The Singapore I’ve come back to has been an interesting one. In fact, I’ve been developing a hypothesis to make sense of this familiar yet unfamiliar environment. Specifically, I’ve been trying to understand the difference amongst us in the frames of reference that we use as well as the primary motivations that drive us. Fundamentally, I believe that we can choose to identify with one of two groups: those who see the system as a given and those who see the system as evolvable. Which group we choose to identify with has a severe effect on our interface with our environments and can make the difference in how we tackle questions of injustice, survivability, and nationhood.

I should add a disclaimer that categorization is not a uniquely Singaporean one. Most people in the world can identify with this frame of categorization, but I also believe that the Singaporean application is profoundly useful in understanding the state of local dialogue and politics. As someone who is averse to stereotyping, I also recognize the implications of segmenting and labeling. To that point, I want to clarify that while this frame is useful in making sense of a current phenomenon, I advise against using it to guide policy actions or judgment calls.

The Context

The ways in which society operates fascinates me because it is ultimately a consequence of choices. Most of these choices tend to be individual ones. Even collective decisions, such as those taken by government, can be considered a representation (or at times, a rejection) of individual preferences. Those who would believe in natural tendencies, such as of man’s proclivity to violence, would benefit from a read of Steven Pinker’s various dissertations on  the power of human moral ambition. We must choose to do good and be good. Of course, the question of what it is good is in itself an epistemological quandary. Yet, these questions are of highest value to me. The intellectual and emotional commitment to this discovery process provides the impetus to address issues of inequality, suffering, loneliness and hate. I may not know what is the right answer but I recognize that the ethical pursuit makes me sensitive to the impacts of my choices.

What surprises me greatly, however, is that a good portion of my peers and fellow citizens do not engage in such considerations of justice and truth in their daily lives. I am not looking for a diatribe based in Kantian philosophy, merely a recognition that certain things in society are not acceptable and worthy of seeking recourse. It can be at the most accessible level of participating in local forums or even contributing to causes, but even these are absent from the itineraries of my peers. There are those who are excusable: our peers who are themselves fighting in the day to day to find finances for their meals, or those who are in some sort of personal turmoil. But these are not the folk I refer to in this frame. I refer to well-bodied, mainly middle-class citizens who have access to most of the privileges of affiliation to the Singaporean nation. I am referring to my peers who are very much like me, yearning to improve their personal statuses but also to navigate the structures and institutions of Singapore.

There are those in Singapore who I have found solidarity with and for them, I have been deeply grateful. It was, in fact, these people who prompted me to ponder why such pockets of people exist amongst the majority. How did these people seem to have a sensitivity to moral imperatives in a way so distinct from others? This recognition of the difference in mindsets has led me to build this initial hypothesis.

The System

From birth, we are “put through the system”. The factory line does not leave room for ambiguity, the first stage is clearly sinister. The Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) starts streaming (read: filtering) us under the banner of meritocracy and provides little room for cross-stream opportunities at any point beyond. In this society, we are taught implicitly from young that the system is always right – you are streamed to where you are best suited, not because you determined as such but because the construct manufactured by human architects dictated as such.

The factory line doesn’t end there. There is the military, then the first job, then the Central Provident Fund (CPF) contributions, then the marriage in order to get access to a residence, then the eternal employment to get access to the CPF funds, then the annuity and finally cold death. The incentive structures across the nation such as Baby Bonus and certain tax breaks are so critical to survivability that the illusion of choice and self-determination is widely accepted as mere “do or die” scenarios. A friend of mine described this pretty well to me:

We are scared to lose. There are few decisions in Singapore from where the negative consequences of the choice to deviate from the system are reparable.

The realization was illuminating. If one doesn’t get married, for example, they have one of three options

• 1) Live with their parents, which is an obviously depressing choice after a certain age
• 2) Rent, which arbitrarily discriminates ownership to the notional family unit
• 3) Move out of the country, a choice no citizen should be forced to make

The decision not to participate in the dating to marry rituals, especially early on, can have severe consequences on one’s ability to develop a competitive financial portfolio in this country, pay off loans early and be suited for retirement. The system wants to be trusted, and the system must be entertained.

Let’s bring it back to moral imperatives. To do so, I constructed a thought experiment.

The Moral Prompt Experiment

Adopting a bit of a Rawls-ian approach, I began with an easily testable prompt. Suppose I was to present the following incident to the observer

A digital agency hires a minority race candidate in for a data-analyst role in Singapore. The agency is primarily made up of Singaporeans. The minority race candidate joins the team but quickly realizes that Mandarin is the dominant language of choice at the workplace, which affects not only their ability to work collaboratively but also to develop a sense of belonging to the team.  

The prompt is deliberately realistic because it is arguably defensible under the System’s rules. Yet it should also prompt important ethical considerations. 

Response A: The System Singaporean

The System Singaporean believes in the system. To them, the way the world works is simply representative of deeper intuitions of how we are formed and destined to operate. The fact that the institutions around us are imperfectly constructed by other humans is excusable when confronted with the recognition of the potential gains if they were to participate in the system. I personally place no judgment on this part of the response – incentives do guide decisions and one cannot be blamed for wanting to seek positive outcomes.

Perfection is an elusive goal and so the imperfect system is the best bet for this Singaporean. When shown the prompt above, the System Singaporean responds in the following way:

1. I recognize that as unfortunate
2. But that’s the way the country operates
3. I don’t see a need to do anything because I am not affected

The System Singaporean internalizes injustice into their understanding of the system. The externally constructed system takes priority in their view of the world, rather than their own internal moral frameworks. Perhaps, when there is a feeling of personal offense would the System Singaporean seek recourse, but it is likely that even in such rare scenarios that they will inevitably learn to live with the system as a given. Doing good to this archetype is simply an occasional decision, amongst the likes of showing compassion to the odd fellow or claiming the Volunteering leave at work to help clean one-room flats in Toa Payoh. The Singaporean system made it as such – what with the Community Involvement Program (CIP) encouraging it as such.

Response B: The Morally-Driven Singaporean

I’ll admit this classification is biased. While I recognize the driving forces of the System Singaporean as a product of the system itself, I value the role of human liberty and self-determination in choosing to be morally-driven anyway. Morally-driven Singaporeans start with the driving question of “What does it mean to be a good citizen”. They engage in the existential quagmire, decide on key principles and decide to live by those principles. They do so, not in an ivory tower, but with feet on the ground and hearts vulnerable to the pains and joys of others around them.  They recognize the value of not just intellect, but also of love and of moral conditioning. 

The prompt above would cause the Morally-driven Singaporean to respond as such:

1. I have moral principles by which I believe people should operate by
2. This scenario fails those principles
3. This scenario requires recourse and action to be aligned back to moral principles

The Morally-driven Singaporean builds on idealistic tendencies to focus on the better potential of society, even if it’s not embedded in the system. They do not believe the system as an end-all, but merely a machine that they must take in consideration. They reject dogma and identify areas where moral imperatives are difficult to implement, choosing to follow Nichomachean pragmatism (as opposed to the slightly devious “Singaporean pragmatism”). The morally-driven Singaporean is focused on how to be good, not just as individual choices but also in their way of life. Every major action, from what to work as to what to eat, is guided by a sensible consideration of what is the moral way to be. 

Room for Debate

I am not an academic so the hypothesis above is as rough as it is in my mind. The reason why I am publishing this is to prompt the discussion – have I gotten it completely wrong or am I onto something useful? What are the implications of such a framing (I have my thoughts but that is for a future post)? 

There are certain elements of Singapore that make this framing more crucial than in other contexts. The most obvious is that Singapore operates in a highly paternalistic society – this is not necessarily a bad thing but it does create strong systems that encourage the System Singaporean. I would argue that we should not be comfortable with a nation that is heavily skewed towards creating System Singaporeans. Jordan Peterson does a good job of arguing for the need for balance in conservative managers/ maintainers and the liberal entrepreneurs/ innovators of society. In this case, we are in need of moral innovators to relook our current landscape and provide a frank assessment of where we are.

My end-goal is to get Singapore to a level where the community is driven to solve problems and help its constituents at the most basic levels. Structures and institutions are great but they require people to participate intentionally in them. This has been the driving forces of The Hidden Good and SGExplained, and so many other things I’ve worked on. The good news is that we’re getting better at being good.