Like the majority of Singaporeans, I learned to say the National Pledge when I was in school. Since then I think I have lived by the vow that I had made. I am still committed to building a democratic society as I am to speaking out against injustice and inequality. To me a pledge is a solemn promise or a vow. It is not like a New Year’s resolution that you make on the first day of the year and forget it immediately the next day.
When Mr S Rajaratnam crafted the National Pledge, I don’t think he meant it to be just a New Year’s resolution. I believe he wrote it with conviction. It is not just an aspiration to be desired but a goal to be attained.
The words in the National Pledge meant a lot to me as it was to the founding fathers of Singapore. After being suffocated by the turbulent years in Malaysia, all Singaporeans wanted was to breathe the air of freedom.
We had lived through authoritarianism. We were ruled by a government with such an overwhelming majority that it could easily, and did, brow-beat its opponents. We lived under a government with a more than two-thirds majority that could push through any law it wanted. It was a government that cared more for its political base than the general population.
Singaporeans were made to feel like second class citizens and we could do nothing about it. True, there were elections but that does not mean there was democracy, even though all the constituencies were single-seat constituencies.
The Press and the Media at that time were so biased and pro-Alliance that if there had been a ranking at that time, they would have ranked more than 150th. Sounds familiar doesn’t it?
Fortunately, the situation was slightly better for the opposition then because the PAP in Singapore, at least, had the resources to counter the Malaysian government’s propaganda with Singapore’s own Radio and Television station and a government publication called the Mirror.
As a result, the separation from Malaysia came as a relief and the pledge was designed as a vow so that Singaporeans would not be subjected to the same conditions that we had broken away from.
Thus, the National Pledge is not just about protecting any racial minority. It is also about working towards social and economic justice. More so, it is about doing away with an authoritarian system and building a more democratic society.
Having gone through that period as an opposition political leader, one can understand why Mr Rajaratnam wrote those words and the spirit with which he crafted them.
As an ordinary young citizen who had lived through the period, I am, like all other Singaporeans, able to embrace the ideals behind the National Pledge.
After having lived under a government that bases its policies on the supremacy of race, language and religion, words like “regardless of race, language or religion” are like water in a dry season. After having lived under a system of injustice, inequality and a government-controlled media, we wanted change and more political freedom.
This is the reason why the pledge says we must strive to build a democratic society based on justice and equality. That is also why we believe, as the craftsmen then believed, that it is through democracy, justice and equality that we can bring happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation.
44 years on, times have changed. The National Pledge appears to have lost its original spirit. For every day of their school lives, young Singaporeans recite the Pledge over and over again. However, do they care to understand the meaning of democracy, justice and equality? When we were in Malaysia, these concepts were so important to us that we had a series of radio courses teaching us these concepts. Why are these concepts now not important enough to be taught to the young?
Thus it is a shame that after years of repeating it, one-third of Singaporeans still are unable to say it correctly, let alone understand the spirit behind the Pledge.
Whether the Pledge is recited at 8.22pm on National Day by everyone together or repeated everyday alone by oneself, it is meaningless if we do not believe in what we say.
How can we strive to build a democratic society based on justice and equality when the general population is so apathetic, the climate of fear still exists, the level of the political playing field uneven, the media is still state-controlled and when our leaders of a party, whose founding fathers introduced the Pledge, do not believe that democracy is the formula for happiness, prosperity and progress?
How can we talk about justice and equality when there is such a large income disparity after 44 years of pledge-reciting?
What is the meaning of putting our fists onto our heart and saying a vow when we are not likely to walk the talk?
Ten days before National Day, a telling phenomenon took place at the National Stadium. 50,000 fans converged on the National Stadium all dressed in Red. Many, if not all, had said the National Pledge in school. Unfortunately, they were not there to have a pre-National Day celebration. Neither were the majority there to support the National football team that was playing Liverpool. Instead they were there to support the Liverpool team, to turn the National Stadium into Anfield and to sing the Liverpool anthem, “You’ll Never Walk Alone”.
This may be a football match, but the display by the fans is a symptom of a national disease. I watched Manchester United played against Hangzhou Greentown. The Chinese supporters were cheering their team (even though not a National one) even when they were 6 nil down. And when their team scored the two consolation goals, they cheered as if they had won the match.
Alas, pledge or no pledge, Singapore has still a long way to go to achieve nationhood. I weep.
So besides Harry, there are others " who had lived through that period " ...
22 August 2009
