The comments of a reader, who called himself a 'businessman in his 60s', left the deepest impression on me. He argued that the Singapore doctrine which I urged Singaporeans to compose together will end up being about the People's Action Party (PAP). Once written, he added, it will be a doctrine that will enable the party to rule forever.

So I asked this reader if he lives well. He said that it is not too bad; he has handed over his business to his children and now he has more time to ponder the country's future. I asked him why he equates the Singapore doctrine with PAP and he said: 'Isn't the current Singapore created from the PAP's way of doing things?'

I then asked him why that is not a good thing, and if the PAP has a 'doctrine' which the majority supports, why is that wrong? He said: 'I have never voted for the PAP. And even if I continue with not voting for the party in future, I would still be led by it, because there is the Singapore doctrine.'

I can actually understand his explanation, because most people will, without giving it a thought, conclude that if there were a Singapore doctrine, it must be one that serves the PAP.

Why is it that whenever we talk about Singapore's achievements, people think that we must be singing the praises of the PAP? Don't tell me the wisdom and hard work of the people are not worth celebrating?

I think this is the problem. It has been nearly 42 years of independence for Singapore and, so far, we have been governed by only one political party. So when anyone talks about our achievements, people assume that he must be promoting the PAP.

But what about our country? Our people? Why can't we commend our own people?

As for the blog article that my friend forwarded to me, it was about how we must remember the Singapore Pledge if we want to talk about Singapore-ism, because this pledge is regardless of race, language, religion and even political parties. All doctrines must be built on the people's duty to the country and not based on the direction of any political party.

The concern of the blogger was the question of whom the doctrine serves. This is exactly why I think the Singapore doctrine must be created by the collective efforts of Singaporeans.

Now the question turns to one of whether we should formulate our own doctrine in the future. This is not an issue of let's have it because one person says so, or let's not have it because the majority says no, for a society cannot progress without any direction. And the question of which direction to take is not determined by any person. There must be a common understanding among its people.

Once there is direction, there must be someone with the experience to lead the way. Empty talk is meaningless. Why is it that many statesmen become the great men of history? It is because they do not engage in empty talk but walk the talk.

Some people say the founder of communism was crazy, and the person who used it to conquer the world was an even greater lunatic. Even though they failed in the end, it was still a great experiment to prove the weakness of mankind. It is precisely because of the historical lesson of such failure that some people view doctrines as great evils that need putting down. But a society, no matter which era it is in, does sum up its experiences to form a common direction, and this is enough to form its new doctrine.

The globalisation that we face is often met with opposition in many places, hence the birth of protectionism in some countries where all sorts of barriers are erected to deter free trade.

Singapore keeps pace with globalisation - a fact that workers who lived through the darkness of structural unemployment would understand best. They seize the opportunity to pick up new skills required in the face of globalisation and, at the same time, they actively cooperate with their employers to keep their jobs.

Globalisation means that no country can stand still and refuse to progress. Singapore broke away from the shackles of ideology when it announced the construction of two integrated resorts with casinos. It also made known to the world that it wants to have a livelier night life. On issues such as the acceptance of homosexuals or single mothers, it also wants to be there with other developed countries that are much more open in their outlook.

The changes before us are very real. But I'm afraid the majority does not know what Singapore will become in the future. Most people hope that the country will become what they want it to be. Since that is the case, we should all participate in charting the direction ahead and it is therefore everyone's business to compose the Singapore doctrine.

It is indeed difficult to imagine the changes in the future through the current changes. Still, we must adapt to the changes and we must have confidence in whether we can do that and how we should go about it. It is only with this confidence that our society will not be easily swayed.

The value of a Singapore doctrine lies in the confidence it gives us, so that when faced with change, we do not turn to another person and wait for him to make a decision. It is not because I worry that we do not have such talents to make the call. Rather, I fear that Singapore may lose its direction amid the future changes or, worse, be led in a direction that most people object to.

Since we have taken the right path now and have an effective system which even other countries are willing to replicate, this system and experience can become our life buoy should the situation take a turn for the worse one day. What is vital, however, is whether we are able to consciously consolidate the system's good and bad as well as our successful experiences.

The Singapore-ism that I talked about is not something that is cast in stone, nor is it decided by any one person. It should be an ongoing process created by all the people of this country. Our past experiences, our present system and our national spirit of not being deterred by any obstacle can be the foundation of this doctrine.

And to avoid any misunderstanding about this doctrine, let me explain it in its broader sense. In today's context, a doctrine must have a pioneering spirit and one that is able to create positive influence, as in the earliest social system, or a common thinking and values towards the society shaped by the political and economic system.

Therefore, the Singapore-ism that we want to create is one that combines the principles that we think are right - a doctrine which would help in the development of the country, and not just empty talk. Because of that, we can also say that it is a long-term tenet or belief, and it should not be simply understood as an ideal used in politics.

Translated from Chinese by Sarah Ng. The original article appeared in Lianhe Zaobao on July 21.

FUTURE DIRECTION

The value of a Singapore doctrine lies in the confidence it gives us, so that when faced with change, we do not turn to another person and wait for him to make a decision. It is not because I worry that we do not have such talents to make the call. Rather, I fear that Singapore may lose its direction amid the future changes or, worse, be led in a direction that most people object to.