- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
[h=2]Don’t anyhow quote Mr Rajaratnam[/h]
March 6th, 2013 |
Author: Ng Kok Lim
I refer to the 4 Mar 2013 Straits Times letter “Wrong to imply new citizens can’t become ‘true’ S’poreans” by Mr Sabaratnam Ratnakumar [1].
The famous and often quoted words of the late Mr Rajaratnam: “Being a Singaporean is not a matter of ancestry. It is conviction and choice.” doesn’t say anything about whose choice it is. For the many Rohingya refugees turned away from Singapore, being a Singaporean is clearly not their choice to make. For the many spouses of Singaporeans here on social visit pass, being a Singaporean is also not their choice to make. For these people, the choice lies with our government so the Rajaratnam mantra becomes: “Being a Singaporean is a matter of the government’s choice”.
While there is no guarantee that a born and bred Singaporean will know what being a Singaporean means, he or she will most certainly know that he or she is a Singaporean.
Singapore’s maturity as a distinct society and collection of people isn’t restricted to our less than 50 years of independence. Our national flag, national anthem and coat of arms were adopted in 1959, six years before independence. Our first Olympic Gold medal was won in 1960, 5 years before independence. Our identity as a distinct and unique people simply did not begin in 1965. The Singapore identity has continuously evolved since 1819, not since 1965. The Singapore Story is 194 years old, not 48 years old.
If we go by date of independence, Slovakia is only 20 years old. Yet the Slovaks have existed as a unique people for centuries already [2], [3]. Other examples of recent nations whose peoples have developed distinct identities centuries before independence include Slovenia and Moldova.
Any alleged implication that a new citizen cannot be Singaporean is imaginary and false unless proven otherwise. The legitimate concern of the impact of mass migrations on the Singaporean culture and way of life can be seen from the way European migrations forever changed the societies in the new found continents of America and very nearly exterminated the aboriginal societies that existed before their arrival.
Consideration of the Singapore identity in decision making is neither irrational nor illogical. Although Mr Rajaratnam said that cultural elements are constantly being changed, modified or discarded, he didn’t say that such changes, modification or discard should occur in a massive, forceful, big bang or disruptive way. They should occur in a natural and evolutionary pace.
Mr Rajaratnam and his colleagues weren’t Singapore’s founding fathers for Singapore was never founded by them. Singapore has one and only one founding father – Sir Stamford Raffles. The noble deed of founding doesn’t entail the mere acceptance of independence served on a silver plate which was exactly what Mr Rajaratnam and his colleagues did. The act of founding entails at the very least, the struggle for independence much like Ghandi and George Washington struggled for the respective independences of India and USA. Mr Rajaratnam and his colleagues exhibited no such struggles for independence. Independence was gifted to us by Tengku Abdul Rahman without us having to lift a finger – and without us wanting it too.
Let’s not invoke the high precepts of Mr Rajaratnam in a half-baked way or brush off cultural arguments without strong reason.
Thank you.
.
Ng Kok Lim
[1] Straits Times, Wrong to imply new citizens can’t become ‘true’ S’poreans, 4 Mar 2013
Although the history of the Slovak people as expressed in the nation state is less than two decades old, Slovaks have existed as a unique entity for about 1500 years.
[3] http://www.fcsla.org/slovak.shtml
Although their history dates back further, most Slovaks of the past millennium seem to prefer to trace their roots to the ninth century and the apostolic work of Saints Cyril and Methodius.
The famous and often quoted words of the late Mr Rajaratnam: “Being a Singaporean is not a matter of ancestry. It is conviction and choice.” doesn’t say anything about whose choice it is. For the many Rohingya refugees turned away from Singapore, being a Singaporean is clearly not their choice to make. For the many spouses of Singaporeans here on social visit pass, being a Singaporean is also not their choice to make. For these people, the choice lies with our government so the Rajaratnam mantra becomes: “Being a Singaporean is a matter of the government’s choice”.
While there is no guarantee that a born and bred Singaporean will know what being a Singaporean means, he or she will most certainly know that he or she is a Singaporean.
Singapore’s maturity as a distinct society and collection of people isn’t restricted to our less than 50 years of independence. Our national flag, national anthem and coat of arms were adopted in 1959, six years before independence. Our first Olympic Gold medal was won in 1960, 5 years before independence. Our identity as a distinct and unique people simply did not begin in 1965. The Singapore identity has continuously evolved since 1819, not since 1965. The Singapore Story is 194 years old, not 48 years old.
If we go by date of independence, Slovakia is only 20 years old. Yet the Slovaks have existed as a unique people for centuries already [2], [3]. Other examples of recent nations whose peoples have developed distinct identities centuries before independence include Slovenia and Moldova.
Any alleged implication that a new citizen cannot be Singaporean is imaginary and false unless proven otherwise. The legitimate concern of the impact of mass migrations on the Singaporean culture and way of life can be seen from the way European migrations forever changed the societies in the new found continents of America and very nearly exterminated the aboriginal societies that existed before their arrival.
Consideration of the Singapore identity in decision making is neither irrational nor illogical. Although Mr Rajaratnam said that cultural elements are constantly being changed, modified or discarded, he didn’t say that such changes, modification or discard should occur in a massive, forceful, big bang or disruptive way. They should occur in a natural and evolutionary pace.
Mr Rajaratnam and his colleagues weren’t Singapore’s founding fathers for Singapore was never founded by them. Singapore has one and only one founding father – Sir Stamford Raffles. The noble deed of founding doesn’t entail the mere acceptance of independence served on a silver plate which was exactly what Mr Rajaratnam and his colleagues did. The act of founding entails at the very least, the struggle for independence much like Ghandi and George Washington struggled for the respective independences of India and USA. Mr Rajaratnam and his colleagues exhibited no such struggles for independence. Independence was gifted to us by Tengku Abdul Rahman without us having to lift a finger – and without us wanting it too.
Let’s not invoke the high precepts of Mr Rajaratnam in a half-baked way or brush off cultural arguments without strong reason.
Thank you.
.
Ng Kok Lim
[1] Straits Times, Wrong to imply new citizens can’t become ‘true’ S’poreans, 4 Mar 2013
THE late deputy prime minister S. Rajaratnam said: “Being a Singaporean is not a matter of ancestry. It is conviction and choice.”
The message is that one’s identity as a Singaporean does not stem from the ancestry of Chinese, Malay, Indian, or Eurasian culture.
There is no guarantee that an individual who is born and bred in Singapore will have an idea of what being a Singaporean means.
Besides, given that Singapore has been independent for less than 50 years, what makes a person Singaporean is still unclear.
Hence, to imply a new citizen could be incapable of being a Singaporean does appear biased.
While the decision to accept large numbers of economic immigrants as new citizens may be a cause for concern, invoking cultural emotions to cast doubt on their ability to adopt a Singaporean way of living is contrary to the principle of multiculturalism.
The decision to accept or reject immigrants must be made based on rational thinking and logic rather than fear and guilt about the people losing their identities as Singaporeans.
Mr Rajaratnam also said: “There are people who talk about preserving Chinese culture, Malay culture, or Indian culture, as though each of these cultures is a fixed and unchanging thing. But, in fact, this is not so. The individual elements within a culture are constantly being changed, modified or discarded.”
Indeed, the culture of the people 50 years ago is not the same as today’s. There has been a conscious choice to abandon many components of the ancestral culture in favour of multiculturalism.
Let’s not undermine the high precepts set by Singapore’s founding fathers, or invoke cultural arguments in public debates.
Sabaratnam Ratnakumar
[2] http://www.slovakia.org/history.htmThe message is that one’s identity as a Singaporean does not stem from the ancestry of Chinese, Malay, Indian, or Eurasian culture.
There is no guarantee that an individual who is born and bred in Singapore will have an idea of what being a Singaporean means.
Besides, given that Singapore has been independent for less than 50 years, what makes a person Singaporean is still unclear.
Hence, to imply a new citizen could be incapable of being a Singaporean does appear biased.
While the decision to accept large numbers of economic immigrants as new citizens may be a cause for concern, invoking cultural emotions to cast doubt on their ability to adopt a Singaporean way of living is contrary to the principle of multiculturalism.
The decision to accept or reject immigrants must be made based on rational thinking and logic rather than fear and guilt about the people losing their identities as Singaporeans.
Mr Rajaratnam also said: “There are people who talk about preserving Chinese culture, Malay culture, or Indian culture, as though each of these cultures is a fixed and unchanging thing. But, in fact, this is not so. The individual elements within a culture are constantly being changed, modified or discarded.”
Indeed, the culture of the people 50 years ago is not the same as today’s. There has been a conscious choice to abandon many components of the ancestral culture in favour of multiculturalism.
Let’s not undermine the high precepts set by Singapore’s founding fathers, or invoke cultural arguments in public debates.
Sabaratnam Ratnakumar
Although the history of the Slovak people as expressed in the nation state is less than two decades old, Slovaks have existed as a unique entity for about 1500 years.
[3] http://www.fcsla.org/slovak.shtml
Although their history dates back further, most Slovaks of the past millennium seem to prefer to trace their roots to the ninth century and the apostolic work of Saints Cyril and Methodius.
