What does 'Singapore identity' mean to you? Do you think that we even have a Singapore identity to start with? Is it important that we have one?

Added Cindi because the article does compare Singapore to Malaysia and it would be interesting to have that perspective. And also Daphne has experience of both! :)

Adding some expats as well because it'd be nice to get that perspective too... when you moved to Singapore, did you see a sort of "Singapore identity"?

I guess Sudhir's right about migration patterns and why Singaporeans want to be more nationalistic than the newer migrants, because by perspective, newer migrants tend to retain their previous country's national identity, probably because their migration purposes were economical instead of a total shedding of identity, unlike what happens if a Chinese migrates to Malaysia or Singapore during the warring eras. Not the mention the different roles they play back then and now. The migrants back then were told to help build a nation in exchange for a sense of national identity, while the current ones reap the benefits of what the nation builders sow. Actually I don't think this is purely a Singaporean problem, but because of the large number....

...of migrants reside here and the country is small, it seemed to be more obvious.
Also, in Malaysia's case, I guess we can be feel proud because despite what national policies that were decided to undermine the minor ethnicity, we always look to our Federal Constitution, which the writings were neither discriminatory nor give the major ethnic group the right of way. And the fact that it is acknowledged that certain cultures shaped our livelihood. I mean, Penang without its unique Hokkien language or its old port status will not be known as Penang at all. Maybe Singaporeans need to cling to something indiscriminately that reminds them of who or what they're build on to feel that they are part of a nation and its development process.

I feel that because it's always been kind of top-down the "identity" that we have been told we have was always a flimsy construct. Now we can just see it disappearing, and people find that scary.

Personally I find it quite exciting because we then have this opportunity to redefine for ourselves what we want to be and where we want to go from here.

I daresay that we do not have a common identity. We have a common culture - created both from top-down and bottom-up - that can pass as one, but we have not established what it really means to become a Singaporean.

It's scary in two ways - one, that we are not entirely socially cohesive like other nations, like the Japanese; and two, that anything is possible for us - even alternatives to the conventionally preached values of meritocracy. And we have begun to split - between the old citizens and the new citizens. We hear things like 'let's let true-blue Singaporeans live better than the other Singaporeans' - that's honestly disturbing.

On the other hand, it's exciting in a way that (like what Kirsten said) we can build on existing value systems or even create something new. Things away from the usual insecure survivalist pragmatism that has caused our silent majority today and things towards a more proactive, united citizentry - one that is discerning, dares to speak their mind and yet one that liberally tolerates other viewpoints.

Yes, the "true blue Singapore" versus everyone else thing is quite scary. It's as if we, in not quite knowing how to define what we are, are defining ourselves in relation to what we are NOT, i.e. Everyone Else. I'm not sure that this is very helpful.

But @Ng Yi Shu, what do you think our common culture is?

Speaking as someone relatively new to Singapore, I find it difficult to comment personally. I have loved what this city has offered me and my family, but I do recognise it's at a juncture. I think there are two particular groups I'd comment on - anecdotally, I find young Singaporeans aren't wedded to any particular identity, I find many invite me to critique this place: its conservatism, its lack of soul and its rigidity. Given their importance in terms of carrying Singapore's identity forward, that's not a good thing. I have found also a lot of indifference from young Singaporeans who haven't benefited from meritocracy, who are living here and believe this city and the government aren't working for them.

Well, our common culture is everywhere - food, creole, behaviour, etc...

We have a diverse food culture that we now claim as (mostly) unique to us. We are pretty united over our food, and when people try to devalue it, we unanimously fight back. Food has been an integral part of what we define as Singapore culture nowadays - we market it to tourists everywhere else and we miss it when we don't have it for a while.

Our creole (Singlish) has been representative of our diverse background, acting as a social bond between Singaporeans, while our typical Singaporean behaviour (complain lah, talk cock lah, kiasu, kiasi la...) and our typical Singaporean humour have defined Singaporean culture. That's what has bonded Singaporeans - culture.

That said, other cities like London and New York City have often been raised when we talk about identity, and yet I would actually have a hard time – even after visiting both places – to tell you what a "London identity" or "New York identity" is. These global cities seem to be more defined by the cosmopolitanism and the diversity, rather than any unifying identity. And I enjoy that too, although I do think that the key difference would be that London and NYC will at the end of the day still be framed against the wider country, whereas in Singapore, this is really it.

You're right, cities evolve beyond their national identities. It's incredibly difficult to retain a national identity within a global city.

I wonder - how much of a problem would it be if Singapore really became a global city? Would that be a really bad thing?

I'm always wary of identity politics. As Kirsten Han points out, defining the "True Blue Singaporean" in terms of what it excludes is corrosive: it not only puts an unfair onus on those who become Singaporean to prove themselves, in my view it corrodes Singaporeans equally. In the words of a Bruce Cockburn lyric "Why don't you cool out / Can it be so hard / to love yourself without thinking / someone else holds a lower card". Beyond that, it creates space for an unspoken "No True Scotsman" assumption: when that awful Ferrari driver destroyed three lives, including his own, with his recklessness in Rochor, there was endless talk associating his nationality with his crime, but when an Singaporean was equally reckless two weeks later, ....,

Culture and identity are ubiquitous, but fluid and unnamable. British children, I once read in a reputable academic source, learn to hold their eyebrows up before they can walk. The German sausage seller on Smith Street in Chinatown says he can spot the Germans from far away, and I don't doubt he can.

The Singaporean identity is all the commendable things mentioned by others and more: filial piety, food culture, Singlish, high regard for things being in order, and the negative aspects too: a feeling of superiority over Malaysia (I've never met a Singaporean who doesn't share it at some level), near ubiquitous acceptance of kiasu, and, unfortunately, being thin-skinned and easily offended. But what Singaporean hasn't felt his or her heart race just a bit if they catch a whiff of durian on their travels, or hear a Singaporean accent in an unexpected place.

Maybe instead of asking ourselves about identity, we could instead begin to celebrate it. However, it does feel a little bit shallow though - because today many of us only define who we are in a materialistic way - especially the youth of my generation. Things like "I love Singapore because it's safe to be here" or "I love Singapore because we have a high standard of living" are often thrown around when it comes to why we are patriotic.

Perhaps it's time to see identity as something like "I love Singapore because of our meritocracy" or "I love Singapore because of our harmony" and things like that. Values instead of economics.

Then again, the concepts of "meritocracy" and "harmony" put us on shaky ground as well. These terms are extremely vague, and often seen as warped. For example, it is now widely acknowledged that "meritocracy" as it currently functions in Singapore is hugely problematic, and there have been many accusations of the system really being elitism wrapped up in a meritocracy ribbon, rather than true meritocracy.

Personally, I tend to feel my sense of belonging and bond to Singapore through the people. I never feel more a part of this country when I spending time with my family and/or friends, speaking Singlish, arguing, cracking jokes. ...

Even though I've got great friends all over the world there is also a sense that THIS particular group of people can never be found anywhere else, and when I am in this environment I can recognise home.

Our environments shape our personality, we are hence attached to them. Environments with distinct cultural delineations create distinct impressions - so it's easier to identify similarity with that culture (not necessary belonging to it - strict cultural rules are harder to fit to & easier to rebel against).

Having a common identity is useful - it helps unite against oppression and inspires empathy - but also harmful - it creates oppression and discourages empathy of those who are different.

Maybe national identity is not as important as district/street/flat identity, or music/work/taste identity.

Maybe we should ask Ms Feng if she would be prouder winning the medal for the country she was born in, or the country she chose to live in.

One thing's for sure: We'll always be cynical about Ms Feng Tianwei's answer, just as we have always been cynical about who new immigrants will be loyal with.

Another more pertinent question:

In five years' time, what will a Singaporean identity mean to us?

I have no idea how to answer this question, and find that exciting somehow.

As a Singaporean citizen who lives overseas: I think a lot of the endless self-conscious discussion of "identity" comes from the country's undemocratic and hierarchical circumstances. If people enjoyed more freedom to strive for their aspirations, including aspirations about the nature of the collective, rather than feeling that many essential parameters are out of our hands, we could answer the question "Who are we?" through action. There would be no need to determine and articulate a shared conclusion as to our collective meaning, because each of us would be living out that meaning for ourselves. The demand that each of us have a relationship to Singapore that is somehow "more than the sum of its parts" can never be fulfilled.

(expat, lived in Singapore for 8 years, now in the US for my PhD): When you think about "Singaporean identity", what are you comparing it against? I'm not sure what I mean when I say "national identity": I mean, I'm from India. When you try to approximate over 1.2 billion people, you really only end up with "like spicy food, Bollywood movies and cricket" (and only 1.5 of those apply to me!).

What a great branch! So many great posts. Ng Yi Shu in particular stands out for me, along with Jolene's point on the Government's role in 'guiding' Singaporean cultural growth.

From an outsider who has lived in & loves Singapore, the pillars of identity could be:

Speaking & understanding the beautiful contours of Singlish.

Food as identity and as interface with other races/cultures.

Absolutely hilarious & very relentless self-referential, self-deprecating humour (e.g. The 5 K's in link below).

A confusing relationship between identity & race, which can become xenophobia & racism toward recent immigrants. Old policy of 'Multi-Racialism' might be at fault.

Unclear expression of identity at home; identity seems to resolve overseas.

Gaurav raises a good point - what really, do we mean when we want to talk about a Singapore identity? Is it really certain traits that all Singaporeans have to share? This, surely, doesn't work when we're all individuals.

I think of it more as a sort of vibe that you get from living in the city, and also something that would bring even the most different people together – and I would venture to say that this should extend even to people who aren't citizens. As long as you are in Singapore you should be included. But of course it's just ridiculously difficult to define, which is probably where Jolene's point comes in – if we felt the freedom and space to do what we aspire to, this would not be such a conundrum.

I like discussions about identity, precisely because there are no answers! There's merit in thinking about what makes you you, if only because it will challenges state (or cultural) formations of identity, constructs established to support the perpetuation of that state or culture.

Agree with Kristen and Jolene - everyone should have the space to form their own identities - or choose to cling to arcane ones. Children should define their own values rather than strive to meet someone else's.

Though not having an identity (or rather, not being able to describe it in 3 sentences), can cause anxiety, a feeling of being orphaned with nowhere to "return" to.

Well, we'll always have food. Until it stops tasting like it used to..