Are we living a curated experience?

The gift of sentience is also a pain, I was quite occupied in the past week, although I have found the time to further my commitment to this blog. While on the bus this morning I was particularly inspired by this Reddit thread on r/askSingapore that questioned the suffocating feeling of the “Singaporean Mindset”. I should clarify: the Singaporean Mindset has been increasingly used to describe Singaporeans cursed (and blessed) with a cookie cutter personality, plagued with narrow-mindedness and lathered with a generous amount of materialism as a result of the country’s governance.

Right on the outset I’m slightly intrigued by the tone: I’ve seen the Singaporean Mindset as a term both used positively and negatively, and negatively in most online circles as is the space this Reddit post was taken from. One thing for certain is that both sides of the fence recognise that the Singaporean Mindset is a curated experience since young. What Singapore has mostly done (noticeably) distinct in comparison to her South-east Asian neighbours is her overarching principle of governance and how this choice of governing values paved her path to be a paternalistic state. And no one denies this: from a blanket ban on chewing gums to enforcing fines over its tray return policy at public eating places, there is a reasonable take on her middle name “Fine”. Perhaps one may argue in the Singaporean context that these are efforts to keep the nation tidy, and this is easily justified. Singapore remains a hotspot for tourism in the vicinity for its reputation as a clean and kempt nation. On the other hand, guests not from the area would find this all too ridiculous and amusing, thus feeding into her reputation as a fine city. This is an all-too-familiar imagery for some, where classmates seemingly blessed with the loose grips of their parents would chuckle at the demise of others who lacked the freedom to explore nor play; only this time, its a curated childhood experience, a subset of the much larger Singaporean experience.

For the tech-savvy, the Singaporean experience differs in essence from the truly paternalistic and restrictive states, of which oft-cited include China with its reputation as a “tiger parent”. Singaporeans seem to be the children whose parents were less overbearing than the extreme, but more controlling and stubborn than her Western counterpart: she seems just as contented to have a some 50-cents increase in her allowance every now and then. Yet, even the educated fall to the narrow-mindedness that everyone fears, commonly termed “propaganda”. And, so much so that the government, comprised of some of the nation’s top scholars, is seen to feed into this loop, as the late Mr Ngiam Tong Dow famously alluded to in one interview of his opinion of the New Guard vs. the Old Guard. Although he later retracted part of his responses as being “unfair” with regards to the ministers’ attitude, I choose to believe that the essences of his remaining views remain true today, and many would concur.

To clarify, I am not claiming that the government is curating this very Singaporean experience out of malice and in an attempt to control the wider population as some critics do, and I will not attempt to validate or dispute these claims. The Singaporean history is a tumultuous one, claiming independence not once, not twice, but thrice from the Japanese, the British and then later the Malaysian government. For such a bumpy ride, the founding leaders have paved for a smooth journey in the later part of the short Singapore history, and in only 55 years from her “true” independence, Singapore is as successful as any small and nascent nation can be. Although, Singaporeans may have gotten just too accustomed to the cozy home.

Of cowardice, of ignorance or perhaps simply out of plain comfort, Singaporeans seem blissfully unaware of privilege, of social stigma and of his curated experience, and external scholars and watchdogs alike often paint this picture. For a nation topping the charts on the PISA rankings, there seems to be a mismatch between academic and social intelligence. In his comfort, the average Singaporean is never forced or coerced out of its hermit shell to see the world for what it is: perhaps there are injustices and issues ready for the society to tackle together, but what problems are these if they don’t affect me? And, to the external observer, what good is a quality education if the average Singaporean grows to be apathetic and unconcerned and embodying the NIMBY (Not In My Back-Yard) syndrome? For the few that realise they are living a deliberately hand-carved lifestyle not by themselves but by a paternal entity, it becomes easy to escape the thin bubble: simply see the world. For those that don’t, however, it is an uphill challenge to even begin convincing the ignorant that he is unusually privileged.

Confounding this difficulty is the Singaporean social fabric: while the Singapore education system has increasingly encouraged awareness of international views and for youth activism in social causes, the Singapore system is just as afraid of such. Maybe it is the manifestation of the insecurity that increased awareness and activism may one day rock the smooth-sailing Singapore boat, but from eye-test, this phenomenon is a puzzling predicament. What kind of self-respecting nation would fear progress and progressivism? For instance, Singapore has consistently ranked near the bottom on the World Press Freedom Index, that the Singapore government harnesses authoritarian tools packaged as laws such as the Sedition Act and the Prevention of Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act to stifle overt criticism, and that the government and its leaders seem risk-averse.

Returning to the concern of a student-aware education, I was pessimistic in that students would decreasingly care about social issues, until the recent debacle over anti-LGBT sentiments from a student counsellor at Hwa Chong, a top school no less, and it has attracted many students, alumni and citizens alike to chide the counsellor, the school and the education ministry for its inaction. This probably served as a much-needed jump-start to declining activism in the country: a similar controversy has happened to Hwa Chong years before this, and it does beg one to wonder why there wasn’t any safeguards to prevent this debacle altogether. Now, when more students have access to mobile phones and the Internet than before, it is only a matter of time before more discriminatory behaviours come to light. That I’m positive.

I do hope that even if the current generations are averse to rocking the boat or raising awareness on difficult topics like inclusivity and other social justice challenges, those who still have some tinge of curiosity and wanderlust for the outside world would continue to pay attention to problems that the sheltered Singaporean would refuse to poke and prod even with a metre-long pole.

For that, one should probably begin by watching television and media programs from other countries: the Singaporean entertainment and news scene is disappointing to say the least, and I don’t see hope that it will rekindle in the near future, but I digress. Just as important as reading and seeing from outside the Singapore bubble is seeing inside the bubble: there are pockets of disadvantaged communities, the poor, the disabled, the isolated elderly, all of which are still an integral part of our community, and the privileged Singaporean have the duty to be aware of the presence of other Singaporeans and its peers, even if they do not have the same economic status nor social standing as the privileged Singaporean. Finally, with a picture of the bubble from both sides, one should understand, appreciate and burst out of the bubble that is the Singaporean mindset, and continue exploring and educating fellow Singaporeans trapped within this bubble.

I suppose that for a pessimist, I’m pretty optimistic.