, you cannot really blame this on them because like you said, this is just a result of our ‘confused’ history.