Singapore's Collectivism: Are We Truly Working Together?

“We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people”.

Most Singaporeans likely remember the opening lines to the pledge written above, having recited it by heart during their student years. This phrase, and by extension the entire pledge, was borne out of a necessity to foster national unity and identity during Singapore’s early years of independence. Yet, despite our country leaning towards collectivism according to Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, or the ‘consensus’ that Singapore should move towards a collectivist society based on ‘mutual support and assurance’, I argue that we are far from the ideal of a collective society where individuals prioritise the oft-cited ‘greater good’ over their self-interest.

Even as the series of consultations that constituted Forward SG advocated for the aforementioned collectivism, a single word stood out: ‘competitiveness’. Behind the push for more altruism remains the longstanding narrative that an overly collectivised society has no ambition or will to improve itself. That people easily become dependent on state or non-state support and must be given the bare minimum so that they take personal responsibility for their lives. That being nice to each other is nice, but an economy cannot be run on niceties.

Arguably, there may be conflicts within our national consciousness: On one end, we are called to be responsible to each other. On the other, our meritocracy, under its supposedly impartial evaluation of our individual abilities, has two implications. One, we ought to compete against our fellow friends and citizens, because success comes from being the better and the best. Two, since the system fairly rewards us or gives us the impression that it does, collectivism is merely a subordinate feature of our identity, playing a supporting role when meritocracy comes up short in providing equal opportunity.

I would argue that collectivism and individualism is not a dichotomy. Rather, even as we appear to be moving to a mix of collective responsibility and individual autonomy, individualism remains a dominant force due to our assumptions about what is good and necessary for society. Collectivism therefore becomes solely an official ideology rather than a point of practice.

From my perspective, this is perhaps most outwardly apparent in a student’s educational experience. Within a school, exams dominate the intended outcomes of education, having both a symbolic and practical impact. Symbolically, they are a source of competition between even the closest friends, and the entry of the term ‘academic weapon’ into the 21st-century student’s lexicon reminds us how intensely contested these exams are. In practice, exams naturally have a decisive impact on what opportunities students can access, ranging from enrichment programmes and subject combinations to the all-important national exams: the PSLE, O-Levels, N-Levels and A-Levels. Each of these national exams creates disparities in the futures of students at varying stages of their lives. Whatever modifications are made, the system remains fundamentally undergirded by these same principles: Your success is determined by your performance. Nothing else.

This is not to say that individualism is necessarily undesirable, because clear arguments for that, too, remain. Individualism is the basis of most of our freedoms and a pathway to diversity of thought and expression. Consider, though, that a strong collectivism would be the ideal basis for growing individualism. Rationally, an individual should weigh the relative risks and benefits of any decision before taking that decision. Therefore, in an individualistic society, they are ironically disincentivised to pursue risks because there is no structure which can support them if they fail. On the other hand, a society in which ‘mutual assurance and support’ genuinely exists is one where individuals feel safe in pursuing the innovation that makes Singapore ‘competitive’.

Whatever you think of the state of our social compact, consider which way we are going, and where that leaves us, and our society. Perhaps, when considering collectivism and individualism, we should start by placing the former first.

Bibliography

Government of Singapore. “National Pledge.” National Heritage Board, October 17, 2023. https://www.nhb.gov.sg/what-we-do/our-work/community-engagement/education/resources/national-symbols/national-pledge

Ho, Terence. “Commentary: Forward SG Report Reveals Emerging Consensus on Singapore’s Future Direction.” CNA, October 28, 2023. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/commentary/forward-singapore-future-direction-inclusive-society-must-stay-competitive-3877436.

Sebastian. “Hofstede Cultural Dimensions: Singapore, the Unique Cultural Hub.” Inkmypapers, March 30, 2022. https://inkmypapers.sg/hofstede-cultural-dimensions-singapore/#:~:text=Singapore%20is%20a%20collectivist%20society,their%20desire%20to%20be%20independent.

Government of Singapore, “National Pledge,” National Heritage Board, October 17, 2023, https://www.nhb.gov.sg/what-we-do/our-work/community-engagement/education/resources/national-symbols/national-pledge.

Sebastian, “Hofstede Cultural Dimensions: Singapore, the Unique Cultural Hub,” Inkmypapers, March 30, 2022, https://inkmypapers.sg/hofstede-cultural-dimensions-singapore/#:~:text=Singapore%20is%20a%20collectivist%20society,their%20desire%20to%20be%20independent.

Terence Ho, “Commentary: Forward SG Report Reveals Emerging Consensus on Singapore’s Future Direction,” CNA, October 28, 2023, https://www.channelnewsasia.com/commentary/forward-singapore-future-direction-inclusive-society-must-stay-competitive-3877436.

Ho, “Commentary: Forward SG Report Reveals Emerging Consensus on Singapore’s Future Direction.”