Speech by David T E Lim, Minister of State for Defence and Information and The Arts, at the NUS Political Association Forum, at Guild House, Kent Ridge at 7.00 pm on 6 August 1999.


Singapore 21: A Nation's Vision or A Party's Propaganda?

1. First of all, let me thank you for your interest in Singapore 21. I would like to have a conversation with you tonight on this subject. I would like to hear your views, and share mine with you. I hope it would be a productive exchange.

2. To begin the conversation, let me first give you my views on the question posed tonight: Singapore 21 "A Nation's Vision or a Party's Propaganda?"

3. PM Goh mooted the idea of a Singapore 21 study in his National Day rally speech in 1997. Twenty months later, in April this year, he launched the Singapore 21 Vision. The reaction to this vision has been mixed.

4. Over the last 3 months, responses have ranged from outright cynicism to indifference to wholehearted support. This was not unexpected. But many more have not yet decided how to respond to Singapore 21.

5. The question on their minds is whether this Vision is for real. Does it truly reflect what Singaporeans want for their future? Or is it just a passing fad? Or worse yet, is it a political tool to assuage the growing interest in society for more political or personal space?

6. Let me first address the question whether Singapore 21 is political propaganda.

7. Singapore 21 was indeed an initiative of the government. But this need not mean, and indeed does not mean, that it is political propaganda.

8. In Singapore, the government has always been concerned with social development. Although the casual observer would often acknowledge Singapore's economic success, much less attention is paid to the social developments that have also taken place. It's easy to be impressed by our physical development. We look at our industrial parks and housing estates and skyscrapers, and we say that we have done well. But we tend to gloss over the social cohesion and social harmony that made all this possible.

9. When riots broke out in Indonesia in 1998, we were concerned about whether it might spill over to Singapore. Our initial instinct was not one of whether the same kind of riots might take place here, but rather whether there would be a flood of people fleeing the killings elsewhere, and whether we would be able to contain them.

10. But when we thought about it further, we had to ask ourselves whether ethnic riots could take place again in Singapore society. The answer was not an unequivocal no. Many of us cannot conceive it happening. But we also cannot rule it out. We know that an irresponsible or mischievous rabble-rouser can still inflame passions and burn away rationality. For example, even to this day, we still hear people from other countries claiming to champion the rights of Malays in Singapore.

11. But despite riots in the region, and unfriendly instigations, ethnic conflicts have not flared up in Singapore. This shows how far we have progressed and matured as a society. We should pause and reflect why. Our social unity and harmony did not happen by chance. We worked at it. In the community centres, through grassroots efforts and education in schools, we got people together, to mix, learn, and understand each other's culture and customs. Over time, we stripped down prejudices borne out of stereotyping and superstition.

12. We succeeded because our policies of meritocracy and equal opportunities brought real progress to all. But our past success is no guarantee that things will remain calm and peaceful. We still need to emphasise social development as we move forward.

13. I see three basic reasons for this:

14. Firstly, we live a hectic and stressful lifestyle. This is partly by choice, and partly by circumstance. We move at a fast pace, because we are driven by competitive forces largely outside our control.

15. Stress can make our multi-racial society more fragile. It magnifies problems. We can become emotional, and lose perspective. At the individual level, we can get more short-tempered at the end of a long, tiring day. At the collective level, we can become less tolerant and more selfish. 16. This is why we must continually affirm our belief in social harmony and make conscious efforts to build up our communities.

17. Secondly, most of us feel that just having economic success is not enough. Now that basic needs are met, we want our societies to be more gracious and compassionate. We want our lives to have higher meaning and purpose. We don't wish to be just stressed out getting rich or richer. We also feel that our lives should have balance. We want to enjoy the arts and cultural activities, to have time for friends and communities we care about, to be fit and healthy.

18. So we hope that Singapore will develop in such a way that we achieve this balance.

19. Thirdly, our economy is changing. We talk about entering the knowledge economy when we enter the new millennium. Getting ahead means that we have to manage information better and faster. We make our living not just by the sweat of our brow, but more so by exercising our minds. We have to be creative, innovative and entrepreneurial.

20. The novelty and relevance of our ideas is a function of how plugged in a society we are. To succeed, we must be increasingly cosmopolitan, global and networked. To have the "buzz", we must have a vibrant and lively society, where minds are constantly cross-pollinating ideas.

21. But new ideas can be threatening, as much as they can be stimulating. Some will be fearful of change - they fear that they cannot cope, or that their children cannot cope. They would rather slow down the pace. Others want to surge ahead, and argue that we should liberalise more quickly, that the best way to develop is to be completely open and receptive to the rest of the world.

22. We have to resolve these tensions. The nature and tone of our society will have to change as we adapt to the new economy.

23. Let me summarise the 3 reasons why we should be concerned about social development.

a. Firstly, we cannot take social cohesion for granted. We must continue to work on social harmony to counter the adverse effects of a fast paced and impersonal society, and to build resilience against mischief-makers who can cause social strife. b. Secondly, we want to bring about a kinder and more balanced society where life is not just measured by economic success, but also finds meaning in the arts and culture, in sports and adventure and community service. c. Thirdly, we need to create a livelier and more vibrant environment so that we can spark off more creative ideas and innovations to compete in a knowledge driven world.

24. These three concerns are real challenges, and are reasons why the government initiated Singapore 21. Yes, there is a political motive in initiating Singapore 21. But it is not just a political façade. It is to deal with issues that are important, pressing and critical to whether or not we will continue as a successful society in the 21st century.

25. Some people may argue that the way forward is to give Singapore society more space to develop, rather than to have the direction of growth dictated by the government.

26. But this misses the point. The government initiated Singapore 21. But the conclusions it came to were not pre-determined by the government.

27. From the outset, the exercise was constructed to allow as much articulation of viewpoints and opinions as practicable. The issues we discussed were not framed as "goal statements" to be endorsed, but as "dilemmas" to be discussed and resolved. There was no pre-agreed outcome. What we had was a process for discussions and conversations to take place, and for ideas to develop.

28. We spoke with some 6000 people. There was press publicity over a long period of time. People wrote letters to the newspapers. Editors wrote op-ed pieces. Parliament debated it for 3 days.

29. In the end, it was a vision that reflects a broad consensus - not so much of specific programmes and activities, but of the broad direction that we should move our society towards.

30. Still, I cannot say tonight that it is "The Nation's Vision". At this time, it is some people's vision, not all. But I hope it would be, and that after tonight's conversation, more would become believers, advocates, practitioners.

31. The essential idea in Singapore 21 is that people, each one of us, must make a personal decision how we want to be involved in and contributing towards the development of our society. This cannot be forced or coerced. We can run campaigns to create awareness, but we cannot pass laws to enforce ownership.

32. There are several reasons why Singapore 21 has not yet become "Everybody's Vision". Different people had different reasons. They cynics have their arguments, as do those who are indifferent or undecided. In the interest of time tonight, I will only deal with the responses of the sceptical.

33. Those who are sceptical or cynical about the whole process argue that the root cause of the problem is the government, and its policies. They make a number of assertions. Let me deal with the most deeply held ones.

34. One of the key assertions is that there is no freedom of expression. The argument is that because the OB markers are not clear, people are afraid to speak their minds. Furthermore, they say that those who dare to speak are told to form political parties, or else hold their tongues. For these reasons they content that real debate will not take place and, therefore, the ideals in Singapore 21 cannot be realised.

35. Let me respond to these arguments.

36. Firstly, OB markers. There are areas that are clearly not acceptable in our society, such as defaming other people, making seditious statements or inciting racial disunity. They are unacceptable because they create public harm by threatening social order.

37. But there are other areas that depend on society's expectations and attitudes. For example, sexual mores in Singapore have changed, reflecting more open attitudes towards sexuality. This is partly driven by television and internet, which makes it hard for us to avoid influences which we would have preferred to keep out, and therefore have no choice but to face it.

38. Some months back, we disallowed a group of people to register themselves as a society. This was a group of people who believed that homosexuals should be recognised in our society. Their application to the Registry of Societies was turned down. Does this mean that they cannot talk about homosexuality in Singapore? No. But it does mean that as a society, we are not yet ready to give recognition to this group of people, and the sexual mores they advocate.

39. What is acceptable to society changes over time. I do not know if there will come a time when homosexuality will be accepted here. But I cannot rule it out. There is more nudity in the performing arts and our cinemas today than there was 20 or even 10 years ago. Nowadays, "shagged" or "shiok" or "shook" matters less to us. And whatever is to be decided is not decided in a vacuum by the government, but through a process of consultation with citizen groups.

40. OB markers therefore reflect what society as a whole believes in. What response the government makes depends on what we judge society to be ready to accept or tolerate, and what we believe society is able to bear.

41. We have said that no one, who sets out to improve society, and not just to further his own interests, need fear rebuke or arrest. But some would argue that this does not apply to political criticism. If you criticise the government, they say, you will be rebuked, or otherwise taken to task. Or you will be challenged to form a political party and contest the elections. They ask: "Can't a person hold a political view, without being a politician?"

42. Everyone has the right to criticise the government. Indeed, the government is accountable to every one of you for its actions. But it would be incomplete to leave it at this. We must also take responsibility for what we say. And that means that you must expect the government to rebut your arguments if you oppose the government's policies. That's in the nature of a fair debate. And if the government has reason to believe that someone has an ulterior motive in bringing out a point of view, we will say so, and also act to nip it in the bud. That is our duty to the citizens who elected us.

43. As to forming a political party, that depends on what you want to achieve. If you only want to voice your opinion, that's one matter. But if you want to change the system, to rally others to your cause, and to bring about a change of government, that's quite another proposition.

44. At an S21 conference last week, a proposal was made that Singapore 21 means that in time, civil society and the government should be "equal partners", and have "equal legitimacy". The proposal was that civil society groups should have as much say over policy as the government, that their views should be heard and their vote taken. I have difficulty with these assertions.

45. This is not the nature of our society. We are not governed this way today. The government wins its legitimacy by promising the voters to implement certain policies and programs. The voters expect the government to make good those promises and policies. They expect the government to lead.

46. But if you believe that a better system of governance is to bring about "equal legitimacy" of civil society, then you would have to win over the voters. And that means that you have to form a political party, and put your ideas to the test.

47. This is not a threat to curtail discussion, nor an attempt to squelch a differing point of view. It is simply the practical consequence of how an orderly and free society conducts its business.


Ladies and gentlemen:

48. We will not settle all the issues in one night's discussion. Perhaps not even in 1001 nights. It is in the nature of political discourse that we will have differences.

49. But does that mean that we cannot work on Singapore 21 together? Are we unable to advance the values, the ideas and ideals of Singapore 21 without complete agreement on what is the role of government or the role of civil society? I don't believe so.

50. The essence of Singapore 21 is that Singapore in the 21st century should be the kind of society that individually and collectively we want. It is the common ground that binds us together, the "heartware" that unites us. On this foundation, we can each have our different dreams, and hopes and ambitions. But without this foundation, we would have nothing to build on.

51. The moving spirit of Singapore 21 is that everyone must act. We must each do our part. Every citizen, who wants a say in the shape of our future society, must also put in effort to build it.

52. My proposal to you tonight is that we should have a balance between words and actions. By all means, let us debate the meaning of the Vision and examine what policies and roles the government should play. But let us not forget that it is action that is needed to bring us forward, and not just words. Action by the government, and also action by the citizens.

53. If we reject Singapore 21 and dismiss it as political propaganda, it probably would end up being just that - political rhetoric, and ineffective. But then what would you put in its place? What alternative vision would we have to face the challenges of the next millennium?

54. I speak tonight to a group of people who are a part of the intellectual force of Singapore. Your leadership is needed in the heartlands if we are to translate this message into meaningful actions. You understand the importance of unity. You have the ability to organise and lead. You have to decide what actions to take. What Singapore becomes, depends on what you do. I hope you will be active citizens and help to refine, apply and realise our Singapore 21 Vision.

55. Thank you.