Nation building is every Singaporean's responsibility, not the work of one party alone: Pritam, Singapore News
"Each and every Singaporean has the power to shape Singapore's future," he said in the message put up on his party's Facebook page on Aug 8.
"This civic duty is our responsibility alone."
In 60 years, Singapore has become a nation "united by Singaporeans with big hearts, a sense of righteousness, and a deep appreciation for mutual respect among all, regardless of race, language, or religion", said Mr Singh.
He added that while Singapore, at 60, is not very old, it is certainly also not very young.
And the Singapore story is still being written by everyone, from the seniors who live out their years with grace and purpose, to gig workers, public sector employees and young students, among others, he said.
Describing this story as one of resilience - of "the pioneers, our parents, and now ourselves" - Mr Singh said it was this quality that has taken Singapore through independence, economic downturns and global pandemics.
Resilience will continue to be essential amid the very different world to come, he added.
The Singapore story will also become "more layered and complex" as new citizens from various parts of the world join the Singapore family, he said.
Calling on all Singaporeans to build a future where "opportunity is more equitable, where no one is forgotten, and where every Singaporean has the space to grow, speak, and dream", he said: "All your contributions - seen or unseen - keep our nation thriving."
He added: "As we look ahead, let us do so with hope, compassion and the understanding that we are stronger not in spite of our differences, but because of them."
[[nid:717255]]
This article was first published in The Straits Times . Permission required for reproduction.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Online Citizen
7 hours ago
- Online Citizen
Singapore at 60: The secret talks and political risks behind separation from Malaysia
On the morning of 9 August 1965, Singaporeans woke to news that would change their history. At 9.30am, in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysian Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman told Parliament that Singapore was leaving the Federation of Malaysia. Barely three hours later, in Singapore, Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew appeared on television. His voice broke, his eyes brimmed with tears, and he called it 'a moment of anguish' — the end of the merger he had fought for just two years earlier. For decades, the story would be told as a sudden expulsion. Yet, archival records, memoirs, and even a 1965 U.S. Embassy telegram reveal a more complex truth: the separation was the outcome of secret talks, calculated risks, and decisions made by a handful of leaders under intense political pressure. The road to merger The Malaysia Agreement, signed on 9 July 1963, was meant to reunite Singapore, Sabah, Sarawak, and Malaya. For Lee Kuan Yew and the PAP, merger was both a nationalist goal and a political necessity. As historian Dr Thum Ping Tjin explained in a 2015 interview, 'In 1957, a survey found 90% of Singaporeans in favour of merger. It wasn't just an ideal — if you wanted to win elections, you had to be openly for reunification with Malaya.' Lee himself saw merger as a platform to influence politics in Kuala Lumpur and perhaps rise to lead a united Malaysia. But the terms of merger were not equal. Singaporeans could only vote in Singapore. PAP politicians could not contest mainland seats. These restrictions limited Lee's ambitions from the start. Early rifts On 31 August 1963 — just over two weeks before Malaysia's formal formation — Lee declared Singapore's unilateral independence and called a general election. This blindsided Tunku Abdul Rahman. The September 1963 elections pitted PAP against Malaysia's ruling coalition, Barisan Nasional (BN). BN lost every seat it contested, including three Malay-majority constituencies in Singapore. For Tunku, it was a warning: Malay voters on the island were not reliably UMNO supporters. In 1964, PAP broke another informal pledge by contesting 11 mainland seats in Malaysia's general election. Only Devan Nair won — in Bangsar — but the move was seen as a direct challenge to UMNO's political dominance. 1964: Riots and mistrust Relations soured further with the 21 July 1964 racial riots in Singapore. Scores were killed, hundreds injured, and mutual trust eroded. Dr Thum notes that Lee, who had once used racial arguments to push for merger, now began championing a 'Malaysian Malaysia' — equal rights regardless of race. For UMNO leaders, this reversal appeared opportunistic and threatening. In December 1964, during a golf game, Tunku proposed to Goh Keng Swee a looser federation: Singapore would leave Malaysia's Parliament but still pay for defence and surrender control over Malay affairs on the island. Goh rejected the terms as politically unacceptable. 1965: A choice takes shape By mid-1965, the political relationship was beyond repair. In June, Lee delivered his 'Malaysia for Malaysians' speech at the Malaysian Solidarity Convention, earning his wife Kwa Geok Choo's praise but further alienating UMNO. In July, while recovering from illness in London, Tunku decided Singapore must leave. On 15 July, Malaysian ministers Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman and Ja'afar Albar met Goh in Kuala Lumpur. The meeting began as a criticism of Lee but turned into a proposal for separation. Goh agreed in principle, warning that delay would only strengthen Lee's position. Only Lee, Goh, Law Minister E.W. Barker, and Finance Minister Lim Kim San were aware. On 26 July, Goh arrived with a handwritten note from Lee authorising him to negotiate. Barker began drafting the separation agreement. Risk and secrecy The talks carried enormous personal risk. If they failed, Goh and Barker could be charged with sedition under Malaysia's constitution. One telephone conversation between Goh and Lee was conducted in halting Mandarin to keep the operator from understanding. On 3 August, Tun Abdul Razak presented Tunku's conditions: Singapore must contribute to Malaysia's defence budget and avoid foreign defence pacts. Goh sidestepped these points, saying Singapore lacked resources to build a military. By 6 August, the draft was nearly final. That night, Goh and Barker travelled to Kuala Lumpur to complete the deal. They negotiated late into the night. When Barker returned, Lee reportedly thanked him for delivering 'a bloodless coup'. Cabinet resistance On 7 August, Lee revealed the plan to the PAP Cabinet. Opposition came from Foreign Minister S. Rajaratnam and Deputy Prime Minister Toh Chin Chye, who saw separation as a betrayal of Sabah and Sarawak allies. They even considered contacting communist militants to resist a Malaysian takeover — an idea Lee rejected. By 8 August, preparations moved quickly. PAP leaders spread the news to party activists across Malaysia. That night, the separation documents were printed in secrecy in Serangoon. The British were informed only after signatures were secured. 9 August 1965: Announcements in two capitals At 9.30am, Tunku told the Malaysian Parliament that Singapore was leaving. The constitutional amendment passed, but only after Tunku warned Alliance MPs he would resign if they refused. According to the U.S. Embassy telegram, this ultimatum damaged Tunku's image as a unifier but cemented his dominance over the Alliance. Only one senior figure — UMNO Secretary-General Ja'afar Albar — defied him, and was forced to resign. At noon, Lee addressed Singaporeans in an emotional broadcast. Behind the public grief was a political reality: by leaving Malaysia, Lee secured unchallenged leadership in Singapore. Shockwaves in Malaysian politics The separation left no one fully satisfied. The U.S. Embassy reported that only the communist-influenced Socialist Front and some far-right Malay nationalists appeared pleased. Malay extremists in UMNO were bitter. Some younger members might have followed Albar in a revolt, but he publicly pledged loyalty to Tunku while quietly working to strengthen his position. Among the Chinese political class, the reaction was sharp. MCA youth were furious that their leaders had allowed what they saw as the 'ejection' of 1.5 million Chinese from Malaysia, weakening their bargaining power. MCA leader Tan Siew Sin told party youth that separation was a tragedy but unavoidable, placing blame on Lee and urging unity. Economic calculations On paper, Malaysia lost significant resources with Singapore's departure. The loss of promised development funds for Borneo was cited as a blow, but cooperation had already been minimal. Singapore's commitment to a M$150 million loan was conditional on labour access for Borneo — a point never agreed. Economic ties, however, could not be severed easily. While tariffs and quotas on Malaysian goods caused initial animosity, both governments recognised their interdependence. A 'common market' remained possible, and many businessmen were optimistic trade relations could be repaired if politics stayed out of the way. Nation-building in Singapore For Lee, independence meant both a political victory and a new challenge. Dr Thum notes that Lee had to abandon the Malayan identity he had championed since 1959 and instead emphasise a distinct Singaporean identity. Policies shifted towards English and Chinese as dominant languages, while Malay remained the national language in name. Economically, Singapore moved towards an open, export-driven model, free from Kuala Lumpur's protectionist policies. Sixty years later Today, Singapore marks its 60th National Day with a clearer understanding of 1965's events. The separation was not a sudden ejection but the outcome of covert manoeuvres, calculated risks, and political trade-offs. It was, in Lee's words, a 'bloodless coup' — and one that set both nations on divergent but enduringly connected paths.
AsiaOne
13 hours ago
- AsiaOne
Nation building is every Singaporean's responsibility, not the work of one party alone: Pritam, Singapore News
SINGAPORE - Nation building has never been the work of one party or one generation, and is both an individual and collective effort, said Leader of the Opposition and Workers' Party chief Pritam Singh in his National Day message. "Each and every Singaporean has the power to shape Singapore's future," he said in the message put up on his party's Facebook page on Aug 8. "This civic duty is our responsibility alone." In 60 years, Singapore has become a nation "united by Singaporeans with big hearts, a sense of righteousness, and a deep appreciation for mutual respect among all, regardless of race, language, or religion", said Mr Singh. He added that while Singapore, at 60, is not very old, it is certainly also not very young. And the Singapore story is still being written by everyone, from the seniors who live out their years with grace and purpose, to gig workers, public sector employees and young students, among others, he said. Describing this story as one of resilience - of "the pioneers, our parents, and now ourselves" - Mr Singh said it was this quality that has taken Singapore through independence, economic downturns and global pandemics. Resilience will continue to be essential amid the very different world to come, he added. The Singapore story will also become "more layered and complex" as new citizens from various parts of the world join the Singapore family, he said. Calling on all Singaporeans to build a future where "opportunity is more equitable, where no one is forgotten, and where every Singaporean has the space to grow, speak, and dream", he said: "All your contributions - seen or unseen - keep our nation thriving." He added: "As we look ahead, let us do so with hope, compassion and the understanding that we are stronger not in spite of our differences, but because of them." [[nid:717255]] This article was first published in The Straits Times . Permission required for reproduction.
AsiaOne
13 hours ago
- AsiaOne
Embracing Singlish as part of our identity: Paiseh for what?, Lifestyle News
The Singaporean identity is a tricky one to define. Our country, which is reaching its 60th birthday this month, was made up of migrants and islanders with little to no shared experiences just three generations ago. But somewhere along the way, amid the rush of nation-building, something happened. An informal, colloquial form of English was created. Organically formed to suit the needs of different communities looking to understand each other, Singlish somehow manages to mirror some characteristics of the country itself — efficient, effective and reliable. Despite this, as a collective, we've been hesitant to fully embrace Singlish. But why? Speak good English, please The Speak Good English Movement (SGEM), launched in 2000 by then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, might be a good place to start. The campaign's objective was simple enough: to "encourage Singaporeans to speak grammatically correct English". A Ministry of Education report in 1999 said that the widespread use of Singlish "will erode standards of English" among Singaporeans and SGEM was a response to those worries. It seems that Singlish and "standard English" were seen as incompatible and, through this campaign, the Singapore government made their preference clear. In a highly competitive global market, there were concerns that Singaporeans' pervasive use of Singlish would lead to barriers that would hinder the nation's competitiveness. Professor Lionel Wee, dean of the National University Singapore (NUS) Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, told AsiaOne that the campaign was a method to discourage, and even eradicate, the use of Singlish at that time. "There was a lot of anxiety expressed, on the part of the government, that Singaporeans needed to learn good English, and they were in an environment where, according to the government, there's too much Singlish," he said. An example Prof Wee provided was Phua Chu Kang. A cultural TV icon to some, the unpretentious and relatable nature of the popular sitcom resonated with locals. Singlish catchphrases were part and parcel of the likeable characters' identities and as a young primary-school student back then, I laughed along to these quirky and fun mannerisms. Little did I realise that on a national level, it was at the centre of debate on the usage of Singlish. It was a time when the country was looking to raise its overall standard of English, but this coincided with the popularity of local TV sitcoms like Phua Chu Kang, which was known for its heavy use of Singlish. Phua Chu Kang's liberal use of it in the show was even brought up during the 1999 National Day Rally Speech. Then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong had said: "Gurmit Singh can speak many languages. But Phua Chu Kang speaks only Singlish. If our children learn Singlish from Phua Chu Kang, they will not become as talented as Gurmit Singh." It was also suggested during the speech that Phua Chu Kang should attend Basic Education for Skills Training classes to improve his grasp of English. Goh noted in the speech that Singaporean students already face "quite a challenge" to master one form of English and adding Singlish to the mix may lead to them being "unable to speak any languages properly". The government has softened its stance on the matter since, and although it is not widely encouraged today, Singlish is "tolerated", according to Prof Wee. Then, the question now might be: Should Singlish be something we merely tolerate? Changing tides In recent years, signs point to a shift in attitudes, especially among younger Singaporeans. Let me take you back to late 2021 when a web-based word game Wordle was created. Players had six tries to guess a five-letter word. Simple but challenging, the game exploded in popularity soon after. Sha-Mayn Teh figured why not create a Singlish spin-off. She named it Word-leh! and sent it to her friends on Feb 1, 2022 before releasing it to the public a week later. Her version worked almost exactly like the original. The big difference was players had to guess Singlish terms and words like "shiok" or "bojio" would feature in Sha-Mayn's game. Since got so many people playing now, I'm relaunching as — Sha-Mayn Teh (@shamayn) February 9, 2022 Sha-Mayn mentioned to AsiaOne that the game began as nothing more than a mini-project for her friends. "It unexpectedly went viral in under two weeks. Media picked up on it, and a whole community sprung up on Twitter, either bragging about their scores or complaining about missed words," she said. Sha-Mayn noted that while 85 per cent of Word-leh players are based in Singapore, the game is also played in the US, Malaysia, Australia and the UK. For Sha-Mayn, the charm of Singlish is simply how fluid and adaptable it is. "Part of the beauty of Singlish is that it's an evolving language without one official dictionary," Sha-Mayn added. To the uninitiated, Singlish may seem like just sprinkling a "lah" or "lor" at the end of each sentence. But regular users would be able to sniff out a sentence that was put together by someone who isn't familiar with Singlish. That's because, just like any other language, Singlish has rules that only regular users would be able to instinctively understand. This complexity is what 25-year-old Daniel Goh is looking to honour with his creation Chimbridge. A project that began in 2024, this online database has roughly 2,500 Singlish terms. Apart from definitions, Chimbridge also provides users with etymologies of the terms. Taking a more academic approach to documenting Singlish was a deliberate action by Daniel as he wanted to challenge the idea of Singlish being understood as an "illegitimate language", CNA reported. Let's not be paiseh The fact of the matter is fears of being left behind on the world stage were very real and the government did what it believed was necessary at the time. But attempting to ignore an aspect of your culture in pursuit of better opportunities may have been a slight overcorrection. Formed out of shared lived experiences and everyday connections between Singaporeans, there is value to Singlish, and while it can be tempting to look back and be critical of past decisions, I'm aware that I come from a position of privilege (as I write this out in English, no less). Regardless, beyond policy decisions, the core of the matter here is identity. And with the existence of Word-leh! and Chimbridge, it may suggest that we're becoming more comfortable with our linguistic diversity. So let's not be paiseh about this language of ours, can? amierul@
