Successful Singapore stops to think

In his speech, Goh said, "The country is not yet a nation." What he apparently meant by that comment was that although Singapore is a sovereign state, its people lack a common identity.

If such an opinion had been expressed by a foreigner, not only the country's leaders but also the public would have been upset, for the statement goes to the heart of a fundamental problem in Singapore. This is why the lawmakers suddenly fell silent.

Goh made the remark during parliamentary deliberations on "Singapore 21 Vision," a plan charting the future of the country that the government drew up in April.

According to the plan, Singapore will become a society in which "every citizen matters, each can make a difference to society as an active participant" in the 21st century.

"A Singapore where everyone has opportunities to succeed, with success redefined to include achievements in nonmaterial and noneconomic pursuits, such as sports and arts," it said.

The plan aims at instilling in the people a sense of Singapore being a true homeland, nurturing in them an emotional attachment to Singaporean society.

Goh said the vision was "powerful and emotive," but that a "strong dose of realism is necessary. A nation is not built in one generation, much less a country made up of different races and religions."

Singapore achieved independence from Malaysia in 1965. Its people are of several ethnic groups, most predominantly Chinese, Malaysian and Indian. Chinese account for 77 percent of the population.

Former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew is the founding father of Singapore. In an effort to ensure the survival of this small country sandwiched between Indonesia and Malaysia, Lee made English the official language to facilitate communication among the different ethnic groups. He also appealed to Chinese Singaporeans to not use dialects of the regions that they came from in China, so that they would form an identity as Singaporeans.

However, Goh's remarks indicated that Lee's scheme has been only partially successful, and that the Singaporean government must admit this.

The remarks pointed to a fundamental problem of the country: The economic advantages that it enjoys may not last forever. The Singaporean economy's weak point--a heavy dependence on external demand--has been exposed by the regional economic crisis that began in 1997.

Another weakness is the difficulty of sustaining growth in the country's advanced technology sector. If Singapore's economic power declines, ethnic tensions may surface through the "gaps" that exist between the various groups' political and economic circumstances. Economic decline might also trigger mass emigration. At present, it is believed that one out of every five citizens wants to leave the country.

In saying that success is not defined simply by the achievement of material and economic goals, Goh indicated that he is fully aware that it may be time to reconsider the policy of calling on the public to unify for the purpose of achieving economic success.

Under the circumstances, Goh's remarks were timely.

There is, however, another potential source of instability--the lack of public participation in politics. Hidden dissatisfaction with the current autocratic regime's restrictions on political freedom and free speech may come out into the open.

Leadership posts are occupied by a handful of elite politicians educated in the United States and Europe. They are certainly aware of the dissatisfaction with their rule among the populace.

Unless every citizen enjoys the right to participate in politics, it is doubtful whether Singaporeans will gain a true sense of nationhood. The number of people who can distinguish themselves in the fields of sports and the arts is extremely limited.

In view of this, opening the way for the Singaporean public to participate in politics and letting "every citizen matter" in society will likely become key issues in the not too distant future.