THE need to engage Singapore youth in national affairs is a pressing one. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's call for an 'open and inclusive society' signals the new administration's resolve to encourage citizens to come forth and participate in national affairs. The call is more than mere feel-good rhetoric of a newly installed leader, but a renewed affirmation of the Government's continuing commitment to nation-building.

In an age when global culture and cosmopolitanism are de rigueur, nation-building is becoming more, not less, important for those who remain rooted to a locale. Globalisation increases insecurity about self-worth and citizenship by ushering in unrelenting flows of people, information and goods into our global city.

Given Singapore's status as a global city, nation-building means the difference between a nationally invested people and citizens who have little affinity to the land.

But the acknowledged importance of nation-building alone will not result in greater civic or national participation. Nation-building is not just government-led exhortations for national cohesion. More than that, it is an amalgam of everyday civic acts and initiatives by citizens who are motivated by various interests.

One perennial obstacle to genuine nation-building is political apathy. We need to examine and confront the role that apathy has played in our resolutely middle class lives if this open and inclusive society is to materialise.

The apathy of Singaporeans has been roundly lamented. Critics have described it as a malaise. But for many Singaporeans, apathy is not a malaise but an antibiotic.

Apathy is not a symptom of selfishness or intellectual laziness but a conscious decision made in order to cope with the belief that expressing political opinions - especially criticisms - is beyond the ambit of citizenry rights.

Pragmatism

SINGAPOREAN political apathy is the illegitimate child of our country's economic success. This success has been premised on three principles of governance. The first principle is that the most important aim of local politics is economic progress; that is, political worth is determined by economic delivery. Second, pragmatism above all else must inform our political and social policies; and third, the government must not be fettered by any interest groups which may hinder its ability to respond quickly to global changes.

Singaporeans have, by large, accepted these three principles of governance, which have in turn led to the general acceptance of strict labour laws, minimal political alternatives and many unchallenged state initiatives. That, in turn, has created a largely harmonious socio-political sphere conducive to the birth of a local middle class.

To be a member of the Singapore middle class is to accept and enjoy the economic fruits of these three principles of governance. To be apathetic is to cope with the cultural and political conditions created under these principles.

There are several ways in which apathy helps us cope.

First of all, apathy protects us. Past examples of alternative political activism have ingrained in Singaporeans the lessons of challenging the Government. The spectre of incarceration, bankruptcy and exile of political opponents has, rightly or wrongly, penetrated the middle-class psyche. Apathy thus protects us from personal distress and embarrassment.

Apathy is also part bravado. In declaring that we do not care, we alleviate ourselves above the political Don Quixotes who appear to value sensationalism over substance. This bravado helps us to emotionally and morally distance ourselves, even if we sympathise with their rhetoric, because we understand the uneven balance of power and its predictable outcomes.

Second, Singaporeans use apathy to immunise themselves against disillusionment. Unlike in liberal democracies, the Singapore Government practices 'representative democracy': The elected government exercises its legitimate authority to speak for Singaporeans, set the national agenda and deny certain interests. While this style of governance is accepted by the majority of Singaporeans as 'good' and 'strong', citizens with alternative views and lifestyles find their interests repeatedly marginalised; and have to find ways to cope.

Public debate

AS A natural defence mechanism, apathy helps 'disconnect' these Singaporeans. Thus, apathy helps keep our expectations in check.

Third, apathy releases us from time-consuming and potentially embarrassing public debate to allow us more time for developing our economic potential, something deeply prized in all capitalist societies and which also serves as a brutally objective evaluation of a citizen's worth in an elitist society. Apathy reminds us to increase our personal standing and to fulfil self-interests. Less time and energy donated to volunteer work and charities means more time for developing cultural capital such as education.

Finally, apathy is a mode of individual empowerment. Although there has been a significant change in the political climate since the early 1990s, public consultation is still perceived as a mere exercise in rhetoric; many believe, rightly or wrongly, that the Government has already decided on issues prior to consultation.

Take the casino debate for example; even though the Government has stated the contrary, many still believe that it has already made up its mind to build one.

Such perceptions leave citizens feeling disempowered. To defiantly 'not care' is a way of wrestling back some sense of empowerment. It returns to the individual the ability to make choices and demonstrate a sense of personal intellectual autonomy.

We have to reduce the role of apathy in our lives if we are to forge an open and inclusive society. An open and inclusive society can only come about when Singaporeans do not feel they have to make a choice of one or the other: A strong government, or citizenry activism. More ground linking the two can be broken, even if it is destined to be problematic and contested.

The writer holds a sociology doctorate from Warwick University and is a Fellow at the Institute of South-east Asian Studies. The views expressed here are his own.