Wednesday, November 30, 2016

Our Future - The Art of Foreign Diplomacy

Business sentiments have never been so bad. The local economy is sliding rapidly as international trade suffers the worsening dampening effects of global structural changes. The oil and gas industry has taken the hardest hit and the domino effect is being felt in all related sectors. More retrenchments are in the pipeline as more businesses are folding up. This is the time that tests not only the temerity of our people but the capability of our leadership.


During the earlier periods when our economy was buoyed by the birth of new economies and the expansion of global demands for goods and services, we experienced double digit GDP growth and the birth of "million-dollar" ministers. Although many have constantly expressed surprise that a tiny country like ours could ever become so economically successful, one would have thought that the challenges for a giant country, besieged with extensive socio-political-geographical concerns, to achieve economic success would be much harder to surmount. In that regard, China's growth as an economic powerhouse despite all its historical baggages, political dogma, multi-faceted internal conflicts and recurring natural calamities country-wide is, by comparison, a greater miracle.

With the current slump in world trade, the blame game has just begun. Fingers are pointing outwards to the causes of our economic woes even as our trade pacts seem to have brought little direct benefit for our people and businesses. We may be too set in our old ways and slow to react to a fast changing world even as we constantly preach innovation and creativity. A new world order is taking shape with a new big brother claiming its place as a super-power. 


Not too long ago, China was just a big, poor country, with little international clout and prestige. But its economic awakening accounted for intensified world trade in the last 25 years and brought abundant business opportunities for the entire world and no small part of our acclaimed economic success. China, the Middle Kingdom, has arrived not only at the world stage as a big-time actor but it is also vying for one of the director's seats. And the directors of the old order are sitting tight, hoping to continue with the performances under their scripts for as long as they could. And several supporting actors are caught in a bind in the tussle. Unfortuitously for us, our tiny nation is one of them.

The cameras have lately shifted in our direction and we have come under the spotlight. The storylines in both the old and new scripts are not so kind to us but our show must carry on as it has been for the last 50 years. However, if there is to be a positive spin from all that has gone wrong for us thus far, it has to rest upon our realisation that the economic future and survival of our tiny nation lies in one important skill - how well we handle our diplomatic relations with all nations, big and small. Our friend's enemy is not necessarily our enemy. And our enemy's friend is not necessarily our friend. 


Old alliances should not stop us from forming new alliances. As the saying goes: "There are no everlasting enemies nor friends. Only friends with the same interests." Where there are commonalities, these should be heightened and worked upon to mutual advantage. Where there are differences, these should be minimised as much as possible with a mutual understanding to not let these differences stand in the way of future co-operation and collaboration for mutual benefit. We cannot ignore sensitivities and must constantly be aware of how our words and actions may mean one thing but be taken to represent something else which is unintended. We may also not be able to please every neighbour but at the very least, we should be mindful not to offend any sensitivities.

Lest we believe them, the MNCs were never really here to stay. Many have relocated elsewhere and major businesses are finding it harder to cope in the current economic downturn. In the midst of all these happenings, it is imperative to extend all possible help to our SMEs to keep them afloat. In essence, they are our true economic lifeline. After all, don't all businesses start small?

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Retiring Retirement - A New Way of Life


Before the invention of the retirement age, people did not think of retiring from work. They would just carry on working until they could no longer do so. Then in 1881, Otto von Bismarck presented the idea of a pension scheme to a newly formed Germany that was premised upon a retirement age when people could choose not to work anymore and be financially taken care of by the state. It was a brilliant political move and soon Britain and Europe were buying into the idea of Bismarck's pension scheme [Read More].

During our colonial times, the British implemented a pension scheme in Singapore and civil servants could comfortably retire at the withdrawal age of 55 and enjoy social security when they no longer have to work. Back then, life was a lot simpler and the cost of living and healthcare was more manageable. With the rapid advances in modern medicine and technology over the last few decades, people are living longer and healthier lives. But, with escalating prices from food to transport, those on pension schemes are finding it harder to cope financially. Today, aged poverty stares in the face of millions of retirees living in rich countries. In the United States, more people are working past the age of 65 [Read More]. 


Pension schemes are turning into fiscal hot potatoes for governments with an ever-growing silver population. The cost of funding state pension schemes is taking its toll on government coffers. In 2013, it was announced that our civil servants will no longer receive pensions [Read More]. While pensions have been removed, the retirement age was not. There is a statutory retirement age that was previously set at 60 and our laws have since moved to provide for a "minimum retirement age" of 62 [Read More]. In other countries, legislations on retirement have either been abolished or amended to  push up the retirement age [Read More]. The writings are on the wall. Retirement has to be retired.

The current working generation has to learn to face up to a future without retirement. In the context of today's high costs of living and healthcare, it is no longer glamorous nor affordable to retire and it is certainly better to be ready to keep working than being sorry about it. Not retiring from work 6seems to have its advantages. Modern scientific research has shown that retirement may in fact be bad for your mental health [Read More]. 

Without retirement, work and leisure will take on new meanings. For the employee, they will learn to take pride in being economically productive despite their age [Read More]. For employers, they will recognise the value of the silver workforce and its capacity to enhance productivity and to meet any labour shortage The responsibility of creating job opportunities for the silver workforce eventually falls on the government's shoulders. Our public sector could take the lead by employing more older workers on fixed or flexible hours and without discounting their wages or CPF contributions because of their age.

As working becomes a long-lasting commitment, attitudes towards planning for regular leisure activities and holidays will change. That long holiday in a dream destination which would have been put off until retirement need no longer be delayed that long. Living the moment will no longer be seen to be just be a mantra. It will be the way of life. For everyone.

Wednesday, August 3, 2016

Social Conscience - Unlocking Our Positive Energy


These days, there isn't a day that passes without some tragic news. Terrorist attacks, mass killings and homicidal "lone wolves" are making newspaper headlines and every government is beefing up security measures to avert another tragedy. However, even the best security system cannot guarantee absolute protection against the fanatical forces that wreak havoc in the lives of ordinary folks and cause mayhem in peaceful societies around the world. Only recently, we were told to brace ourselves for the day when our security net may be breached (Read HERE). Besides concentrating our efforts on security measures and enhancing civil, police and military vigilance, we need to ask what else we can do in our struggle against the impact of ideological radicalisation and extremism.

In the deep recesses of our subconscious minds lie a powerful inhibitor of wrong-doings. Each time we are about to do something that we shouldn't be doing or hold back from doing something that we should, it makes us feel queasy. When this queasy feeling intensifies, we feel a prevailing sense of guilt or regret and then promise ourselves not to let it happen again. That natural inhibitory reflex inside us is our "conscience" and it also has the power to make us do good. In psychoanalytic theory, our conscience is identified as our "super-ego", that part of our subconsciousness that aims for human perfection.

As people live in communities sharing common values and aspirations, those innate feelings that restrain us from doing harm and spur positive behaviours in troubling situations, develop into a sort of social conscience. A moral compass that we rely upon to navigate through many moral dilemmas in our lives. This social conscience encapsulates social consciousness, the latter being a form of conscious awareness of our society's well-being that is merely knowledge devoid of the energising force of social conscience.

A strong social conscience will move us to respond to our sense of right and wrong. It makes us display our best human values, those that build the best traditions of a mature, peace-loving society. In one online dictionary definition, it is said that if you have a social conscience, you worry about people who are poor, ill, old, etc. and try to help them (Read More). It is more than that. Social conscience can be perceived as a form of positive energy that is sadly diminished in those of us who pursue selfish gains and fanatical idealism. The negative forces of greed, jealousy and hatred can only be subdued through unlocking that positive energy in each of us. In order to do so, we need to develop a strong social conscience that forces our humanitarianism to the surface. And the way to go about is to constantly learn and understand our own humanity and how decent human beings ought to treat each other.

Unlock that positive energy in you and help change the world for the better.

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

The Businesses of the State

The world is again caught in a state of flux and many changes which are beyond our wildest expectations are taking shape. From ISIS to Brexit, there is a looming picture of gloom and the impacts in socio-political-economic terms are wide and extensive. In the tiny state of Singapore, these tumultuous occurrences taking place in the middle east and Europe are far away from the minds of ordinary Singaporeans. Their immediate worries are about bread and butter issues. 
 
 
The economic slowdown does not seem to recover anytime soon and retrenchment exercises are back. In the early 60's when Singapore was emerging as a developing nation, the state took control of economic development and charted a course which had state-owned enterprises taking the lead in opening up new industries. State capitalism intensified even after Singapore ascended the ranks and became a developed nation in the 80's. In the next 3 decades, the state continued to expand and acquire substantial business interests either directly under its statutory boards or indirectly through state-linked companies. Today, it has become the biggest landlord and business owner. It is also the biggest employer in Singapore and a major international investor with an enviable sovereign wealth fund.

When every citizen is gainfully employed and is able to afford a roof over their head, no one really cares too much about who owns what and how much money is made by the businesses and their management. In the minds of a people deeply accustomed to letting the state take the lead in almost everything, the business of running our economy, including what investments to make overseas, belongs to the state and not the people or even private enterprises. However, as at every critical point in our growth as a nation, past solutions invite serious questions when they no longer appear to be effective in dealing with present day problems. Ever-rising rents and costs of doing business, increasing unemployment, retrenchments and slower economic growth have become recurrent topics in our daily news. When state capitalism in our past as an emerging economy could create jobs, homes, higher incomes and hopes for a better future, these times are considered hard times. A fundamental question relating to market economics has to be asked. Is a state-owned and controlled economy, with its current breadth and depth, still a viable solution for the challenges that Singapore faces, given that the dynamics of doing business today requires greater innovation and creativity?

It is not suggested that state capitalism per se is undesirable. For instance, state capitalism in China has brought sterling economic growth for the Chinese economy in the last 20 years and it would be hard to find any no pure free market economy in the world today. The state is always involved in some economically strategic matters, such as regulating the banking system and lending activities and ownership of what are considered important national assets. However, to the extent that state capitalism is essential in order to protect its people from a wayward economy, the logic falls short when it goes beyond that. Heavy-handed state intervention in free market forces creates serious distortions of the market, generating misinformation and unrealistic expectations. Extensive business interests of the state also unwittingly compromises good political governance when the state chooses to protect its business interests over the rights of the people . Unfair competition may also breed disenchantment and stifle entrepreneurship in areas seen to be dominated by state-linked businesses .  
Is it time for our economy to be driven more by real private enterprises than by state-owned businesses? If so, how can we achieve a better balance between state capitalism and free capitalism? These are questions that need a rethink at higher levels.

Tuesday, May 24, 2016

God Save Our President


A recent opinion expressed by the Straits Times (in ST, Tues, May 17, 2016) on “Understanding the President's role” spoke about the review of aspects of the Elected Presidency and the traditional role of our President and. It struck a cord with the following comment:

"The main tension arises from the grafting of a custodial role to the traditional unifying role in a Westminster system of parliamentary government. The latter is arguable the predominance for the Head of State in a participative democracy as he or she would stand above the fray and be a symbol of the dignity and continuity of the nation - an authoritative upholder of the aspirations within the National Pledge. The President represents all of the people, including those who are disadvantaged or lack a voice, and not just those who voted for thin. That is what lends moral authority to the office."

Indeed, our President has always been a symbol of national unity and political neutrality. He represented the ideals of ordinary Singaporeans and the belief that it was possible for an ordinary Singapore to rise to the highest office in the land. The country’s first four presidents, who held office between 1965 and 1993, were appointed by parliament. Yusof Ishak, Benjamin Sheares, Devan Nair and Wee Kim Wee were largely ceremonial heads of state with limited powers who acted mainly on the advice of the cabinet. Our President speaks at the opening of parliamentary sessions, attends state functions and receives foreign dignitaries. And on National Day, every citizen waits patiently to see the arrival of our President at the parade to recite the national pledge together. Sadly, this symbolic role of our President in a young republic like ours, was made to stand on its head following amendments to our constitution in 1991 to provide for the election of our President.

The Elected President's key role is to act as a guardian of our past national reserves. The Elected President is endowed with oversight powers on government expenditure using such reserves. Many have criticised the changes as politically motivated and this is criticism does not seem to be entirely without basis. Only a select few qualify to be candidates under the changes which are more stringent than those who wish to be elected as Members of Parliament. The candidate must be a former senior political appointee, high-ranking civil servant or someone with strong financial management experience. These changes did not merely graft a custodial role to the traditional role of the President. In fact, it subverted our President's traditional role and politicised his office.

Every presidential election puts the candidates under the spotlight of political parties who have come to view these elections as another political contest for them besides the general elections. The impact resulted in the incumbent having won the 2011 presidential elections with 35.20% of the votes, with a narrow margin of only 0.34% over the second-placed candidate. Consequently, not only has the traditional role of the President been substantially diminished, the standing of the office of the President has also been lowered in the eyes of the general public after the political mud-slinging that has become commonplace during elections. One wonders why the Auditor General was not considered for that custodian role. Alternatively, it would have been more feasible to set up a new administrative office equipped with a strong secretariat to undertake the demanding task.

The expansion of the role of our President to include the protection of our nation's reserves is as undesirable as the expansion of the role of our Members of Parliament to manage town councils. The additonal responsibilities undermine the more important traditonal roles and the task of ensuring that our national reserves are not misused should have been assigned to someone else. As Head of State, our President must continue to be a symbol of unity and to undertake the tall order of keeping the financial expenditure of an elected government in check will compromise his symbolic status. Elected or not.

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Troubled Souls


As our society learns to recognise that more could be done for those who are physically impaired, there seems to be a corresponding rise in social vigilantism that springs up quickly to condemn anyone who seem to show little consideration for the less able-bodied.

Not long ago, there was an impassioned plea in parliament for a better understanding of those who suffer some form of physical disability. There are many small voices that cry out to the able-bodied for more of their patience and understanding. It is important that we learn to hear these voices which are quietly tugging at our heartstrings as we strive to become a more compassionate society.


In sparing thought for those who are physically impaired, we need to realise that there are also many amongst us who do not suffer from any obvious physical impairment but need our patience and understanding no less. They are the ones suffering quietly from emotional distress who do not display the outwards signs of physical impairment that would have otherwise drawn to themselves the spontaneous help from concerned bystanders. Very often, these troubled souls are mistaken by social vigilantes as people who are cold and dispassionate in responding timely or appropriately to the needs of a less able-bodied person standing close to them. And they are caused to suffer from public ridicule and condemnation, adding on to their untold frustration and emotional torment and pushing them to breaking point.

Materialism and elitism have been the twin evils that have come to occupy our minds from the decades spent in a national pursuit for global excellence in every undertaking. Sky-rocketting property prices which are grossly disproportionate to the rise in income levels have shattered the dreams of many young Singaporeans and pushing them into migrating overseas. Keen competition with foreigners for jobs, housing and transport in our own land has displaced many individuals and families and severely dampened morale. Divorces are constantly on the rise and more children are left to the care of domestic helpers as dual incomes from their parents become indispensable. Rising business costs have closed the curtains on many local enterprises and constant skills upgrading have not brought about better jobs. Endless new legislations and regulations have raised the pressures of living in this small city-state and there are many people who look perfectly normal on a perfect day but are too stressed out mentally and emotionally. They are already at wits' end.


For all these troubled souls who appear as normal, healthy- looking people, they too have small voices crying out for patience and understanding as well.

"If I am not giving you my seat, it's not because I am unkind;  I am just lost in my thoughts."

"If I am not giving way, it's not because I don't care; I just do not have much time left."

"If I am not paying any attention to you, it's not because I am cold; I just don't know what I am going to do anymore."

"If I am going too fast, it's not because I am reckless; I am just worried that I may not make it."

"If I don't answer you, it's not that I want to be rude; I just don't know what is happening to me."

"If I don't see you standing in front of me, it's not because I am pretending to sleep. I am just very, very tired."

Let's all learn not to be too quick to point our fingers without sparing a thought for someone who may be one of these troubled souls. He or she needs our patience and understanding too.

Monday, April 4, 2016

Education versus Regulating in Social Norms


A young boy was travelling on the Hong Kong MTR with his mother. The train was crowded and when 2 seats near the boy were vacated, he quickly climbed onto the seats. 

An elderly couple was standing nearby and the grey-haired old lady wanted to occupy one of the vacated seats. However, the young boy quickly stretched out his arms to stop her from sitting down. His mother was aghast at his behaviour and immediately asked him to give one seat to the old lady. He refused. The boy reasoned that elderly folks have privilege over seats marked Priority Seats but not those that are unmarked. Despite his mother's attempts to cajole him into giving up at least one seat, he remained adamant.  His mother then decided to take the boy down from the seats and to offer them to the elderly couple who expressed thanks for her act of kindness.

Human behaviour is the product of both nature and nurture. From a societal perspective, certain behaviours are less desired for their selfish overtures whilst selfless behaviours are deemed to be fundamental and crucial for social cohesion. Self-centred behaviours in group dynamics are deemed not to augur well for the development of strong team spirit and collegiality. Consequently, behavioural instructions are dispensed to mould desired behaviours and to change behaviours that are incompatible with the communal ethos of the society that we live in.

History has demonstrated that social norms are created through conquest, regulation and education but sustained through the latter two methods. When a new order comes into being, new social norms need to be put in place. By regulating through laws and rules, society becomes conditioned to behave in a manner desired to avoid the unpleasant consequences that follow with non-compliance. For instance, by legislating the indiscriminate disposal of waste in public as an offence punishable by law, people refrain from littering to avoid being fined. Over time, "not littering" behaviour becomes conditioned in the society where the anti-littering laws are applied and enforced. 

The problem with regulating behaviour is that people continue to behave in that manner because "the law says so." And they will behave strictly according to the letter. The place is kept free from litter to comply with the regulation. In the MTR incident, the young boy did not do anything wrong in refusing to give up his seat to the old couple as far as regulations go. Even adult commuters have displayed a similar behaviour and we have seen it here in our own trains and buses. Elderly commuters and those in need are seen to have a right over seats expressly reserved for them. For unreserved seats, they have no such right. 

By regulating behaviour with laws and rules, giving up a seat to someone who needs it more becomes a matter of rights. For those who are imbued with a strong sense of values, they will most definitely feel that something is clearly not right here. Unlike the use of education to inculcate desired behaviours by means of reasoning and persuasion, the use of laws and rules to regulate behaviour may often achieve an opposite effect. It's impact is further limited in time and space. Have we not often lamented the fact that many Singaporeans litter outside Singapore but do not do so when they return to our "fine" city? 

If we desire to create a more caring, gracious and harmonious society, which is essentially one that is endowed with a strong, deep sense of values, should we not rely less on regulating behaviours according to rights but more on educating people to behave based on the values of compassion and kindness? The difference in their impacts are apparent in the long run and we are already seeing them every day.

Saturday, March 12, 2016

GE 2015: The 1st By-election


It was expected to happen anytime after GE 2015. The question was where it will happen first and it has been answered today. Bukit Batok SMC is up for a by-election. The MP who won the seat of Bukit Batok Town Council for PAP has resigned.

There were two by-elections following GE 2011. Both incumbents were from different parties and they resigned because of extra-marital affairs. The latest resignation was for the same reason and the by-election date will be announced in due course. While there are people who are interested in talking about why these marital affairs happen so often and speculating over whether there could be other MPs who are engaged in such "personal indiscretions", others are more interested in exploring the likely scenarios for the coming by-election. Who will be contesting and who will likely emerge as the winner?


This by-election presents a precious opportunity for another alternative voice to be heard in parliament and many aspiring candidates are already sitting up straight and contemplating. In GE 2015, there was a 3-way contest in Bt Batok in which the ward was won by the PAP candidate with 73.02% votes and the SDP's candidate garnered 26.38%. The independent candidate who entered a token appearance lost his election deposit with only 0.6% votes. Aspiring candidates in the upcoming by-election will need to assess their familiarity and appeal to the voters of Bukit Batok SMC before they take the plunge. It will be remiss of them to count on the intuition that by-elections tend to work against the PAP for no one can be sure of voters' behaviour on polling day.

Historically, Bt Batok SMC had been close to being an opposition ward before GE 2015. It was abolished as a single-seat ward in 1997 after PAP won it narrowly against SDP and merged twice - first with Bt Timah GRC (in 1997) and later with Jurong GRC (in 2001). It was restored as a SMC in GE 2015 only to see a by-election barely 7 months later

The voters of Bt Batok SMC will have a second chance to exercise their voting power and to present their message. How they vote will now be the focus of public discourse, as will be the likely candidates for the by-election. We wait with abated breath to see what message the voters of Bt Batok SMC will be sending to all of us.

Saturday, February 20, 2016

The Un-elected Members of Parliament

The idea of allowing the citizens of a state to elect their parliamentary representatives is a fundamental feature of democracy. The citizens vote in a general election who to send into the highest policy-making body in their country to be their representative and to decide their future. 


In a majority electoral system, the candidate with the highest votes in a particular constituency gets elected into parliament. By contrast, in a proportional electoral system, political parties are allocated seats based on the proportion of the votes their candidates win. In either system, the idea remains that members of parliament are elected. An unelected representative in parliament is therefore anathema to the concept of democracy.

NMPs ("Nominated MPs") and NCMPs ("Non-Constituency MPs") belong to a special category of parliamentarians. They exist only in our political system and nowhere else.

NMPs have not been elected by the citizens but appointed by Parliament to speak purportedly as independent, non-partisan voices. However, because our parliament is consistently overwhelmingly represented by one political party, the NMP is largely perceived to be nothing more than a political appointee for one party. They serve for two and a half years, representing sectoral interests in civil society and do not have to answer to the voters of any constituency. The NMP scheme has been around since 1990 and it is interesting to note that no former NMP has ever ventured to participate in the general elections despite having gained invaluable experience in parliamentary work.

The NCMP scheme has been around longer than the NMP scheme. It was implemented in 1984 and allows NCMPs (Non-Constituency MPs), who were unsuccessful electoral candidates at a general election, to be sent into parliament. NCMPs are deemed elected to the post by vitrtue of their standing as the highest election losers. Given that every electoral candidate contests to win a constituency and not to lose, it is hard to accept the argument that NCMPs are deemed elected to Parliament. The notion of an elected NCMP was finally demolished by Parliament's recent approval to transfer a NCMP seat from one losing candidate to another (Click HERE).

The two unelected MPs' schemes have drastically changed the concept of democracy as it existed in Singapore at the time when the first general elections was held in 1959. In the last 57 years, we have evolved a political system that has become a pale shadow of what it used to be - that was when all MPs must be elected by the people in a general election. The current electoral system is reminiscent of the colonial system of elections where the predecessor of our Parliament, then known as the Legislative Assembly, comprised of both elected members and appointees of the British government. Whether this circular evolution of our political system augurs well for the future of our young nation is something that only time can tell. And it would be hard to gainsay the suggestion that our generation will not be around to find out the answer.

Plans are now afoot to further tinker with the NCMP scheme by giving NCMPs the same voting rights as elected MPs (Click HERE). Many on the opposite side of the divide have expressed their misgivings about these changes. But from a practical perspective, an NCMP appears to stand in a more enviable position than an elected MP in that he/she is freed completely from the burden of running a town council and could dedicate more time in parliamentary work. NCMPs are also not prevented from continuing with their ground engagements with the voters in their chosen constituency and the only apparent disadvantage is that the elected MP would have more resources at his disposal and a wider reach to the same voters. This does not seem to be worthy of concern to someone who had already lost in the elections. At least as NCMP, he/she has now every opportunity to lend an alternative voice in Parliament.

The real question to ask about these changes to expand the number and role of un-elected MPs and future modifications in the same vein, is the extent to which our rights as voters in what remains of our democracy are being diminished when there are Members of Parliament who are not elected by us but have the privileges of speaking and voting on all matters that concern us. If we carry these changes to their logical conclusion, will Parliament end up having the power to constitute itself without an election?

Sunday, January 24, 2016

CMIO- For Better or Worse


Singapore's cultural identity is a unique composition of the different beliefs and practices of our major ethnic groups, classified under the Chinese, Malays, Indians and Others ("CMIO") model.

From our food, costumes, music, art, festivals, etc., including our pidgin Singlish, our cultural identity binds us together as one people in a multi-racial, multi-religious society. Wherever we may be, we can easily identify another Singaporean.

However, with the rapid increase in the number of new citizens each year, we are beginning to see a potential cultural crisis looming, with the rising influence of new cultures. There are already calls for the CMIO model to be abolished and the argument is that it fails to encompass the increasing cultural diversity in Singapore.


Our intake of new citizens has reportedly increased from an average of 8,200 per year between 1987 and 2006, to about 18,500 per year in the last 5 years (Read More). Going by these numbers, it is not surprising to see the CMIO model already coming under threat.

It is said that the CMIO model does not capture the numerous heterogenous sub-communities in Singapore and the diversity that resulted from immigration and inter-community marriages (Read More). Some have proposed that Singapore should emulate New York City, for example, where there is no fixed preconception of people (Read More). The momentum to abolish the CMIO model seems to be accelerating.

On the other hand, opponents to the abolition argue that the CMIO categorisation sets the minority communities at ease and should not be jettisoned too quickly (Read More). Their worries are that without the CMIO model, not only will the culture of the majority ethnic group dominate, the culture of the minority ethnic group will lose protection. These worries are not completely unfounded but there is a greater worry.


Over the last 50 years, the CMIO has been the invisible scaffolding that has shaped the cultural identity of our nation. Although it started out as a simplistic and racist way of managing the interests of the different ethnic groups in Singapore, which is not much different from the way the British colonialists did it, the CMIO model has become so structurally entrenched in our social make-up that to abolish it now is to uproot the racial markers that has made Singapore unique in the eyes of the world. Its abolition will be followed by a potentially virulent clash of all the cultures that are found in our land today and which will lead to a major transformation not only in our nation's 50 year-old cultural identity but in our socio-political structures as well.

It bears reminder that in a global city, the inhabitants come and go and their interests are purely economic. For a nation to be truly able to hold on to its people's hearts and minds, the people need to feel a strong sense of belonging beyond their economic interests. Their strong cultural identity as a nation of people is what holds them together in one place. Despite its racial overtures and inadequacies, the CMIO has been a necessary evil that has worked so far to maintain the peace and stability in our tiny island nation. Before we tear it down, we should ask ourselves if we are ready for what comes next.