"We are still a society where regardless of whatever party you voted for [or] I voted for... we still find common ground," said Janil Puthucheary, Senior Minister of State in the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) and Ministry of Health (MOH).

Puthucheary, who is the chairman of the People's Action Party (PAP) youth wing, made the remark during a dialogue session that rounded off the Institute of Policy Studies' (IPS) Singapore Perspectives conference, held on Jan. 29, 2024. 

Minister for National Development Desmond Lee had been scheduled to speak at the dialogue, but the emcee announced that he was unwell just before the session.

The emcee said that Puthucheary would be speaking instead.

Ideological polarisation

One notable question posed to Puthucheary was: "What is one area of concern that keeps you up at night, that you feel we should focus on?"

Puthucheary, who is also chairman of OnePeople.sg, a body that promotes racial harmony, said it was polarisation, as it can "affect us in so many ways".

He raised concerns over the "structural incentives" toward polarisation, especially because of trends in social media.

Puthucheary said that in some societies, a political choice means that one stands in direct opposition and holds another set of values to someone who voted otherwise, citing an example from overseas where there are dating sites catering to those with particular political affiliations. He said he hoped this would not be the case in Singapore.

Puthucheary acknowledged that "the difficulty is that in politics, a vote is binary," he said, noting that our political system does require voters to make that binary choice at the ballot box

But at the same time, Puthucheary said we are still a society that can find common ground, saying that "we have every reason to see ourselves as one people."

He also shared his experiences from being involved in closed-door dialogues.

"Behind closed doors, very few people say we are on opposite sides," he said, adding that in such private settings, "everybody starts on the basis that 'we're all Singaporeans here, we want to find the best way forward in the end.'"

Balancing diversity and stability

Puthucheary expanded upon the issue of polarisation in another response to a question about balancing diversity and stability.

The government has always wanted to deal with the issue of diversity in a way which reduces polarisation and fragmentation.

In dealing with dimensions of diversity, such as race, language, and religion, he said the government has tried to make sure that the process results in a greater sense of social cohesion and a "reduced sense of ideological polarisation".

Puthucheary noted that there are new sources of diversity, which could potentially lead to fragmentation, but said they could be managed in a way that strikes a balance.

He said:

"As long as we approach them in a way where we are trying to increase cohesion, increase a sense of unity — not that we all have to agree, but we all have to agree to keep the peace, we all have to find a way forward together — then, that I think is the foundation for finding the right balance between change, inclusion, diversity and a sense of stability and comfort with the status quo."

Puthucheary also fielded a range of other questions related to mental health, meritocracy, and the LGBTQ+ community.

Protecting those with mental health disorders

One of the questions from the audience came from Paul Tambyah, Chairman of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP).

Tambyah, who is also an infectious diseases specialist and a professor of medicine at NUS, introduced himself as being "from the medical school" and said his question was his own.

He said he was interested to pick Puthucheary's brain regarding the troubles faced by young people suffering from mental health problems in the workforce.

He cited the example of "certain professions" which require applicants to declare a history of psychiatric of mental illness, and said young people facing mental health issues may refuse to seek medical attention to avoid being disadvantaged in their employment prospects.

"So they would rather suffer, essentially, the ill effects of the mental health situation, because people have employers and regulatory agencies are allowed to ask that kind of question," said Tambyah.

Puthucheary agreed with Tambyah's broader point that there is a need for protection from discrimination, but said that one should not take an "absolutist position" on pre-employment screening.

Instead, he said it was was crucial to evaluate whether or not such questions on one's mental health history were relevant for each respective job.

"We need to make the point that issues like mental health, or a history of mental health illness, is not relevant for every job. But it would be hard for me to say he will never be relevant for every job."

Puthucheary pointed to the example of when he applied to medical school, and was asked to prove that he had immunity to certain diseases in order to protect patients.

He said this screening process was done "on the advice of infectious diseases specialists", and took the opportunity to point out that Tambyah himself was among them.

"Laws and regulations are one thing, and what we really need is a shift in attitudes," he said, adding that society should adopt a "proactively inclusive" attitude towards people with mental health illnesses, just as it has for people with physical disabilities.

Does meritocracy propagate inequality?

A question was also raised on whether meritocracy in Singapore propagates generational inequalities — such as when well-off families leverage on their wealth to fund their children’s development.

Janil replied that intergenerational transfers of wealth are “a very natural human tendency” and added that blaming the ideal of meritocracy is “perhaps a step too far”.

He said that the government would continue to make adjustments to Singapore’s model of meritocracy, through the use of education, welfare, and economic policies.

The government also helps families who don’t have such advantages through the efforts of early childhood educators, social workers, and institutions, he added.

Message to LGBTQ+ community

Pink Dot SG spokesperson Clement Tan asked Puthucheary if he had a message for LGBTQ youths, in light of the fact that while younger people have stronger views on LGBTQ inclusion, LGBTQ youth do not feel they belong in Singapore due to issues like bullying and harassment in schools, as well as barriers to home ownership and family formation.

Tan cited his own experience of coming out to his mother, who told him he should go overseas so he could have the option of settling down and raising kids, as that was “not a possibility here in Singapore”. Tan said:

“So my question to you is, what is your message to LGBTQ youths? You are a father and you work with young people all the time… What hope should they have for the future, and what can they hold on to?”

“My message is to stay, fight, stand up for what you believe in, in a way that brings in inclusion and brings every Singaporean with you on that journey,” said Puthucheary in reply.

He called for LGBTQ youth to be involved in discussions about what it means to “make society better” noting that not all Singaporeans agree on what “better” is.

“If you leave, you take your ideas and your views with you. And that’s not going to help your cause,” he said.

As a side point, he commented about other societies, saying that “the grass is always greener on the other side” and that we should not have “rose-tinted views” of such societies.

He said that in these societies, “where perhaps the social mores are different, or the legal structures are different, or the espoused centrist standard view is different,” young people are still facing challenges and discrimination.

He then referred to Tan and his colleagues at Pink Dot SG, saying they had chosen to “stay, stand up, and speak out” successfully.

Top image by Jacky Ho, for the Institute of Policy Studies, NUS