Towards the late 90s, the aim was to become a global city like New York or London. This week, its founding father Lee Kuan Yew felt his country should have more fun and buzz, a “Paris of South East Asia”.

A lively city means more tourists and more jobs. “The Singapore that we had – very orderly, very wholesome, very clean – is not good enough.”

In the 41 years since independence, his ministers have been scouring the world looking for examples to follow or to avoid, but Lee’s concept of Paris-type nightlife marks his biggest personal transformation.

A week from his 83rd birthday, Lee has forced himself to change, at first a little, then quite drastically (except in politics).

He recognises that the world is far different from the days when he banned long hair and casinos and feels Singapore – for its survival – has to go along.

It isn’t that in old age, the traditionalist leader has turned liberal, far from it. It has everything to do with creating jobs and ensuring his country has a future.

Lee and his generation have done a tremendous job shaping Singapore to its current state, but it probably had a price. To critics, this single-minded economic push was at the expense of its cultural development.

Despite all the debates, there has never been a clear national cultural map. And now with the Internet and modern technology, it may be too late to do so – or at least that’s what Lee believes.

On Tuesday, the white-haired but still healthy leader said the new digital age was making it impossible to evolve a Singaporean culture, not now, and not in a few hundred years.

The implication of his message in a speech to 400 businessmen seems to be that the tremendous press-button influences of the Internet, TV, etc, are pulling and pushing cultures towards an unknown direction.

Lee has been a strong advocate of “Asian values” for Singapore, so what he said is surprising. He said the more likely outcome would be an “amalgam” of different influences.

“Before you had the time and the isolation to develop on your own and create something distinctive. Now you have to synthesise all the time. And out of the synthesis, make something, which is relevant to yourself and your future.”

He said the influences and interactions were constant on all fronts, whether it was watching television or books or online. “The basis of our culture is what we inherited from our original countries, our original cultures.”

Hence, the Singaporean is not a homogeneous product, he said, and admitted that the state did not have the confidence to create its own culture.

The republic now aspires to be a global city that attracts the best talents from the world. This is a long way from the squalid past in 1965 when Lee’s party began to debate what shape the country’s culture should take.

The late Sinnathamby Rajaratnam, the People’s Action Party theoretician and one-time culture minister, advocated a “melting pot” approach in which all the three main races would contribute.

Take a little from each ethnic ingredient, toss them into the pot, stir and – over time – a distinctly Singaporean culture would emerge from it.

Some Singaporeans believe this could work, and in fact bits and pieces of the concept go into food and fashion. After all, new breeds of fishes and flowers are cultured in this manner.

But a large-scale effort was rejected. The government feared that it would stir resentment from traditionalists objecting to the loss or assimilation of their respective cultures.

“No one wants to see his own race being changed, absorbed or replaced by something totally different” was the explanation. This objection still prevails.

Having a Chinese girl dressed in a Malay sarong kebaya dancing an Indian dance and calling it “Singapore culture” did not seem appetising.

Instead, Singapore opted for the separate growth of the main racial cultures as making up a national entity. Explanation: “Chinese, Malay and Indian cultures, old and established, are also part of Singaporean culture.”

To advocates of a Singaporean culture, this is disappointing. “It means no national culture,” one remarked.

What came out of the melting pot in the 80s was a worrisome creature to conservatives, something branded as the “McDonald’s kid”.

This refers to hordes of Western-educated teens who hang around fast-food outlets with cigarettes on their lips, straws in their pockets, and picking up the worst from American films and movies.

It was a sort of a sub-culture of sorts, dyed hair, permissive, fun-loving youths who shunned most things serious.

Several years ago, a survey of ethnic Chinese students here found that nearly a quarter wished they were not Chinese, but Caucasians or Japanese.

This contrasted sharply to their parents, among whom 95% said they wished to remain Chinese.

So, what does the future hold? Some Singaporeans disagree with Lee, insisting that a Singaporean identity and culture will develop over the long term.

But it has to evolve on its own rather than moulded by any government – and it will take decades.

They are certain that given a creative, free-spirited environment, a Singaporean form of songs, dances, literature, fashion, movies, and even humour, will take shape – and the Internet will help, not hinder, the process.

o Seah Chiang Nee is a veteran journalist and editor of the information website littlespeck.com

                                                      Home