The intangibles behind Singapore's success

The intangibles behind Singapore's success

The spirit of idealism that sustained Singapore in its early years as an independent state should be rekindled amid its people's more vigorous pursuit of material things, says Kwok Kian Woon

Politics and vision go together. Where there is an exhaustion of vision, there too is an impoverishment of politics. Where politics cannot rise above the play of power interests, political vision degenerates into ideological dogmatism. Where a vision is lacking or floundering, no longer coherent or compelling, citizens have little basis to develop the civic life they share in common, to deliberate with each other about the national good, and to shape a shared destiny.

This is true in old and new nation-states, especially during periods of economic change. The fragmentation of political vision and the demoralization of civic life accompany, for example, the economic decline of Western democracies and the market transformation of post-communist states. But there is no guarantee that this would not happen in nations which experience sustained economic growth.

Singapore's success story is well-known. Something, however, must be said about the way in which the story is often told: the relentless pursuit of economic growth by an ever vigilant and pragmatic government. With economic success, the struggle for survival continues at a higher level in a new era of increasing global competition.

The country's economic architect, Dr. Goh Keng Swee, in an interview published recently in Melanie Chew's Leaders of Singapore, was asked: "Would you say that your political belief and economic theory is "the primacy of economic growth?" Came the pithy reply: "Yes! Unless you have economic growth, you die."

Nobody should deny or take for granted the importance of economic growth, especially when so many developing countries cannot break out of conditions of poverty. But economic growth is not a phenomenon that is independent of social processes. In his 1970 budget, Dr. Goh, then minister for finance, recounted wide- ranging statistics on the significant economic progress in the first decade since self-government in 1959, only to add that statistical information "does not and cannot describe the qualitative and non-numerical improvements" that were evident in Singapore.

Dr. Goh said: "There is greater social cohesion, more social discipline and self-reliance, pride in performance and achievement in the face of adversity. These are the intangible yet supremely important factors for the progress of any society. By our common endeavors and achievements, we are slowly acquiring an identity of purpose and in this way building up a sense of belonging and nationhood."

Indeed, he even noted a change in social values: "The rootless, migrant and parvenu values with each out for himself, attitudes so prevalent at the beginning of the last decade, are giving way to more positive group values...In the final analysis, it is on the firm framework of these values than on steel and concrete structures that economic progress is to be achieved."

The primacy of economic growth, in other words, rested on the primacy of moral order. Tangible economic advancement and intangible sociocultural development were two sides of the same coin.

More than 25 years later, Singapore might read Dr. Goh's analysis with a shock of recognition and perhaps more than a touch of irony. For it might seem that throughout the 1970s and 1980s -- decades of impressive economic growth -- a rootless and migrant people had been transformed into an active citizenry, imbued with a sense of national identity and civic consciousness.

In the process, Singaporeans had found their roots in "Asian values" and had become "communitarian" in their way of life. The nation entered the 1990s with a clarification of what were its "shared core values", one of which was "nation before community and society above self."

As the country moves into the second half of the 1990s and indeed into the new century, however, a more introspective assessment of nation-building and civic life in Singapore is emerging. As the ideological discourse on "East versus West" loses currency in the international media, Singapore's political leadership -- especially in the person of Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong -- turns its attention to the actually existing moral order at home. And the picture is less glorious and more complex than that of Singapore as the exemplar of Asian communitarianism.

In a series of speeches during the past half-year, Mr. Goh has re-emphasized his idea of developing a "gracious society", appealing to citizens to "upgrade their social behavior". The new millennium, he says, is "a time to think about non-tangible aspects of life." In particular, Mr. Goh is at pains to emphasize the building of "emotional bonds" and "social cohesion" among Singaporeans, while having the aspirations of different echelons of society met and without slower economic growth.

Cynics may say that all this is election-year rhetoric. But Mr. Goh's effort at articulating the intangible aspects of Singapore's development deserves critical attention. Suffice it to say here that the vocabulary -- and the moral concerns -- recalls what had been discussed by Dr. Goh Keng Swee decades ago, prompting new questions: How far has Singapore really come in the achievement of the intangible? What are the social and cultural contradictions at work in Singapore society? Does nationhood really matter in an age of globalization which engenders new forms of rootlessness? Can the state only play the role of economic manager and arbitrator of competing interests among citizens? How would Singapore deal with its unique paradox -- that the very achievement of economic growth is at the same time corrosive of the sense of national purpose and social solidarity that supports it? These are questions which require of citizens a capacity to think beyond the strictly economic, to cultivate, in the words of a local dramatist, "a sense of history, a humanistic depth, a moral strength".

It is now conventional wisdom that the present era is unconducive to ideas about self-sacrifice and idealism, and that talent and service have to be bought at market rates. Politics is the art of the possible. But, as Max Weber once said, history has shown that human beings would not achieve the possible if they stopped striving to grasp the impossible.

Today's Singapore would not have materialized if an earlier generation of leaders had no sense of idealism and dedication to a larger calling. It is the task of all citizens to envision anew Singapore that they -- and their children -- want to live in and live for.

Dr. Kwok Kian Woon is with the Department of Sociology, National University of Singapore.