Ministers Vivian Balakrishnan and K Shanmugam, both key members of Singapore’s ruling People’s Action Party, were once on opposite sides of a political debate. In a video clip from around 1990, an uncompromising Balakrishnan took issue with government ministers publicly questioning the loyalty of sections of Singaporean society. Shanmugam, a lawyer and PAP MP, defended the government’s position. At the time, Balakrishnan had not yet joined the PAP, but he eventually made his debut in 2001 as part of a PAP team contesting in Holland–Bukit Panjang GRC. Today, the pair are neighbours, staying in colonial bungalows leased to them by the PAP government.
Balakrishnan’s stand in the 1990s remains relevant today. His comments addressed the social engineering policies that Singapore’s government had put in place for decades. Back then, the government was concerned about balancing out Singapore’s various ethnic groups to ensure social harmony. One tool they used to this end was encouraging people from different ethnic groups to intermarry to create a new “Singaporean” identity. This approach was not without its critics, who accused the government of trying to make ethnic identity unimportant and suppressing discussion about race issues.
Balakrishnan’s concern was that openly questioning the loyalty of certain sections of society, almost exclusively Chinese, would create a self-fulfilling prophecy. Shanmugam, on the other hand, saw it as simply discussing factual matrices that existed and trying to overcome the problem. Singapore has struggled with communal tensions since colonial times and has invested in promoting multiculturalism and appeasing different ethnic groups. But as Balakrishnan pointed out, questioning one’s loyalty outright would only lead to suspicion and distrust.
It is noteworthy that, despite ideological differences expressed in their differing political views from the past, both Shanmugam and Balakrishnan find themselves as neighbours today. They reside just across the road from each other in luxurious colonial bungalows leased from the ruling party. It is heartening to think that differences in opinion can be overcome and, in some cases, lead to greater harmony and cohesion.
This situation is not uncommon in Singapore. The government often leases colonial houses to senior officials, parliamentarians, and ministers. These houses are a symbol of status and are highly prized, given their central location and historic prestige. However, these houses are also anachronistic in modern-day Singapore, where most people live in high-rise flats or condominiums. The government has come under increasing pressure to justify the decision to lease out these houses instead of turning them into public spaces or affordable housing.
The issue of social inequality and affordable housing has gained importance in recent years in Singapore. It is not just an issue of morality but is also a matter of economic competitiveness. A report released in 2019 by the Singapore Business Review found that the city-state’s high cost of living and expensive home prices were driving away investment talent. The study pointed out that Singapore was falling behind other regional centers like Hong Kong and Shanghai, which were developing more affordable housing options for middle-income earners.
In conclusion, Singapore’s past must inform its present and future. Policymakers must recognize that social inequality and affordable housing are key issues that merit their attention. The Singaporean government should continue to work towards its goal of cultural cohesion, but it should also acknowledge that diversity is a reality and that ideas must evolve to aptly reflect that diversity. Ideological differences like those expressed in the debate between Shanmugam and Balakrishnan should not impede progress towards a more equal and just society.
