TR EMERITUS

作者：新加坡文献馆  27/02/2010 首先，如果务实新加坡人的生活目标是局限于：‘只会注重一份好工作，追求高素质的医疗和教育，以及满足于干净和安全的生话环境’，那么，这种思维下的新加坡应该是只会走向一个畜牲文化的社会。 根据百度百科，文化一词在西方来源于拉丁文 cultura，原义是指农耕及对植物的培育。自15世纪后，逐渐引申使用，把对人的品德和能力的培养也称之为文化。 广义的文化是指人类创造的一切物质产品和精神产品的总和。狭义的文化专指语言、文学、艺术及一切意识形态在内的精神产品。因此，文化要素主要包括5项：精神要素；语言和符号；规范体系；社会关系和物质产品。 精神要素，即精神文化，主要指哲学和其他具体科学、宗教、艺术、伦理道德以及价值观念等。价值观的精神文化是文化要素中最有活力的部分，是人类创造活动的动力，没有精神文化，人类便无法与动物相区别。 在词典里畜牲有两个解释，其一，指牛﹑马﹑羊﹑鸡﹑狗﹑猪等六畜；其二，是詈词，指行同禽兽的人。 文化与畜牲两个词汇结合的畜牲文化概念并非用来贬斥务实的新加坡人猪狗不如，相反的，畜性文化是警惕新加坡人千万不能仅止于追求生活上的物质满足。这是因为当一个人退化到没有精神文化意识时，那不就等同猪狗牛羊鸡马？ 这好比日本的神戶牛。这类‘非常牛’享用有温度调节，干净舒适的居室，经常喝啤酒，饱尝药膳和享受按摩，甚至于可以欣赏到精美的西洋古典音乐等等的高素质照 顾。然而，在牛文化中，万般宠爱在一身的神戶牛在其整个生命中从来不知晓自身意识，只依主人的语言符号指示去活动，受主人的规范体系约束，并在双方关系中 沦为主人的高价商品，而且终究难逃任人宰割成为桌上佳肴的必然结局。 如果新加坡人也只满足于神戶牛般的物质生话环境，那么，这一类型的人类又和六畜有什么区别？人之所以为人是人类必须有精神文化上的需要。每个人都应该有自已的人生梦想，并且努力学习和勤奋工作让梦想成真；这才是生活与生命的真谛。 新加坡人必须有属于自已的生命意识，和能够追求以及实现自已的生活意义。想当然耳，新加坡人岂能没有自身意识，只依指示活动，被体制屈服，从而沦为经济商品让人任意处置切割？ 关注物质生活环境本是合乎情理之事，但物质文明只是走向精神文明的驿站而不是终点。显然的，新加坡精英只呼吁人民关注物质文明，却只字不提提升精神文明的做法是本末倒置，亦是文明的退化。 李光耀娓娓而谈新加坡已从第三世界提升为第一世界，那何以人民的生活却又还得停留在低层次的物质文明时代？ 世界文明已经从原始的农耕文明经济进化到工业文明经济，再提升至今时今日科技文明的创新经济。这一个新时代需要的是一个更自由开放的探索精神空间。在新文明背景下，如果新加坡文化真的要走出自己的康庄大道，那么，其先决与必需条件是彻底摆脱畜牲文化思维。 其二，‘伦敦和北京的文化更有深度’以及‘新加坡文化贫瘠’是众所皆知的客观现实，何必争议？至于新加坡人是否要为此而自卑，又或者要为此而骄傲地走自已的 路，皆是主观感受，可以见仁见智，各说各话，亦可相呴以湿，相濡以沫。个人自由，悉听尊便，不过，谦让是美德，不卑不亢更显君子涵养。 一个鲜明的不争事实是，在伦敦和北京确实是有更多的文化选择，其中原由并不单是因为这两个城市有着更长久的人文历史，亦是因为这两个城市更着意于保留自已的人文历史。有丰富文化遗产的城市才能提供更多的文化选择。 新加坡之所以缺乏文化选择自有其个中因果。新加坡的好些历史性建筑与依附其中的本土文化在所谓的务实城市重建大旗帜下消失的无影无踪。旧社区的整体摧毁意味 着集体记忆的消失；当新加坡人因原生活环境的破坏而无法培育新加坡人的集体意识时，一个缺乏共同意识的社会也就难免在文化上沦为断线风筝。一个无法滋生群 体意识的社会，理所当然的，也就不会积累属于自已社群独有的文化遗产。 寸金尺土的香港完善保留了平民区的庙街文化，是当今香港旅游的招牌卖点。这一个让小市民可以谋生并累积资本的小市场，既造福百姓也惠及政府。反观新加坡的类似平民生活文化，早年的小坡黑街（白沙浮）夜市和大坡牛车水街边摊贩在重建与整顿市容的名堂下都在一夕之间化为乌有。 虽然多年后牛车水夜市在新唐人街包装下重建，但其原有地方文化风采与神韵已经荡然无存。牛车水是广东乡土文化的南洋版本，在喧哗乡音与风味小吃的平民日常生活中展现。文化是来自一个累积，发酵与沉淀的漫长历史过程，不能以金钱和权力去凭空捏造。 除了尾随着路边经济活动的消灭而消逝的平民生活文化之外，以政治利益为考量出发点的新加坡教育与文化政策，也导致好些有本土特色的人文艺术的绝迹，其中比如具南洋风格的绘画艺术和新华文艺创作。 南洋画风由于无人扶持才会因为老画家乘鹤西归而变成后继无人。去翻看李光耀整顿华文报业之前的华文报副刊，再比较当今副刋的文艺创作就可以知晓什么是新华文艺创作，以及新加坡华人社会在质与量两方面失去了些什么有人文价值的文化遗产？ 回顾历史，一个新兴的新加坡共和国是否更应该妥善保留与培育，而不是为了铲除反对党势力而刻意有系统的摧毁社会原有的凝聚力？在这一个改变社会秩序的政治过程中，人民行动党确实成功保障了政治权力，然而，新加坡整体社会又为此付出了何等的人文代价？ 其三，新加坡人能否可以和美国人一样，不会因为自己是个年轻的国家而觉得在文化上比不上北京和伦敦，并且能够骄傲地走出自己的文化路？ 美国人传承而不是抛弃了祖宗遗留下来的文化，所以美国虽然年轻但美国人不会觉得在文化上自愧不如。美国文化是从历史悠久的西方文明：基督教信仰和人权与民主 思想的文化根基上萌芽滋长。美国文化的核心价值观是尊重人权和民主精神。美国梦就是建立在自由的追求个人理想的实践；除了追求金钱财富的物质文化之外，也 追求科学，知识和艺木等精神文化上的超越。这解释了为何美国人可以如此自豪自已的文化。然而，新加坡人能否亦可以如此这般的东施效颦？ 日本明治维新之所以能够让日本人脱胎换骨走出一个现代日本文明，不也是在祖宗遗留下来的文化基础上吸取外来的新文化元素？ 在当今的欧洲，由共同体发展而成的欧盟，其27个成员国虽然都放弃了部分政治与经济权力，但却坚持各别成员国保留自己的语言文化。收录在华校课本《中华文选》的《最后一课》描叙学生向祖国语言告别的最后一堂母语课，这一篇文章反映了敬爱祖国语言文化的法国人文精神。 相反的，新加坡原有的民族文化教育体系已经让李光耀连根拔起，回头无岸。那么，数典忘祖，没有民族文化为根基的新加坡是否可以走出自已的文化路？这一个特殊的社会环境又会走出一个什么模样的‘非常新加坡’文化路？ 语文教育和文化传承不是正相关，文字符号认识和文化生活亦是两回事。文化是代代相传的累积生活经验，只能够通过日常生活去学习，体会与运用。换言之，文字符 号的学习是不足够的，精通华文象形文字不能等同精通华人文化。一个人的文化传承是由行为中展现的价值观来判断，而非靠语言掌握的流利程度来分辨。 在新加坡的社会现实里，平衡的华裔双语者只表示同等的双语文使用能力，未必表示生活上行使华人文化价值观。比如，新加坡的功利务实观念下，只要是合法行为即 便是拆烂汚手段也在物竞天择原则下变成可以接受的行为。这和传统华人社会的道义价值观涵盖的正当手段意识是相背的。显然的，语言的使用和价值观的运用是不 尽相同的。 在新加坡的不对称双语教育政策下，学生的民族文化教育沦为语文课程，母语教育只是语言符号的教导与学习。文字上的文化教育无异于纸上谈兵。此外，新加坡杜绝了华人方言之后，说方言的长辈无法和说华英语的晚辈沟通，也就断绝了祖孙之间的文化薪火相传。这因素解释了为何新生代普遍缺乏良好的家庭教养，以及为何新加坡必须立法确保孩子奉养父母？ 从1980到2010的30个年头里，华人去中国化教育政策造就了两代的文化断线风筝。新加坡的社会调查证实了许多新生代华裔都不愿意传承华人文化价值观，如今的富二代认同西方文化，贫二代认同日韩文化。 1980年代，李光耀就已深刻的意识到文化断层的严重现象，所以制定了宗教和儒家思想教育来尝试扭转这个恶劣的困境。然而，精神文化教育导致个人意识的萌生，挑战了政府力图塑造的物质文化社会，为此，课程在三年后停办。此外，宗教组织的兴起亦造就了宗教与政府之间的矛盾，1987年马克思阴谋论的大逮捕行动(Operation Spectrum)就是为了彻底消除宗教势力对执政党的威胁。从此之后，处理文化断层之事就似乎不了了之。 在这一时段内的一个国庆演说中，李光耀和人民分享了他所知道的社会隐忧：新加坡在走向一个文化断根的加立索社会(calypso society) 。这是在加勒比海地区的混杂文化，是当地文化在外来文化冲击下产生出来的无根文化，主要是表现在音乐和口语上。 新加坡的加立索社会是寄生在新加坡式英语的文化里。这是一种新加坡道地的口语文化，其始作俑者是那些让精英教育体系淘汰出局的弱势群体。显然的，新加坡已然走出了自已的文化路。但是，新加坡的统治阶级痛恨这种次文化，因为这是一种失败文化，所以政府软硬兼施的重复告诫人民不要说新加坡式英语。 来自平民日常生活的新加坡式英语自自然然的演化为国家身份认同文化；不论在世界上的那一个角落，一句新加坡式英语就足以表露出新加坡人的身份。 转眼之间30年已过，加立索社会现象依然普遍。更具生命力的新加坡式英语成为新加坡各民族之间，甚至于新移民与本地人之间的沟通媒介语。一个成功的第一世界却流行着第三世界的失败文化，这一现象确实是匪夷所思，难怪李光耀会有新加坡人愚蠢的评估。 推行的双重种族政策下，新加坡出现了白种-华人和華族-白种人的混族组合标 签。在华 人去中国化的政治思维并没有因为社会出现文化断层现象而却步。相反的，在新近这一种政治思维下，有愿景的当政者或许正在酝酿另一个更惊心动魄的社会工程，假以时日，新加坡也许会演化出一个全新的‘白种-新加坡人’ (Caucasian-Singaporean) 文化。  Read More →

By Low Wei Xiang The following article was originally written by the writer at myhometown.sg . Comparing the newspaper headlines of a few months ago and now, one can certainly see the stark differences. A few months ago, a prevalent theme in The Straits Times was MM Lee's calls for Singaporeans to put up with the increasing presence of foreigners, and his emphasis that Singapore would be nothing without them. Now, in what seems to be a sudden turnaround, reports on the government putting Singaporeans first by enhancing their privileges in issues like housing, healthcare and education are coming fast and furious. Adding on to the flurry are goals to make Singapore a more productive nation which depends less on the mass imports of foreign labour. If a Singapore citizen was to read the news, what would he make out of it? It would be tempting for us to feel complacent and pompous, now that the government's focus has turned to us. "The citizens always come first," the government now says, an avowal that sounds pleasing and almost refreshing to the ears, considering the government's past remarks that "Singaporeans should learn to mix with the foreigners and fight hard so we would not lose out to them". It's like after giving attention to the newly-adopted baby, the parents remember their first-born biological child and his pressing needs. But to feel loved again - that would be the first step in the major mistake of becoming spoilt citizens. While it is encouraging to be reminded that we are not forgotten, do not forget the responsibilities of a first-born child. As the oldest, he is ultimately the caregiver of the entire family. The enhancement of citizenship privileges over that of foreigners might give us a boost in terms of "status", but to ride on this wave of newfound glory and start basking in the sun would mean we have forgotten about our responsibilities and the government's calls. The calls for productivity, specifically. With the government's declaration to increase productivity by relying less on cheap foreign imports, and with numerous proposals that increase the cost of living for foreigners, what will happen (which is also the government's intention) is that the proportion of foreigners in Singapore will remain stable, instead of increasing the way it has in previous years. What this also means is that the people who will have to rise up to the government's calls for increased work productivity are us, the citizens. Foreigners go where the wind blows, but citizens are here to stay. The government has realized it cannot rely forever on foreigners to sustain continued growth for a country that is almost bursting at its seams. The onus is thus upon us, the citizens, to work more productively and industriously to prove that the government's decision to have faith in its citizens will not go wrong. Thus, while it is tempting to give ourselves a pat of self-congratulation and assurance that the government has not forgotten about us, sitting back too far would only cause us to fall backwards. MM Lee said, "Instead of many job opportunities and rising asset values, including prices for resale HDB flats, the reverse will happen...fewer jobs, lower salaries, lower asset prices...pay will fall and so will the number of jobs and promotion. When this happens, many of our own talents will leave for greener pastures, which will exacerbate the downward spiral and eventually lead to Singapore's decline". The enhancement of citizenship rights is timely, with murmurs of a General Election up ahead, but one should also consider if it is timely because with less reliance on foreigners, the government actually has to depend more on us to spur the country on forward? This increase of citizenship privileges might merely be a carrot dangling in front to encourage us to move forward. However, it is a carrot we have to bite to show that the government's faith in its citizens to rise to the challenge of increasing work productivity for the economy has not gone misplaced.  Read More →

Written by Our Correspondent Unfazed by the negative publicity surrounding his business dealings with Eunos grassroots organizations, YPAP member Sear Hock Rong has launched another tirade at the online community again. In his latest blog posting, Mr Sear attacked the Temasek Review for being an "anti-government" site: "Over the past few months, I saw for myself how some websites resorted to criticising the Government and individuals to increase their readership. Temasek Review is one such website where articles written were anti-Government and disgustingly one-sided. Most of their readers prefer to hide behind nicknames and launch personal attacks against others. Nasty and biased remarks made by these netizens are easily found in every article, often full of anger and hatred." The Temasek Review has offered Mr Sear ample opportunities to explain himself on our site and even offered to sponsor a public forum for him to clear his name which he had declined. He also took a snipe at Alex Tan who lodged a report to the People's Association about possible conflicts of interest in his company doing business with several Eunos grassroots organizations where he served: "He (Alex Tan) also mentioned many times on Facebook that he will leave Singapore if the People's Action Party wins the coming General Elections by 50%. Many Singaporeans are hoping this man who was charged with 'general disobedience' during NS will not go back on his words." The People's Association has since "cleared" Mr Sear of any improprieties in the business transactions between his company and Eunos Grassroots Organisations. It is quite obvious from his posting that Mr Sear is still feeling very bitter about the entire fracas. Had he taken the trouble to clarify himself on his blog or on our site, none of this would have happened. Instead, he peeved off many netizens with his arrogance, insensitivity and brashness by challenging them to report him to the authorities. Mr Sear ended his article by calling on the authorities to adopt a more proactive stance in monitoring the internet: "Perhaps, the authorities should start to take a more active role to investigate those radical websites and take irresponsible netizens to task." It is most disappointing that YPAP members have to resort to hiding behind the authorities whenever they are criticized in cyberspace. Another YPAP member Eric How caused a stir lately by making a police report over a non-existent impersonation under the "advice" of YPAP Chairman Teo Ser Luck. Since YPAP members seem unable to take the heat in online discussions and debates, they should simply just quit cyberspace altogether and stop putting up the facade that they are interested in engaging netizens.  Read More →