Some years ago, a minister in the cabinet, hoping to shed some light on the ever-recurring issue of whether Singaporeans were really patriotic, revealed that his ten-year-old son had one day said rhetorically, in all the candour that only a child is capable of: ‘Why should I die for my country?’

I was reminded of this incident by the recent controversy over the sensitive issue of race, brought about by the government’s decision to allow couples in mixed marriages, to use double-barrelled surnames to indicate the race of their child if they wish, instead of having to go by the designated categories of the major races, as required in the past. On the one hand, there are those who welcome the move as reflecting the realities of the multi-ethnic society; on the other, there are those who decry the new ruling as a step backwards in the society’s efforts to be a united Singapore with a Singaporean identity without which nationalism and its various emotional concomitants of patriotism, loyalty, bonding, belonging, etc would not be possible.

The truth is that in every society, a person’s sense of identity is not a single or homogeneous thing. He has not one, but many identities, because he belongs to many milieus, every one of which has influenced and continues to influence the way he thinks, feels and acts. These milieus, although they do not generally conflict with each other, maintain a strict order of importance for the individual. They can be usefully compared to a pattern of concentric circles, beginning with the most important, that is the family, at the centre, where the bonding is strongest by the natural demands of biology, and spreading outwards to include, usually in this order, the clan, the community and finally the nation. In a globalised world, the circles could enlarge outwards even further—to the region (for instance, the ASEAN grouping), to a geopolitical or ideological bloc (for instance, the Communist world and the Free world of practising democracies) and finally, the entire globe itself, linked by a shared humanity (so that theoretically, if planet Earth were threatened by some galactic rival, all the presently conflicting nations would rise together as a united body to fight the common enemy)

Within this pattern of circles, starting from the family unit and moving outwards in increasingly larger circles, it is apparent that blood relationships take precedence over all others, with the result that the further the ties are away from the family centre, the weaker they are likely to be. By the time, the national circle is reached, they could be quite weak (the Minister’s son would never have asked the question ‘Why should I die for Daddy or Mummy?’ or even ‘Why should I die for Uncle—?’) There are exceptions of course, where the circles overlap, blur, merge or conflict with each other, as for instance, when religious conviction prevails over family and community ties( a Muslim converts to another religion, risking disownment and ostracism); when racial affinity prevails over national identity (Chinese Singaporeans at an international football match root for the team from China rather than for their own national team from Singapore, because it comprises Malays or Indians); when protection of one’s own interests and those of family results in renouncing one’s citizenship to live elsewhere( the ‘quitters’, as then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong contemptuously labeled them, who ought to have been loyal enough to be ’stayers’)

These scenarios of competing and often fiercely conflicting loyalties that the individual experiences as he goes through life can result in a great deal of internal struggle and perplexity, but they are very real indeed in heterogeneous societies such as Singapore. The greatest mistake would be to ignore the reality; the most useful approach would be to accept it, and then set about seeing it can be managed through the process of consensus, no matter how arduous. At the least, its most pernicious effects should be avoided.

In Singapore, for instance, the potentially explosive issue of race is, very laudably, being dealt with via the family unit on the assumption that if the good life spreads to every community, if educational opportunities abound and jobs are available, eventually ensuring family stability, the fundamental social unit, there will be social cohesion and harmony in even the most ethnically diverse society. Ultimately, economic well-being, starting with the individual family unit, is the best guarantee for political stability.

It is an assumption that many other societies in the world, constantly troubled by racial divisions and violence, would do well to consider.

---

About Vignettes...

A continuing flow of little, readable pieces that will constitute what I feel is an important 'legacy of values' to leave behind. Read more about Vignettes...