As I write, highly educated Singaporeans are using juvenile F-bombs to tear down the others online.

Just because he or she is different. It could be the colour of his/her beliefs or movement, the smell of his/her food or the shades of his/her political party.

So why are we shouting at each other?

Things have become a bit nastier lately. Why is this so?

It may be this new found sense of freedom and power online, or the realisation that the government is more consultative, or the influence we felt from our votes during the watershed 2011 General Elections.

In the midst of all these changes, we have forgotten how to communicate. In an era where communication tools abound, we lost our ability to converse properly. We also forget that we have to listen sometimes, if not all the time.

I’m a Singaporean, a Catholic and a Chinese. But I do not assume that convictions about my country, faith, or race should claim a monopoly of truth over any public discourse. I live in an open and inclusive society where we respect the diversity of views regardless of race, language and religion.

Singapore, a 49-year old child

As Singapore turns 49, we are but a young child growing up among our more senior neighbours in history and culture.

Perhaps we are discovering our own language of democracy. Maybe we are crafting a language to better interact and manage our differences. But the shouting and non-communication has to stop.

As a young Singaporean, I would like to offer three suggestions on how we can all better manage our differences despite our divided views.

We should all stop comparing

First, let’s stop comparing ourselves with other countries, especially on policy dilemmas. Or use that as a cudgel to criticise the government or the anti-establishment folks.

We can learn from other countries’ experiences but the work is still our own to do. We need to feel our way forward ourselves, step by step, mistake by mistake.

And yes, Singapore, together with the rest of the world, is changing.

If I may use novelist George Orwell’s analogy of English uniqueness - Singapore, like England, “can perhaps only change in a certain direction. While this does not mean that our future is fixed, certain alternatives are possible and certain options are not.”

For instance, a tiger cub cannot grow up to be a lion (unless you saw it wrongly like Sang Nila Utama).

Therefore, it is of the deepest importance to determine what Singapore was and what Singapore is, before we have a better understanding of what changes are possible.

In her insightful commentary about managing differences in Singapore ("An open letter to my child, 20 years from now, 29th June 2014"), Lianhe Zaobao journalist Yew Lun Tian said:

“The key is how you deal with differences when you overstepped your boundaries. The ideal way is to have both parties to discuss peacefully and come to an amicable solution. Do not always pull the government by your side and pressure the government, thinking that you will win if the government is by your side. This means you are reverting to how the first generation deal with differences”.

Dialogue between two parties is key to managing differences. And if you truly want Singapore to change, stop running back to the nanny state every time you are losing the debate.

Read up on our History because this is our story, not just His Story.

Secondly, we are arguing so much because we disagree with who we were. We disagree with who we are because we are at odds with our history (or the Singapore story).

It is much easier for one to find Youtube videos of interpretations of Operation Coldstore, Marxist Conspiracy or videos lionising political opponents of the PAP. Conversely, Lee Kuan Yew and PAP books adorned popular book stores. It is easier to find a Comet in our Sky than a book on left-wing politician Lim Chin Siong.

Our parliamentarians hope that we can have constructive debate over the issues that matter to us.

But we cannot have constructive debate if we cannot agree on the common ground defined by our shared commitments to Singapore. So we find PM Lee and Workers' Party chief Low crossing swords in parliament by speaking across each other.

Let’s have each one of us take the first step, shall we?

Let’s read up on our history. Go and read Lee Kuan Yew's Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going. But also read Hard Choices: Challenging the Singapore Consensus by public intellectuals Donald Low and Sudhir Thomas Vadaketh. Read the socio-political sites online and but also double-check their facts on government's Factually.

Then you decide for yourself what matters and comment online.

And finally, stick your necks out.

What I mean is for all Singaporeans to express themselves online authentically. No pseudonyms and no animal Facebook photos please. No being an anonymous keyboard warrior.

A couple of times, we have young Singaporeans who wish to contribute to Mothership.sg but preferred to stay anonymous.

Unless you are a whistle-blower who likes writing a listicle, we have to politely decline your request to stay anonymous.

In her recent commentary about the National Library Board (NLB) saga ("Let’s not open the doors to ‘culture wars'", July 20), political Lydia Lim found it disturbing that pressure groups are becoming more close-minded:

“The preference for stealth among some groups to lobby and pressure, and whose members refuse to come out to engage openly with anyone not seen to be in their camp”.

I agree with Lim that it is vital that we as a society strive to keep open the lines of communication between groups who disagree.

Whither Singapore? 

As we continue to debate in the months ahead before Singapore’s jubilee,  I wish every Singaporean (including those from the government) would remember the speech made by a young DPM a decade ago:

“We value diversity. As we engage one other and wrestle with our problems, we will encounter different views, but far better for us to manage these honest differences than become an apathetic society with no views. People should debate issues with reason, passion and conviction, and not be passive bystanders in their own fate. Disagreement does not necessarily imply rebellion, and nor should unity of purpose and vision mean sameness in views and ideas." - DPM Lee Hsien Loong, Harvard Club of Singapore's 35th Anniversary dinner, 2004

Let us debate issues not only with much passion but with reason and conviction.

Let us strive not to personalise our differences and drive others (especially young Singaporeans) to take extreme positions.

Let us respect the right of others to differ and not lose sight of our own flaws.

Let us not deem those who disagree with us as dishonourable, unethical or unpatriotic.

And finally, let’s view ourselves with a sense of perspective and a sense of (Mothership) humour too.

Top photo from NDPeeps Facebook. 

Find Mothership.SG on Facebook and Twitter.