200 days to NDP 2007. The feeling is different this time round though. There are plans made and I can’t agree with them. The crack in the society seems to be so wide, no propaganda songs can cover it. Reluctantly, we hurtle into a future which is more about them, whoever that may be, than me.

Yes it’s going to be a vibrant future, but exciting it may be, where does that leave us, Singaporeans? A new shopping mall, featuring brands not seen in Asia; a new theme park which possibly costs $50 per visit; a boutique hotel designed by some world-famous architect – is that what Singaporeans would want in the new era?

Of course, it will create jobs. Of course, it will generate money. Of course, it will put us in the international spotlight – for a few minutes, at least. But is this bet going to be the miracle pill that our society needs?

I’ve nothing against opening integrated resorts/casinos, luxury villas for the uber rich or barricading parts of the island to welcome the rich, famous and influential. It’s just that I think Singapore needs more than an economic solution to meet the perils of globalization. More importantly, going on 42, we need a national debate to chart how our nation, our society should face the challenge of this worldwide phenomenon.

And debate, I feel, is something lacking these 2 years. The 2 major debates we had – IR and GST – that gripped the nation's attention were more of make-decisions-first, discuss-next-to-limit-impact, and anyway, they were largely economic in nature.

What I would like to see is a national debate on our society and our identity. With the onslaught of globalization, how do we gap the widening gulf between the rich and the poor? How should the authority respond to peoples’ demands in this day of YouTube and blogs? How do we position our sense of belonging, as we become more mobile in this shrinking world?

So far, the authority seems to be cracking their heads to reach an ideal balance between attracting investment to Singapore while not alienating the people as a result. The solutions, once again, are largely economic – workfare, differential treatment.

But we should go beyond that to deal with the social impact. Changes affecting our society ought to be made at a pace similar to economic policy shifts. A bad example would be how blogs were banned under the law in GE 2006 to contain, in short, anything political in nature. Eventually, everyone flouted it. Yet that's not unexpected since blogs were quite ubiquitous by then, so the regulation made/clarified didn't fit in with reality in the first place.

More importantly, we ought to discuss what this change means to all of us. Rather than telling us that it’s necessary, the authority should steer the nation in a meaningful debate so that people can appreciate better what globalization is all about. And a debate often is such a fuzz that those uninterested would become aware of these issues as well.

A good example of such debate is the renaming of roads and places. It’s not exactly economic in nature, but the need to commemorate people like Ong Teng Cheong, Wee Kim Wee, Lim Kim San, S Rajaratnam touches the fundaments of Singapore as an independent nation.

Only through more debates of such nature will our society mature and survive this mid-life crisis, as we enter our 42nd year of independence.

Labels: current affairs