- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
[h=2][/h]
May 30th, 2013 |
Author: Contributions
I refer to the forum letter written by Sun Xi, entitled
“Foster Bicultural Talent in Singapore”, published on 29 May 2013 in Today (http://www.todayonline.com/voices/foster-bicultural-talent-spore).
In his opinion piece, the graduate from the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public
Policy, who is a China-born Singapore PR, bemoans the lack of a true culture in
Singapore. He suggests the intake of “cultural foreign talent” as a solution to
this problem, so as to promote greater economic cooperation with the supposed
rising powerhouse that is China.
He says: “Singaporean culture is a mixture of mainly British, Chinese, Malay
and Indian cultures. However, just like Singlish, the local culture seems to be
neither fish nor fowl.”
By saying so, Mr Sun has essentially dismissed our local culture as a
haphazard mash-up of Chinese, Malay and Indian heritage, language and practices.
Not only is this a rude and insensitive comment, it is grossly inaccurate. This
is the very essence of our Singaporean culture – one where words such as “wah
lau”, “makan” and “podah” are understood regardless of race, language or
religion; where we enjoy foods from roti prata to carrot cake to nasi lemak;
where we retain our ethnic heritage and practices and celebrate the diversity of
our multiracial, multireligious and multicultural society. Our culture is our
very own unique melting pot that makes us distinctly Singaporean, and thus
cannot be said to be “neither fish nor fowl”. Singaporean culture has been
described as a “rojak”, where we are all apparently mixed and jumbled up.
However, think about it: we may be a tossed salad of different fruits,
vegetables and condiments, but they come together harmoniously to achieve a
balance of sweet, savoury and spicy flavours, and to become a dish we call our
own. Adding other ingredients will confuse the taste buds and render it
unsuitable to be called a plate of rojak.
However, adding external ingredients is exactly what he prescribes: “Last but
not least, immigrants from Asia could contribute to Singapore’s biculturalism,
and the Government can inject more authentic Chinese, Malay and Indian culture
here by attracting more cultural talent.
Although integration is the priority, whereby new immigrants should embrace
Singapore’s core values, they should also be more explicitly encouraged to
retain their positive original cultures to inspire locals.”
Let us not be drawn into his accusations of the lack of authenticity of our
Chinese, Malay and Indian culture. It was never our intention to be as close to
the cultures of China, India and Malaysia as possible. While we began as an
immigrant society, one which our forefathers hailed from these foreign lands, we
have now emerged as a one nation, and we are first Singaporean before we are
Chinese, Malay, Indian or Eurasian. Over the course of our nation-building
years, we have undergone a divergent evolutionary path from our forefathers’
original countries and forged our own unique identity. This is our home simply
because we grew up here, shared common experiences here, and will defend this
land. While a Singaporean Chinese may look similar to a Chinese from the PRC,
the language, mannerism and behaviour of both will enable easy differentiation
of the two. The point is, although we may have originated from the same land, we
are now different.
It is thus disingenuous to suggest that we require new immigrants to retain
their original cultures in order to boost the local culture. In fact, the notion
of imposing foreign cultures upon Singaporeans to inspire local culture is a
laughable disgrace. If anything, this would erode the identity that we have
built for ourselves over these years. Our local culture is under threat
precisely because of the relentless influx of foreigners, who hardly integrate
in our society. Suggesting that the cause of the problem is the solution is
highly illogical and inaccurate. Perhaps his letter only highlights how
misguided he, as a China-born Singapore PR, is with regard to Singaporean
culture. He cannot be blamed for craving his own “authentic Chinese culture”,
simply because he possibly has never settled in and understood what it means to
be a Singaporean in the first place.
We are Singapore, not China, India or Malaysia. Our very own Singaporean
culture is unique, distinct and special. While it may be relatively shorter than
those of other nations, it is by no means any less rich in culture and heritage.
The threat to our culture and social fabric is the lax immigration policy that
the PAP government has endorsed by passing the population White Paper. Will we
see more of such self-serving, illogical and disrespectful comments from the
foreign imports? You bet we will, given the rate at which they are arriving on
our shores. The rot needs to be stemmed before it is too late. 2016 could not
come sooner enough.
.
Tan Ah Teck
“Foster Bicultural Talent in Singapore”, published on 29 May 2013 in Today (http://www.todayonline.com/voices/foster-bicultural-talent-spore).
In his opinion piece, the graduate from the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public
Policy, who is a China-born Singapore PR, bemoans the lack of a true culture in
Singapore. He suggests the intake of “cultural foreign talent” as a solution to
this problem, so as to promote greater economic cooperation with the supposed
rising powerhouse that is China.
He says: “Singaporean culture is a mixture of mainly British, Chinese, Malay
and Indian cultures. However, just like Singlish, the local culture seems to be
neither fish nor fowl.”
By saying so, Mr Sun has essentially dismissed our local culture as a
haphazard mash-up of Chinese, Malay and Indian heritage, language and practices.
Not only is this a rude and insensitive comment, it is grossly inaccurate. This
is the very essence of our Singaporean culture – one where words such as “wah
lau”, “makan” and “podah” are understood regardless of race, language or
religion; where we enjoy foods from roti prata to carrot cake to nasi lemak;
where we retain our ethnic heritage and practices and celebrate the diversity of
our multiracial, multireligious and multicultural society. Our culture is our
very own unique melting pot that makes us distinctly Singaporean, and thus
cannot be said to be “neither fish nor fowl”. Singaporean culture has been
described as a “rojak”, where we are all apparently mixed and jumbled up.
However, think about it: we may be a tossed salad of different fruits,
vegetables and condiments, but they come together harmoniously to achieve a
balance of sweet, savoury and spicy flavours, and to become a dish we call our
own. Adding other ingredients will confuse the taste buds and render it
unsuitable to be called a plate of rojak.
However, adding external ingredients is exactly what he prescribes: “Last but
not least, immigrants from Asia could contribute to Singapore’s biculturalism,
and the Government can inject more authentic Chinese, Malay and Indian culture
here by attracting more cultural talent.
Although integration is the priority, whereby new immigrants should embrace
Singapore’s core values, they should also be more explicitly encouraged to
retain their positive original cultures to inspire locals.”
Let us not be drawn into his accusations of the lack of authenticity of our
Chinese, Malay and Indian culture. It was never our intention to be as close to
the cultures of China, India and Malaysia as possible. While we began as an
immigrant society, one which our forefathers hailed from these foreign lands, we
have now emerged as a one nation, and we are first Singaporean before we are
Chinese, Malay, Indian or Eurasian. Over the course of our nation-building
years, we have undergone a divergent evolutionary path from our forefathers’
original countries and forged our own unique identity. This is our home simply
because we grew up here, shared common experiences here, and will defend this
land. While a Singaporean Chinese may look similar to a Chinese from the PRC,
the language, mannerism and behaviour of both will enable easy differentiation
of the two. The point is, although we may have originated from the same land, we
are now different.
It is thus disingenuous to suggest that we require new immigrants to retain
their original cultures in order to boost the local culture. In fact, the notion
of imposing foreign cultures upon Singaporeans to inspire local culture is a
laughable disgrace. If anything, this would erode the identity that we have
built for ourselves over these years. Our local culture is under threat
precisely because of the relentless influx of foreigners, who hardly integrate
in our society. Suggesting that the cause of the problem is the solution is
highly illogical and inaccurate. Perhaps his letter only highlights how
misguided he, as a China-born Singapore PR, is with regard to Singaporean
culture. He cannot be blamed for craving his own “authentic Chinese culture”,
simply because he possibly has never settled in and understood what it means to
be a Singaporean in the first place.
We are Singapore, not China, India or Malaysia. Our very own Singaporean
culture is unique, distinct and special. While it may be relatively shorter than
those of other nations, it is by no means any less rich in culture and heritage.
The threat to our culture and social fabric is the lax immigration policy that
the PAP government has endorsed by passing the population White Paper. Will we
see more of such self-serving, illogical and disrespectful comments from the
foreign imports? You bet we will, given the rate at which they are arriving on
our shores. The rot needs to be stemmed before it is too late. 2016 could not
come sooner enough.
.
Tan Ah Teck
