National Identity

There are times when I wonder (and no, not because of the Socratic Circle Discussion) what constitutes one's national identity.



[EDIT: Thanks to Jin Yang, who has indirectly told me once more that I need to define national identity to certain extent. It is essentially what identifies you with your own country. There is no such thing as being "too young to have a national identity", because no two nations are alike, and there is certainly something distinguishing between each particular nation and ourselves.]

There have been many possible suggestions, of which I will just list a few. Firstly there is our socio-economic background. Socially, we are a brilliant country. Our education is world-class, with cutting-edge technology, experienced educators etc. Our health system caters to the majority of Singapore, and also provides the latest medical equipment and treatments. Our surrounding environment is beautiful, and we are billed as a "Garden City". The best part is also the fact that we are the most harmonious multi-racial and religious country in the world. Economically, we are supposedly outstanding. We compensate for the lack of our natural resources with the brainy produces of the education system. We compensate for size with our money, for we are a rich nation. Essentially, this unique socio-economic status of ours can indeed be out


Secondly, there is also the aspect of layman culture. This essentially means food culture, where we have the internationally recognised chilli crab, Hainan Chicken Rice, laksa, bak kut teh, many more; the "coffee-shop culture", which is the general depiction of the uncles who open their legs wide, dig their nose, drink their black coffee etc; linguistic culture, our amalgation of many different languages. These depictions of our "normal people" can be considered as our national identity.


Finally, there is of course the political aspect of Singapore. To a certain extent, we are "not very liberal". We are thus usually blacklisted on the Humans Rights Watch for "compromising human rights". But countries in the East, particularly China, are highly impressed by the stability and efficiency of our country and our government. Such a "conflicting" political system in human rights vs. stability can be considered as our national identity.


So with these three aspects of Singapore, which can serve best as our national identity? Let us try to establish a criteria to determine. The first of which, uniqueness, has already been applied in coming up with the three aspects as mentioned above. So let us move on to our second criteria: prominence, ie which of these aspects do we usually see as foreigners/Singaporeans. At a quick glance, political climate isn't exactly the best representation of Singapore. Our socio-economic climate, yes, for we see it everywhere, and the layman culture, definitely. But the political climate is only obvious to one if he/she analyses Singapore for a long period of time, for the lack of protests/explicit media is not so obvious. Therefore, using the second criteria, political climate shouldn't be considered as part of our national identity.


Let us now apply a third criteria, that of closeness to heart. How does one not treasure what one's country means to him? The answer isn't so clear cut using this criteria, but there is still a definite answer. In Scout's words, "One does not love breathing", implying the realisation of how much one loved something only after losing it. For our socio-economic climate, true, without having a clean and rich country is close to unimaginable, but we will still be able to adapt, won't we? Most people in Singapore now aren't exactly very rich, and we're still living perfectly fine. However, when it comes to layman culture, things become a little more different. Without what is defined as the social norm, how do you act? How do you define yourself? A day where there are no coffee-shops, only restaurants and cafes; a day without our famous chicken rice, only deep-fried chicken and plain rice; a day without Singlish, only perfect Queen's English and perfect Chinese; that would be a day of nightmare. So let's face it - what's closer to heart and is indeed our national identity is our layman culture.


[EDIT: Thank you to Jin Yang for indirectly telling me that I need to apply a fourth criteria, to make the national identity point even stronger, representation. The second criteria has now been rephrased to more appropriately mean prominence. Now, in terms of representation, national identity must reflect the country. It is essentially an image of the country which Singaporeans treat as their lowest common denominator, and can unite the country together. Here, the layman culture is obviously a clear representation of Singapore, as it speaks of all the common things that Singaporean can be proud of, all the things on a micro-scale that people will notice and remember.]


And therein lies the whole irony about the Singaporean national identity: The government actually tries to get rid of it! Campaigns like "Huayu Cool" and "Speak Good English" merely serve to erode the language which we have carried on from the 60's all the way till now - Singlish. Wet markets and coffee-shops are collapsing, replaced by the brand new NTUC and the air-conditioned food court. When Malaysia comes trying to snatch bak kut teh - OUR bak kut teh, away from us, the only people who defend it is, no, not the respected government, but us, the common people. If the government wishes to connect with Singapore and not let the opposition take over, I suggest they at least provide some form of support for our national identity in our layman culture.


[EDIT: I mean no offence to the Singapore government's policies. As Jin Yang has rightfully pointed out, these policies have a purpose after all. I merely don't think that these policies should be in place for our national identity. Also, I think that the government would like us to develop another national identity, so my view might not stand. In conclusion, I mean no offence to anyone.]