What we can learn from our neighbour

Last weekend, I was in Singapore to attend a cousin’s wedding (and there is probably even more to come), in which my family and I spent the night in a relative’s house.

My aunt and uncle take a strong interest in their country’s national development, from public policy to politics and so, they were intrigued to engage in a conversation about the Malaysian dilemma.

They were interested in sharing their insights by drawing comparisons between our two countries but mostly, to gain the perspective of a young activist and what was it like to write a column and lament over our bitter state.

Perhaps many Malaysians may think that our Singaporean counterparts must be laughing at us and thanking themselves for leaving Malaysia in 1965 after looking at the present state of affairs.

Although that is not always the case. In fact, my relatives expressed much solidarity, given that wherever there is family, a sense of home seems present.

This seems to be the case whenever I visited Singapore. It must be because I have so many cousins, aunts and uncles there as my grandfather is Singaporean, while my mother identifies herself as “half-Singaporean” as she spent most parts of her early childhood there.

She even calls me a “quarter Singaporean” and takes pride in it, though as much as there is a sense of belonging – it is not the soil to which my loyalty is bounded.

In spite of being neighbours with many similarities, we are also worlds apart. It is most unfortunate but more specifically, most of us find ourselves ashamed and embarrassed about the situation we are in, especially when we keep comparing ourselves with Singapore.

An interesting point posed by my aunt was the comparison between Malaysia and Singapore might be unfair because the level playing field was never equal to begin with.

It is indeed true that Singapore had a head start in its post-colonial phase compared with Malaysia – it is said that its per capita income was 2.5 times higher than Malaysia in 1965.

Even before World War 2, Singapore had experienced a reasonable amount of growth. According to W.G. Huff’s “The Economic Growth of Singapore”, the country was the most important communications centre in the Far East.

During the war years, it was home to the international market for tin and rubber, and also became a major world oil distribution centre.

In addition: “There existed a reservoir of human capital: the city had an entrepreneur class which is both extensive in numbers and high in quality, and substantial industry, not least as a centre for ship repair with the skilled labour force this implied. A tradition of strong and stable government had been established: Singapore ‘inherited an administration which worked’ and built on it.”

It is far more complex to govern 13 states and four federal territories with an abundance of natural resources than a “one city state”.

Maybe we should be comparing ourselves with Indonesia, Thailand or the Philippines to be more realistic. Some of our ministers even compare us with African countries in terms of growth, which is assumed to be an accurate picture.

However, it does not change the fact that an efficient government makes all the difference in how a country can move forward after independence.

However, I do think that we place too much emphasis on measuring the competitiveness between Singapore and Malaysia as a determinant of “success”.

Instead, it is crucial to note the factor that either makes or breaks a country’s progress is the ideological base to which its government abides.

In the post-colonial nation-building process, leadership ought to be supported by the aspirations of a shared vision for national reconciliation.

It is important to create a sense of national unity through collective identity – as traditionally achieved by the spirit of the state’s constitution.

Such deliberation on setting values and principles can be overlooked over the course of history, especially when citizens become distracted by political uncertainties.

Even when the successors of the founders fail to uphold them in times of great uncertainty.

In the case for Singapore, it can be credited to the creation of “shared values” first introduced by then deputy prime minister Goh Chok Tong on October 28, 1988.

In his speech, Goh raised concern over the deviation from Asian communitarianism and the move towards the Western principle of individualism.

Eventually, on January 2, 1991, the five values which shaped Singapore’s national identity were proposed in the White Paper on Shared Values in Parliament, whereby it included: 1) Nation before community and society above self; 2) family as a basic unit of society; 3) community support and respect for the individual; 4) consensus, not conflict, and; 5) racial and religious harmony.

Setting such precedent, Singapore has been able to build itself as a state of a single nation through public policies that emphasise on inclusivity despite its multicultural dynamics.

Thus, it would seem to me that it demystifies the common fallacy that the only reason Singapore is more developed than Malaysia is simply because it is a smaller island.

This brings us to the contemplation of how nationalism defines the formulation of the nation-building process. The key ingredient to flourish the wealth of a nation has always been in ensuring each and every one feels at home in his own country – regardless of colour. It is the incessant need to dissolve the sense of “otherness” brought about by the indoctrination of racial consciousness.

Yet, it was also this idea of reinforcing “Asian values” that has been subjected to the masking of authoritarianism, abused through the perversion of its meaning and defeating the foundation built for this country.

For the longest time, we were fooling ourselves into thinking we were building one nation, inevitably, we are now more of the dangerous opposite – a state of nations. – November 5, 2015.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.