Mr Speaker, / in the President’s Address, / Mr Tharman relayed the Government’s vision of a “We First” society / where Singaporeans would “put the collective before the self”, / [or] the ‘we’ before the ‘me’. This reiterates the Prime Minister’s message in his National Day Rally / about the importance of “feeling that we are all in this together, / and not just looking out for our own self-interest”.
Sir, we know Singaporeans are not selfish people. / Our citizens do not only care for their own self-interest. / Time and again, / Singaporeans have demonstrated / their public-spirited and civic-minded character. / Our communities have robust and longstanding traditions / of acting in solidarity / for the sake of the collective interest.
I’m sure the House is familiar with the term / “gotong-royong”. / Many older Malays, / especially those who lived in kampungs, / may fondly remember participating in a rewang for a kenduri, / where extended relatives and even neighbours would come to help the host family / prepare for a wedding.
We can also look at how the Chinese community / rallied together / to establish the old Nanyang University. / Nantah was a monumental achievement of collective sacrifice and solidarity. / I want to recount the words of Han Suyin, / from her autobiography My House Has Two Doors, / where she described the collective founding of Nantah.
She wrote: [pause] “How many oyster omelettes, / sliced crab, / noodles of all kinds / went into Nanyang University? / The trishaw pedallars of Singapore and Malaya / pedaled for three days / and turned it all in / for Nanyang University, / [pause] and theirs was the greatest sacrifice, for they were so very poor.”
She goes on to say: [pause] “Rubber tappers flocked to give; / they know that their children would never have a chance to go to university; / but it was a gesture of cultural identity. / It was incredible and magnificent, / and it must be remembered.”
More importantly, / our sense of generosity and solidarity / extends cross-communally. The Straits Times reported on 27 June/ that the Singaporean public raised more than $2.4 million in aid for Gaza. [Pause] I was especially heartened to learn that our local temples were among the many donors to the cause.
Mr Speaker, I hope my point here is clear: / Singaporeans have always been willing to work for the common good. / Singaporeans do care about others / and we are able to see beyond our own personal interests. In fact, our success / in nation-building / is a testament to our citizens / working together / for the public well-being.
Sir, the President spoke of a We First society where “success is not measured only by personal achievement, / but by what / we do together for the common good”. / But why do Singaporeans now appear to be more concerned / about their personal achievements over the common good?
I want to raise two possible factors. The first relates to the unintended consequences of meritocracy. The second / is the growing sense of precariousness / that many Singaporeans feel. Mr Speaker, allow me to elaborate on these in Malay.
Kita menekankan meritokrasi / agar memastikan yang berbakat / diberi ganjaran sepatutnya, / dan untuk menggalakkan peningkatan sosial [pause] atas dasar pencapaian, bukan hubungan. / Kebolehan, bukan kenalan.
Namun, secara praktikal, / meritokrasi mengandungi tegangan antara aliran elitis [pause] / dan saksama, / seperti disebut oleh Profesor Kenneth Paul Tan dalam artikelnya “Meritocracy and Elitism in a Global City”.
[Our emphasis on meritocracy is meant to ensure that talent is appropriately rewarded and to encourage social mobility on the basis of achievement, rather than affiliation, and capability, rather than connection. In practice, however, there is a tension within meritocracy between its “elitist and egalitarian strands,” as Professor Kenneth Paul Tan once noted.]
Profesor Tan menerangkan bahawa meritokrasi kelihatan seperti adil / kerana ia menetapkan “prinsip tidak mendiskriminasi” / atau “principle of non-discrimination”. Beliau juga memberi amaran / bahawa meritokrasi boleh menjadi / amalan yang sembunyikan / kelebihan dan kekurangan peluang yang dibahagikan / dengan tidak sama rata kepada golongan-golongan berbeza dan mengekalkan ketidaksamaan dalam masyarakat yang tidak setara.
[As Professor Tan explained, meritocracy appears fair since it supposedly applies a “principle of nondiscrimination”. However, he highlighted that: “Meritocracy, in trying to "isolate" merit by treating people with fundamentally unequal backgrounds as superficially the same, can be a practice that ignores and even conceals the real advantages and disadvantages that are unevenly distributed to different segments of an inherently unequal society, a practice that in fact perpetuates this fundamental inequality.”]
Meritokrasi yang dibawa ke tahap ekstrim / mampu menggalakkan tanggapan salah: / bahawa mereka yang berjaya menyalah sangka / bahawa kejayaan mereka telah deperolehi hanya kerana mereka telah bekerja keras /. Sementara itu, mereka yang terkebelakang / disangka memang layak ditinggalkan / kerana mereka kurang berusaha.
[Moreover, meritocracy, when taken to an extreme, can promote the mistaken belief that those who succeed are entitled to their success because they have worked hard, while those who are left behind deserve to be left behind because they have not worked hard enough.]
Ini menunjukkan bahawa meritokrasi boleh menjadi sebuah “ideologi”, / seperti mana yang dihuraikan oleh Syed Hussein Alatas dalam bukunya, “Mitos Peribumi Malas”. / Sebagai ideologi, / meritokrasi bukan saja alat untuk menapis dan menyusun bakat, / tapi juga kepercayaan / untuk memberi penjelasan dan alasan yang meremehkan ketidaksamaan, / serta nasib mereka / yang ketinggalan.
Kepercayaan ini boleh menghakis masyarakat “We First” / kerana ia menganggap mereka yang hidup dalam kesusahan memang patut terus begitu. Ia memberi tanggapan bahawa orang miskin dan terhambat memang patut menderita kerana mereka tak kerja keras, / tak pandai, / atau tak berkebolehan.
[This demonstrates how meritocracy can be turned into what Syed Hussin Alatas in his book, The Myth of the Lazy Native, called an “ideology”. Instead of a mechanism to identify and sort talent, meritocracy becomes an ideological belief to justify and explain away inequality and the lot of those left behind. Such a belief can be corrosive to a We First society because it suggests that those who are struggling deserve to be struggling. It creates the impression that the poor and the disadvantaged should suffer what they must since they are not hardworking enough, or not smart enough, or not capable enough.]
Memupuk masyarakat We First menjadi susah, / apabila teras meritokrasi / lazimnya menyumbang kepada citra “menang” / dan “kalah”. / Apabila kita sentiasa cuba kekal di hadapan / dan mengelak kerugian, / tidak hairanlah bahawa kita lebih tertumpu / kepada pencapaian peribadi, / dan bukan kesejahteraan umum.
[It is also difficult to foster a We First society when the ethos of meritocracy tends to contribute to a narrative of “winners” and “losers”. When we find ourselves always trying to stay ahead and avoid losing out, is it not surprising that we become more concerned about personal achievement rather than the common good?]
Ini membawa saya ke hal ketidaktentuan, / atau “precariousness”. / Ramai warga Singapura hidup dalam keadaan tidak menentu. / Ini paling parah di kalangan masyarakat kita yang berpendapatan rendah. / Ramai sedang diperah oleh kos sara hidup meningkat. / Malah sejumlah karyawan kita, / demi meyara keluarga, / juga terpaksa ambil pekerjaan kedua, / memandu Grab di waktu petang dan hujung minggu. Sementara itu, / biznes tempatan kita juga semakin tersingkir / oleh harga sewa yang memuncak.
[This brings me to my point about precariousness. Many Singaporeans live with a sense of precariousness, and this is especially acute among the lower-income segments of the population. The government’s decision to avoid implementing a universal minimum wage, for instance, means that workers in some sectors remain in a state of constant worry about whether they can earn enough for the month. Many are feeling squeezed by the rising costs of living. Some of our professionals even have to work a second job, ferrying passengers in the evenings and weekends as a Grab driver, so that they have just more than enough for their families. Meanwhile, our local entrepreneurs also find themselves increasingly priced out by rental hikes.]
Tuan, ini realiti buat ramai warga Singapura. Mereka berasa seolah-olah / kais pagi makan pagi, kais petang makan petang. / Masa depan mereka dan anak-anak mereka semakin tidak menentu, / dan mereka bimbang / yang mereka boleh hilang segala hasil kerja keras / hanya dengan satu kesilapan atau kemalangan buruk.
[Sir, this is the socio-economic reality for many Singaporeans. They feel as though their lives are precarious, their futures and their children’s futures deeply uncertain, and that they are one unfortunate mistake or accident away from losing everything they have worked hard for.]
Mr Speaker, I just explained that / when we uncritically idealise meritocracy, / we risk blaming the disadvantaged for their plight / and lauding the successful for their fortune. / We cripple our own willingness to aid those who live paycheck to paycheck - those who are today condemned / to an increasingly precarious existence.
I make the point about precariousness to highlight how difficult it is / to think about the “we”, / when the “me” is valiantly struggling to make ends meet / and eke out a living. I think, Sir, it is unreasonable to expect our people to think “We First” / without first addressing / how many of our citizens feel that they are already over-worked and over-burdened.
Sir, I want to offer my own thoughts about a We First society. The House should not just exhort our citizens to do more, / but also call on the Government to take the lead in ensuring that all Singaporeans can pursue a dignified life.
Moreover, I believe that when each and every person is afforded with dignity, / it can naturally lead to more civic / and public-minded behaviour.
What do I mean by dignity? It means that / no matter their background / and no matter their lot in life, / every Singaporean must be able to meaningfully contribute to society, / and receive support from society. / Importantly, this means that those who are falling behind or may need additional help / are regarded with respect and their needs properly accommodated, / instead of being treated as a burden on others.
On this occasion, Sir, / I want to focus on dignity as it relates to our elderly. / It is unconscionable that some of them remain classed among the working poor, / having to make a living [pause] through menial jobs, / even in their 60s and 70s. /
Every Member of this House would have met the cleaners, / delivery workers, / and hawker stall assistants in their constituencies / who are forced to persist in gruelling labour, / despite their advanced age, / and sometimes in spite of health issues. / Some of them might even find themselves having to live / in rental homes with other strangers. / The House would surely agree / that this is not a dignified way / of living out / one’s golden years.
We all want the best / for our elderly. / More importantly, we do not resent / or begrudge them / as they develop more needs as they grow older. / Rather, we recognise that it is a matter of their dignity / that we do our best to accommodate those needs. / The Government has indeed moved in this direction of better supporting our elderly, / including increasing its healthcare expenditure from $10b in 2019 to $20.9b in 2025.
However, / a We First society, especially one as wealthy as ours, / must also attend to our elderly’s post-material needs to enable them to pursue a life of dignity. / To live your golden years, / with peace of mind in a quiet place that you can call your own, / without having to worry about your next meal, medical bill, or bus ride / — such a life of dignity / is surely what we owe to our Pioneer and Merdeka generations / after they have devoted their prime years to Singapore.
When the Minimum Income Standard 2023 report was previously discussed / in the House, / there was much debate / over whether “a sense of belonging, / respect, / security, / and independence” / was a “basic need” / or “aspirational”. To me, however, the more pertinent question is: / what can we do to make it easier for our senior citizens / to live a dignified life — / to feel respected / and secure as our fellow citizens, / and recognise that they do belong to Singapore, / as independent and autonomous persons / rather than a social burden?
At the very least, we can make their lives easier / by offering them free off-peak travel on public transport / as the Workers’ Party has proposed / in our manifesto. / In facilitating their mobility, / the elderly not only retain their independence and autonomy, / but it can also encourage their participation in social activities / and allow them to continue being an active member of society. / And I am sure that most, / if not all, Singaporeans / would not begrudge affording such dignity to the elderly.
After all, it will be an affirmation / that our elderly belong here / as a part of the collective “we”. / I want to emphasise the importance of dignity because / while we remain conscious of the costs, / eldercare should be more than a matter of considering cost and economic efficiency. / Instead, it is about our collective values as a society / and how we choose to take care of the vulnerable among us.
I highlighted the plight of our elderly poor, / Mr Speaker, / to demonstrate how the pursuit of a We First society is for nought / if the “we” is not properly inclusive and allows certain groups of Singaporeans to lag behind. A We First society must be sensitive to the different needs of different groups, / which includes being prepared to offer an extra helping hand / if the situation requires it.
Aimé Césaire once poetically described how / “there is a place for all / at the Rendezvous of Victory”. / Sir, I am sure that this House agrees that Singapore, at our own Rendezvous of Victory, / must be a place for all — that when we win, we all win. / This, however, requires the Government to sometimes step in / so that each and every Singaporean / has the opportunity to lead a life with dignity .
This creates a virtuous circle: / when all of us are assured the opportunity to pursue a life of dignity, / it comes naturally to us to be more attentive and extend our consideration to those who are disadvantaged / or not as fortunate.
As I have stated at the outset, Singaporeans are not selfish people. We care for others / and we follow that up with concrete actions. / History has shown that we are able to set aside our personal interests, / and sometimes even sacrifice them, / for a common cause.
These sentiments of collective solidarity, however, cannot simply be forced. / But they can be nurtured / by ensuring that all citizens have the resources and opportunities needed / to pursue a dignified life. / This would foster / the sense of security and belonging necessary / to motivate collective action. / In other words, it is only when each one of us feels that we are truly valued members of society that we can become / a We First society.
Mr Speaker, I support the motion.
Addendums
On a moral meritocracy
- Meritocracy should exist within a moral economy of norms and values which affirms the dignity and worth of all individuals: merit does not mean moral superiority and the lack of merit does not mean moral inferiority
- Those who are ahead must remain humble and cognisant of the role which luck and contingency plays in their success: while they should be rewarded for their effort, we should not forget that everyone do not begin at the same starting line and those born with advantages are able to benefit from those advantages
- Those who are lagging behind should not be seen as “burdens” or “failures” : they still have inherent dignity and worth as a person and fellow citizen
- My criticisms of meritocracy is not meant to be an endorsement or support of a race-based affirmative action policy, but the House should consider whether it is not in the spirit of fairness and meritocracy to favour and privilege those who had to overcome more socioeconomic disadvantages and adversity compared to those who were born with a silver spoon
