Be warned. This blog is going to be a ramble on my present concerns.

I arrived back in Singapore last night. The first thing I did was to walk down to my favourite Cafe ” Dino’s, for a cup of coffee and their curry puffs, not that these were not available in Delhi. They are. But how different: walking was easy; no potholes; no dirty puddles of water; no risking life and limb when crossing the road; public transport is easy, accessible and egalitarian. I felt fortunate in being able to enjoy the physical freedom that we have in Singapore and which is very easy to take for granted.

On the other hand the space for intellectual freedom and the freedom to challenge dominant values and ideas is India’s greatest strength and I think its gift to the world – look at all the Indians in Silicon Valley. But alas, here in Singapore we sacrifice these freedoms for what? For more and more food, more and bigger cars, for more upgrading, for longer hours of work for a glitzier Orchard Road, and so on and on. But for thinkers, for ideas, for researchers we have to bring in foreign talent!

To feel proud about being Singaporean, we need more than physical comforts and safety. We need to learn to think independently, creatively (and I mean everybody from the students at our independent and elite schools to the neighbourhood schools); we need to learn to challenge ideas; we need more theatre groups, more newspapers, more thinkers and intellectuals to challenge old ideas, offer new ideas, new arguments without threat of funding cuts and closure and rejection of PR status. Above all we need to feel that our concerns matter to policy makers; we need to know that our opinions matter. We certainly don’t want to be told that Singapore lacks talents and intellectuals (these comments are not intended to be anti-foreigner – I do enjoy the more cosmopolitan Singapore. They do add a new richness to life here).

I recall a taxi driver’s response to my comment ‘but we are all Singaporeans”. “No”, he said, Singapore belongs to Lee Kuan Yew and the PAP”.(his words) The PAP may have done great things for Singapore (and they have) but the biggest mistake they made was in blurring the lines between the notion of ‘nation’ and ‘nationhood’ with loyalty to the PAP and the institutions they control.

So I can understand the feelings of the a final-year aerospace engineering student Lim Zi Rui, 23,who stood up during the Nanyang Technological University Ministerial Forum and asked: “Did Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong know many young people no longer felt a sense of ownership in Singapore?
 When I was younger, I was very proud of being a Singaporean,’ Mr Lim said. ‘But that was about five, 10 years ago. Five years later, with all the changes in policies and the influx of foreign talent, I really don’t know what I’m defending any more.’

He said he was reflecting a sentiment held by many of his men in the SAF, who had to compete with foreigners for jobs. ‘I feel that there is a dilution of the Singapore spirit in youth… We don’t really feel comfortable in our country any more.’

Yes this loss of a sense of belonging is extremely serious for Singapore as a nation. But then the government does, on the whole, view Singapore as an economic entity (consider all the opening statements of PM in important national speeches. Don’t they sound like statements from the chairman of a board of a company during shareholders’ meetings?).

Then I don’t think anybody should be surprised that Singaporeans behave like shareholders and not like stakeholders.