In recent years, many questions have been raised about what defines being a Singaporean. This issue arose again when Leader of the Opposition, Pritam Singh, suggested an English proficiency test as one of the criteria for becoming a Singaporean. Mr Singh’s suggestion was met with approval by some Singaporeans who said that Singapore, being a multi-racial country, needed a common language to communicate effectively, and English is a language we should all have in common. Given that effective communication is one of the hallmarks of successful relationships, it is hard to argue with Mr Singh’s suggestion.
That said, certain People’s Action Party (PAP) politicians disagreed with Mr Singh. For example, Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Edwin Tong opined that it should not be the only criterion for Singapore citizenship.
“The knowledge of English at the working level, while helpful, should not be a defining or indeed a limiting factor, which might happen if you introduce it as a test, as a single point test,” said the Minister, adding that a “significant proportion of Singaporeans throughout our history have not been able to speak English well”.
He even gave, as an example, his grandmother, now 96, that, “If we had years ago applied this test, then someone like her may not have made it into Singapore.”
While Mr Tong is on point in his history, he must also understand that the country has evolved since then. After all, I am sure that when his grandmother arrived, Singapore was still a British colony and was ruled not as a unified, independent country but in a “divide and rule” manner. Now that Singapore is an independent country with a distinct culture, perhaps rules should also change to reflect this.
Besides, it is also important to note that Mr Singh never said this should be the only criterion. Indeed, he quickly clarified that he did not say it should be a sole consideration for new citizens or PRs. “I made it clear in my speech today that it was a nudge to align our immigration policy and our bilingual policy.”
In other words, it should be part of the criteria, although not the sole arbiter. Given that English is what we have in common, what is wrong with having the ability to communicate effectively in English as part of the criteria?
While the cut and thrust of politics in the current Westminster system of Government are sometimes adversarial, is there any point in having a pointless debate over a misunderstanding of suggestions?
I take Mr Tong’s point that English should not be the sole criterion, but I also note that Mr Singh never suggested it be the sole criterion. Was this perhaps an unnecessary rebuttal by Mr Tong? After all, I think that they are on the same page. Both have said that English is important, and no one suggests it should be the sole criterion.
Could this be a case of our country still not being mature democracy?
Tan Bah Bah tackles this precise question in an article carried by this publication. While our Parliament is more representative than it has been in the last 50 years, the fact of the matter is that our Parliament is still overwhelmingly dominated by the PAP.
Tan said, “The Singapore Parliament is not even a normal parliament. Whatever the improved performance of the Opposition in GE2020, the People’s Action Party dominates the legislative body. The opposition can deliver nice speeches. These may make the rounds of mainstream and alternative media, but they are just so many words. They do not have the power of helping the opposition get serious things actually done.
In other words, the Singapore Parliament remains a Third World Parliament – until the Workers’ Party or any other opposition party or the combined voting strength is one-third of legislative strength at least. You need that to block new laws or prevent any change in the Constitution. Before anything else, there must be checks and balances. This is how governments are generally held accountable or are compelled to play fair.”
Looking at the Edwin Tong example, we may have to acknowledge that we are not quite at the point where serious policy matters are properly and effectively debated in Parliament. For one, there is not enough diversity to rigorously hold those in power to account such that a fudge or misunderstanding such as Mr Tong’s rebuttal to Mr Singh can take place.
The PAP has done a credible job to date. No one is seriously questioning that. Tan Bah Bah too, acknowledges this.
“This is not to say the 4G team is not up to its task. It can make it on its own accord, without any unfair tactics. Lawrence Wong and his colleagues have earned their spurs dealing successfully and calmly with the existential threat of Covid-19 – and, more important, talking hand in heart with Singaporeans through their live appearances on TV day in, day out. We could see they were committed leaders and knew what they were doing.”
However, we must stop living in the past for the sake of progress. PAP constantly reminds us of its past track record, and even when it comes to immigration, it still uses examples from colonial days. Otherwise, we will end up stagnant.
As we lead to election season, it is perhaps time for all Singaporeans to reflect on this precise point again.
Parliament: Maturity means at least one-third of seats in opposition hands