I have been thinking about the issue of race in Singapore – again.

I’ve spoken to some people who have come to Singapore and say they find it amazing that we have a “multicultural” society here in Singapore, where people of the different ‘races’ can coexist with one another and where there are no outwardly expression of displeasure with someone of another colour.

Yet, I’ve also spoken to people who have come to Singapore and feel that there are real underlying tensions, based on colour, and that they have been party to some of the discrimination enacted onto them.

So, are racist attitudes real in Singapore? It is. The question is – how much and how bad? Many Chinese people continue not to see racist sentiments in Singapore because:

1. First, if you form 70% of the population, it is quite unlikely that you would feel inferior to any judgmental emotions stacked on you – you can brush it off and say, I form the majority of the population, why care?
2. And when you are in the majority, it is more likely that you are the ones enacting judgment on another. When you do that, you are not the one being judged – you are not the one who have to feel the hurt and pain of being seen as being lesser simply because your skin is not of a colour of a brighter shade.

You are lucky to be Chinese in Singapore. Try going to another country where being yellow isn’t that fantastic – but that’s only when we have the awareness to understand that when we are judged, we can then extend the feelings of being judged to that of understanding how others that we judge would feel.

*****

Fact is, what the Singapore government has done well is that they’ve been able to create a society that’s relatively peaceful and where people do not express their negative opinions of someone else in an outwardly fashion. But then, are there underlying tensions? Many countries want to emulate Singapore for our ability to develop a ‘multicultural’ society. Why? It masks the tensions that underlie beneath. And a population which is relatively stable is easy to control. This is a function as to why the notion of ‘multiculturalism’ has been created.

But yet, on the flip side, that the government has acted to minimise discussion on issues of race in Singapore has another side effect – you create a population which is unthinking, when it comes to social and emotional issues. We do not know how to critically analyse social issues, such as race.

But yet, people continue to see one another in terms of colour, yet people continue to judge one another in terms of colour. Am I making this up? No, ask our Malay and Indian friends. Ask them if they feel racist attitudes heaped on them simply because their skin colour is of a darker shade – that in itself not real and a function of sunlight, but which we take for real and enact judgment upon others?

Truth is, some of us have learnt to take on a ‘supremist’ attitude, where the lighter shade of the colour your skin is, the better you are. But this is a nonsensical notion, created for social control by the previous colonialists.

*****

The question at this point is this – where does the government go with this? Years of not allowing people to discuss about social issues have necessarily stunted our critical thinking abilities about social issues. And they are right to think that if they allow for a more open discussion on issues of race, floodgates will open and the discussion will degenerate into mudslinging. We will judge one another – because we have lost the thinking abilities to do otherwise.

But does this mean we shouldn’t? The government has to understand that they need to take responsibility for people’s inability to think critically on social issues. And there is an urgent need for the government to remedy this, in the interests of the government as well as Singapore. In the past one year, the government would have noticed that they were many underlying tensions pertaining to people’s perceived low incomes which had boiled over and which the government had somewhat lost control over. And thus the government has to enact some knee-jerk policies to mediate the effects of the backlash, which had laid dormant for at least the past 5 years.

Now, that is only about money. Here, we are talking about something a lot more emotional – people’s attachment to their race and culture (please note that I’m talking about our attachment and not to race and culture – the realness in which it can be deconstructed). At one point, when something flares up over an issue that somehow, people can link to one of skin colour, even the government won’t be able to control it. Sure, the government might want to mitigate the initial effects by throwing some people into jail or fining them. Sure, this has worked for one or two isolated incidents. What if there’s another major incident again and things boil over before the government can do anything? At that point, a population which does not have strong social and emotional critical thinking abilities will only heap judgment and negative reactions onto each other. At that point, the ‘multiculturalism’ that we have so neatly crafted would spill open and underlying tensions will spill over like floodgates.

There are reasons that a government wants an unthinking population. You want a docile population which do not know how to think critically, in terms of social issues, so that they will not question your policies – so that they are easy to control.

But the government has to understand the new social landscape that Singapore is evolving into. If I could use the analogy of America, Singapore used to be a Republican state, if you would – it’s easy to control, people don’t think broadly about social issues but hold onto so-called ‘conservative’ values. So, pretty much, people of a one-track mind who think in a one-track way. And this is what the government has carefully crafted – a population which practices a ‘conservative’ ideology that we want, which is easy to control so that we can push through things we want to do on a much faster basis.

But Singapore is transiting into a country where a group of Democrats are arising, or rather, have found their voice – back – to the time where Lee Kuan Yew first rose on the coattails of free speech. Of course, the government can choose to stick to their discourse – Singapore is a ‘conservative’ country where we need to stay to ‘conservative’ ideals. Is this helpful? Then, we would transit into a situation where America is where the country has become so split down the line where there are bipolar interests which can split the country apart. If the government does not revisit their governing principles and adjust to this new social landscape, we will become the distortion of democracy that America is. We will become split, and quite definitely, any dormant issues that were kept in their lid, will boil over and tear up the Singapore society.

There is a very real need for the Singapore government to relook its governing principles and to relook its policy on social control. Is it still the best way to restrain discussion on issues deemed sensitive or should the government move with the times?

*****

In the past until the near present, the government has tended to want to control the social landscape by repressing diversity, by not allowing diverse social identities to be commonplace or obvious, so that our society looks homogenous – so that it’s easier to maintain and control, and we can create a business landscape which looks stable enough for investments.

But the government has to move along and understand that in the new social landscape, where people’s voices are being heard all over, where they have to transit with this evolution. Instead of controlling how society should be based on a homogenous discourse, the government needs to transit into being a facilitator to this evolving society. This means that for the government, instead of repressing differences and our understanding of these differences, the government has to allow these differences to surface and develop our thinking abilities to critically understand, and then appreciate these differences.

In the longer term, if the government can manage this well, then the government can inculcate in people a sense of responsibility towards what they think and say. Instead of repressing thoughts and awaiting for them to one day possibly boil over, the government can educate and allow for critical thinking abilities to be groomed, where people will play a role in protecting the social fabric by understanding how to speak in a respectful and thoughtful manner.

The government has to transit from wanting to control to facilitating, when it comes to social issues.

*****

Of course, the question would mean – is the government willing to change their fundamental governing principle? You want to control people so that you can create a homogenous docile work population to attract investments and grow the economy – and make money. This is the crux for most governments in countries tied with capitalistic fortunes.

But the government has to ask itself this – can stability only be achieved by control and the repression of diversity? Or can control be achieved by a population which also takes on the responsibility to manage their own individual responses to things and issues, to play a role that is carefully thought-through, which they have a real belief to act upon, and not one that is imposed on them?

Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugartnam had said that, “It’s only possible to succeed in character education and encouraging students to question and think originally if we create real space for it in the education system.”
I would like to touch on this briefly. It’s admirable that Mr Tharman is able to understand the need for a “real space” so that our youths are able to learn how to think “originally” and critically about issues, and devise innovative solutions.

The government, however, needs to understand that it would be highly counterproductive if we were to create a space within the education system, yet not do so within broad society – if in the general space, there are laws in place which prevent the ability to express freely and where certain issues are categorised as taboo, there is already structural impediments to what can be discussed – there’s self-regulation.

So, even if schools create a space within the education system, our youths, at the same time, belong to part of the larger Singapore landscape, where there are rules in place which counteract to the philosophy of the creation of spaces within specific environments. Can out youths truly express themselves, when there are external forces outside the school environment which act against this?

From a larger picture perspective, you want your youths to continue with the ability to have original and critical thinking abilities even after they leave the school system, and transit into the work system. In fact, it is of more value that they retain and expand on these abilities, especially in a knowledge economy, where such thinking abilities have a much more dire impact on the economy.

The government cannot sideline this issue as one that can be contained within a specific environment. Our government has a tendency to do this – this allows them to open up at their own pace, and a pace which they are comfortable with, where they are still able to manage their control. But there are consequences, or lack of. The Speaker’s Corner at Hong Lim Park is one relevant artefact to this controlled and measured opening up of spaces, or lack thereof. One reason why this is so was because this is a token measure and the government wouldn’t have sincerely believe in the need for such a space, but of course, it doesn’t matter now, what with the Internet. However, there are lessons to be learnt from this. If the government doesn’t truly believe in something, then they might as well not do it – of course it might simply be for PR. And if the government wants to do something, then they need to understand the broad structural issues behind the specific issues that they want to bring out – in this instance, the education system.

Of course, the government would know this already. They create the system we operate in. They would know well how the system would impact on our beings, or the government should be able to. And if the government indeed understands, then the question is why wouldn’t they want to talk about the larger broader structures that should be relooked? Why only specific issues? As discussed, this is because they want to be able to have continued and measured control over certain issues which they are uncomfortable with having to deal with yet.

I urge the government to be bold. We cannot tell our youths to think openly and critically when there are rules in place outside of the school system which acts as countermeasures towards their thinking abilities. If there are still rules which prevent discussion against certain issues, such as race, religion and sexuality, how can we advance our critical thinking abilities in these areas, or other areas?

Of course, there are reasons for the government to want to impede on this a less controlled thinking environment – the less critically people are able to think, the more they have a ‘herd mentality’ where they would follow whatever is said blindly, and the easier people are to control. Well, the government has to make a decision at this point – how much do they want to continue to control and how much do they want to develop useful knowledge-based workers for the knowledge economy?

The government will undoubtedly still have OB markers in place, even if they create spaces within schools for “original” thinking. But the question is – are rules the best way to manage people’s thinking? Currently, the rules create a mentality of self-censorship. Is this what we want in the longer term? Self-censorship necessarily compromises on “original” and critical thinking abilities. We shut the thoughts out even before we can develop it further – this will stunt our thinking abilities.

A stronger approach towards creating open and critical thinking abilities would be to educate and inculcate in people responsible thinking and speech, so that we will continue to be expansive in our thinking, yet be aware of how what we think or say will have an impact on others and then how we would put out what we say in a way that’s honest, yet respectful and thoughtful towards others.

You put rules in place to prevent people from thinking and you create a society where there’s underlying racism and discrimination, which we don’t talk about because we’ve been told not to. You teach people to be responsible in their thinking abilities and you get them to think critically about these issues, such that it will move society towards a more aware and empathetic level.

We are now moving into encouraging Singaporeans to be more compassionate and kind to one another. The backdrop of the rules which impede on thought processes, has an impact on the social respect we accord to others. If people are told not to think or to only think in specific ways – for economic growth – then we are not able to think for and understand others, then we are not able to be compassionate, kind and caring.

There is a tight intertwining between our economic and social policies which are economically-inspired, and how these policies have a real impact on people’s social behaviours, or lack thereof. If the government is sincere and truly empathetic on the need for Singaporeans to become more original and critical in their thinking, and more compassionate and kind towards one another, the government needs to understand how the broad structures that they have put in place over the years which allow for them to control effectively and to grow the economy can become counter-intuitive towards achieving a strong social fabric that ties society together.

At this juncture, the government needs to decide – how much of control do they want to enact on people, and weigh it against how willing they are to let go of the control, towards enhancing the social and emotional well-being of the people? I would suggest that the government can relook their roles to be as facilitators to help create a thinking population which can think for themselves, and where the government aids in their thinking process. The government has shown signs that it’s willing and wants to move in this direction. The question is also this – the government cannot just think that they want to do things differently, but that they need to take down the structures which goes against their new thinking.

I would like to chime in a bit here about the Keep Singapore Clean Movement. Mr Liak Teng Lit, chairman of the Public Hygiene Council, which is spearheading the movement, had been very candid about his thoughts on how to keep Singapore clean. Before I go on, I would like to say that I appreciate his style – straight talking, says what needs to be said and says it in a hard-hitting manner. He is bold in wanting to do what needs to be done and it is impressive.

Mr Liak had suggested shaming those who litter so that they would be less likely to do so. What Mr Liak is proposing is to use a recent approach that has taken to storm, or Stomp, recently. Do you notice that people are less likely to sit on the reserved seats on the trains now? This is mainly due to the recent uploading of photographs and videos of people who had argued over reserved seats, the most common one which was the ‘Ah Lian vs sword-wielding auntie’ one. Even though it was an organic process where we learnt to ‘seemingly’ become gracious, what was at work here was this – because we are afraid of being embarrassed, we decide not to even take the seat, lest we cannot pretend to sleep fast enough and get caught out, or lest we face with another sword-wielding auntie again. To be fair, sword-wielding auntie helped many elderly people and pregnant ladies now get seats on the trains which they so truly need.

And Mr Liak knows this. If you can’t beat them, join them. Singaporeans are fearful. We are scared. Case in point – being kiasu, because we are scared to lose. And that’s why we can’t even lose that precious seat on the train or lose our precious sleep. And we are scared to lose face – the tag team duo of Singaporeans’ nightmare. And that is what Mr Liak is proposing. If Singaporeans are scared to lose face, we make them lose face. If they lose face, they won’t do something. They won’t sit on train seats and pretend to sleep. They won’t litter because their face will be plastered all over.

One question – is this the best way to do it? If you shame someone for doing something, they are more likely not to do it – in front of you, but the defiant nature within us, as an outward expression of our self-centred ego, will find a way to express it in secretive ways. If we are shamed for littering, we will find a way to litter in secret, or to get back at people for shaming us, somehow. The question then is, will people internalise the understanding why they shouldn’t litter because they should be socially aware and respectful? When people are shamed, will it result in other less desirable social behaviours? We might cure one social ill but we might create another.

See, the basis of why people litter is similar to other social occurrences – why we use tissue paper to ‘chope’ seats, why we don’t give up seats on the train, and why we drive recklessly on the roads. We have to look at this from a broad structural point of view. Just looking at a specific social ill, without understanding the broad frameworks and how people think in general, will prevent us from resolving the issue at its core and it’s roots.

Singaporeans are self-centred? Why? We’ve learnt to be self-centred, to think for ourselves and to think for our needs. We’ve learnt to focus on making money, for ourselves, and to focus on how to do things to sustain our own needs – how to step over others to do well in school, get the job we want and be promoted. It’s all about us. Where did this come from?

To be fair, humans are generally self-centred, this a by-product of living in bodies which do not confer to us a level of awareness beyond the physicality of who we are. And thus we are self-centred. But beyond human nature, is there any way else we can explain this? Yes – government intervention.

The reason why Singaporeans are self-centred is because of policies centred around economic viability. Policies in schools and the workplace are geared towards us competing with each other to strive and do better than the other. In this capitalistic framework, it’s all about every man for himself as he strive in a meritocratic society, where if he does well enough, he will get to the top. And we’ve learnt to think that I cannot do well enough if others are seemingly doing just as well. I need to do better than them, by preventing them from getting the opportunities that I will otherwise not be able to get. Our economic principles have thus guided our social policies, and influenced our social behaviours.

This is not new. We know this. But is developing the social identities of people according to economic principles the best way to do things? There is a price to pay. And this is why the government had caught themselves in a corner where people do not have the care, to care enough to understand their policies and strategic directions, and which is why the government is forced to talk about values, such as compassion and care for one another in such a big way this year.

At some point, if you create a pool of people who has only money in their minds, they will be very calculative with you. And when that happens, it’s not about trust or pride that a person has to the country and the government but what can you give to me as an individual? This is not useful when you are trying to govern a country and when you are trying to equalise the distribution of wealth. You cannot keep giving – you can if you are forever rich, but not when there are economic uncertainties.

Only now can the government see it so much more clearly.

If you can understand this, you can then understand that we cannot look at the social ills of society in silo ways. The reason why people litter and drive without a care for others is this – I care only for myself and my right of way. I care only about what I do. If I get to where I want to go or what I want to do, that’s all that matters. And that’s why we complain. And that’s why we want the government not to situate a nursing home in MY backyard. It’s all about me.

This mentality is an accentuating of the human-natured self-centredness, coupled with governmental policies geared towards bringing that out, at the expanse of a respect and care for others around you – all good if Singapore is truly just a company. But unfortunately for the government, Singapore is not.

So, if you really want Singaporeans to start taking care of their environment, to start giving up their seats and to stop respecting each other on the roads, you need to change something. You need to give them time to think about their beings. You need to let them understand that they cannot be only thinking about themselves. This means that their economic survival shouldn’t mean everything. This means that they have more time to do what they want to do, and have more time to empathise with the thoughts and actions of others.

Will the government do this? On one hand, what the government should preferably do – delink social policies from economic principles – is something that’s contrary to the long term economic growth prospects of the country. If you do not have a people who are geared towards being self-centred and singlely-focused towards making money, you will have people who are not economically committed to the financial growth.

And this is the question we’ve been asking – can we slow down growth at the expanse of respecting social needs. But this is not the right question. The question should be how can we bring out help people to grow socially, such that they would find the passion and self-belief in themselves to be committed in what they do, so that they will be committed towards contributing to the country’s growth?

What this means is this – we’ve long used an olden principle of governance where the control and evoking of fear among people is seen as more likely to create a homogenous population which will single-mindedly work towards your goals. But you cannot do this in a knowledge economy. You cannot do this when you are intertwined with the world, when the world needs not just your people, but their brains as well. You cannot do this in a new economy where people’s rights are being given new airing everywhere in the developed world. You simply cannot. And so the government knows on a broad level, it has to change.

But with this broad understanding, the government has to start understanding the implications their olden policies has on the ground. No matter how much money you throw towards encouraging Singaporeans not to litter or to give up their seats, it will go to waste if people do not internalise why they have to. The government had tried comparing being nice to their personal time. There was a campaign about how if you go on Facebook, it might take 15 minutes but if you give up your seat, it will take a few seconds – to encourage others to be socially gracious. This still panders to people’s self-centred needs and gets them to think about their own needs. Now, Mr Liak is proposing to shame people. I understand where he’s coming from because recent shaming events has brought results. But again, will people internalise their learning? If they won’t, we are only going to create other social ills.

At some point, the government has to be aware of how their past actions has current implications on social ills. The right thing for the government to do is to delink the developmental goals of our social and emotional beings away from economic principles and to give our overall social policies a careful rethink.

Of course, the government is worried about how the economy will be impacted. But some other countries – such as the Nordic countries, and perhaps, South Korea and Taiwan, have shown that a thinking population will not adversely affect the economy.

Also, the government has to remember that as much as Singapore needs to have a strong focus on the economy, there are people here – at least 3.5 million people who have a permanent connection to this country who cannot just pack and go and which the country needs to rely on, as much as they need to rely on the country.

The government has to reinvent how it wants to take the country forward, by rethinking the principles of governance and rebalancing the needs of the economy, with social well-being and not only that, but to find a new paradigm which the both can work for the benefit of each other, and not one for the other.

If it’s not already obvious, the government has changed their PR strategy. They’ve learnt this – if you voice out something that you are unhappy about, we will say what you want to hear and we will address them. We will talk about how to resolve them. Now, what are you going to do about that?

But to be clear, the government isn’t bending over for the sake of bending over. That would simply be a case of a weak government without strategy and resolve. Most certainly, whatever plans the government are now introducing to ‘appease’ us would have been plans in the making, or they have learnt to pitch in to us in a way that we want to hear.

For example, if you aren’t unhappy about the education system, let’s talk about that. But you know, instead of talking about it broadly, let’s talk specifically about something. Let’s talk about PSLE. So enlighten me here, was it Singaporeans who narrowed down the concern of the education system to be just about the PSLE or did the government do so? I’m not quite sure. But if I’m the government, if you do not know what to champion about, let us do it for you. It’s not possible for the government to relook the education system all at one go. They have to narrow it down – they have to pick one. So, what is something that we are already planning to do anyway, or what is it that we can do without drastically affecting the quality of our educational system? – PSLE. And what is it about the PSLE that we can change. We shouldn’t remove it! We need to  continue to gauge people academically. Let’s talk about tweaking the components of how we gauge PSLE instead! And so there, the government chanced on this and went big – REALLY big on a PR campaign on this. And it has worked. They’ve managed to invoke people into discussion specifically about the PSLE. But which came first – the people’s concerns or the government’s strategy?

I would pander to say that the current focus is created by an effective PR strategy, where the government took the concerns of the people, picked out something specific that they can manage within their current wants, and shout about it. And it has worked. Some stray ‘sheep’ have asked – but why are only focusing on PSLE when there are other broader areas about the educational system that we can talk about and rally for change? These are the some who have been able to seen behind the veil.

Another example is this – the government has said that it will introduce new policies for boosting birth rates in Singapore. To be realistic, the government has already done its calculations and it knows how much more it’s willing to increase – it shouldn’t be much. One reason is that financially, the government doesn’t think it’s completely their role to be responsible for the production of workers for the economy. The other reason is in principle this – is increasing the number of Singaporeans necessarily a strategic economic and political decision? But either way, the government knows it has to do something. But before it does, what can the government tap on so that it can further its cause? If money is not something we want to doe out freely, then what – family values. This has always been something the government has championed. “Family values” take the responsibility away from the government to have to baby us and family values allow a manageable hierarchical group to control its own people, before the government takes things into their own hands. And so, they’ve gone BIG on family values. So certain ministers have come out talking about them. Once again, it works – people believe in their families and when you talk about family values, whatever the motive is, people buy it. Strike two – among many others of course.

So, see the government has reworked their PR strategy and they are doing a fine deal here.

The question is – how will Singaporeans respond? There’s really not much else we can shout about now. You’ve made us happy so what can we complain about? Even at the discussions held at Our National Conversation, people are saying what the people are saying. We’ve made a habit out of critiquing the government and it’s personalities. We can’t possibly be critiquing our people for giving feedback to the government which is truly what we want. At this point, I would give the government complete marks for managing their PR strategy really fantastically and in a way, uniting Singaporeans under one umbrella, for the first time in many months.

 

So, what do we do? Recently, there has been a major uproar about a taxi driver who earns $7,000. We’ve dug up news about the driver, then about the reporter. We’ve flamed them, then we’ve decided the driver is innocent and then we’ve flamed the reporter. Who is right then? I do not know. I’m not a taxi driver. But what’s really happening here? We’ve run out of things to critique about. If the government is so good at addressing our needs, and we still need to let out but we can’t let out at them because they’ve covered their tracks quite well, who do we? We let out at other people – people who make the amount of money we cannot and people who write for the government mouthpiece. But is this the issue? I would say it’s misplaced priorities on our side.

First, we need to look deeper at why we have decided to flame the people in this situation. Are we unhappy about wages? Are we unhappy about how The Straits Times is reporting news which we feel isn’t completely honest? What is it? Are we talking about work or reporting ethics? Are we talking about the ability to work smart. The news about the driver who makes an awesome amount of money was meant to bring out some points. If we learn to critically analyse them, we would understand what it is we are unhappy about. But we have chosen to get upset and go on a witch hunt. And if you look deeper behind why we had gone on a witch hunt, it’s precisely because of these issues which we haven’t learnt to critically analyse.

What this has shown to ourselves is this – we aren’t interested in having a critical discussion on moving Singapore forward. We are simply unhappy people who want to vent our frustrations. We are cowards. If I cannot go on a witch hunt on our politicians, we will take our next best bet – people whom we speak for them, and so we’ve targeted the reporters and the reported. Ask yourself this – is this fair? Imagine if I’m the reporter or the taxi driver, is it fair for me to go through the emotional anguish simply because I wrote something or agreed to be interviewed for something? Do we really have Singapore and Singaporeans’ interests at heart? Perhaps? But what we are also really doing is to pander to our own self-centred needs for wanting our grievances to be heard.

But there are many ways we can express our grievances. And there are many ways we can express them without hurting others.

See, the government has made its move. What will you do? The government is saying – I know you are unhappy, I know perhaps I need to improve. Yes, I would. And I would also tweak my PR strategy because I know I need to communicate better about my strategies and ensure that my broad strategies for the country are not upset. And they’ve found a way to do this. And it has worked. People are feeling that their concerns are being addressed and they are feeling satisfied. But there are people who are still angry. Then to these people – the question is, what’s your next move?

Are you going to keep being angry? Are you going to keep going on a witch hunt? Then in this next round, you will lose. What this means for us is this – the government has up its game, which means we have to move up in ours. Perhaps I shouldn’t talk about it as a game – perhaps I should say that the government has somewhat found a balance between being responsible, at least in the way they speak, and in ensuring they are still able to execute the strategy that they have planned for Singapore.

Then the question is this – will you up your game? Rather, will you help them, or help us or yourself? The government has taken the game up on notch by talking about policies it can implement to address our needs – and ideas and thoughts about how they want to govern. And thus our ministers have started sharing on their vision and philosophies about how they envision Singapore. Will you up your game by discussing about your ideals and philosophies for the governance of Singapore? Will you propose policy recommendations?

At this juncture, there are two things we can do.

1. For the Singaporeans who feel appeased and satisfied that the government is hearing them, we can keep quiet and go back into waiting for the government to do everything for us – again.
2. Or with this new-found voice and ability to contribute, we can decide to move up a notch to provide quality debate by discussing about policies, ideas and philosophies – this will decide whether the government will continue to take Singaporeans seriously as we move into another phase.