National identity becomes the thing that holds together when other certainties fracture
In a world where geopolitical currents shift beneath the feet of even the most stable nations, Singapore's government has turned to something ancient and enduring: the question of who a people are to one another. Speaking in parliament, Acting Minister David Neo outlined a deliberate effort to weave national identity into the fabric of everyday life — through arts, heritage, and mutual care — positioning cultural cohesion not as a soft concern but as a strategic foundation for a small, diverse nation navigating uncertain times.
- Global instability has prompted Singapore to treat national identity as a strategic asset rather than a cultural afterthought, with the government moving urgently to strengthen social cohesion before external pressures test it.
- A S$20 million Multicultural Arts Programme will direct funding toward artists and practitioners sustaining traditional and multicultural art forms, ensuring living cultural traditions don't quietly disappear from the city.
- Schools from preschool upward will be drawn into the effort, with new National Arts Council programs designed to plant cultural engagement early and build a generation with shared reference points.
- Heritage neighborhoods like Kampong Glam and Little India will see intensified placemaking work — not to fossilize them as tourist exhibits, but to keep them breathing as genuine centers of belonging.
- Beneath the programs and funding lies a harder ask: that Singaporeans see themselves not as recipients of national identity but as its co-authors, bound by mutual responsibility in a 'we first' society.
On Thursday in parliament, Acting Culture, Community and Youth Minister David Neo made the case that Singapore's most durable defense against global uncertainty is not economic or military — it is cultural. A strong, shared national identity, he argued, is what holds a small, diverse nation together when other certainties fracture. His framework for building that identity moves in three directions.
The first is expanding common space — the cultural ground where Singaporeans from different backgrounds encounter one another. The National Arts Council will introduce arts programs in preschools and primary schools, and the ministry will launch a S$20 million Multicultural Arts Programme to support artists working in traditional and multicultural forms. The investment is designed to keep these traditions visible and alive, not archived.
Placemaking forms the second lever. The National Heritage Board will deepen its work in neighborhoods like Kampong Glam and Little India — not to freeze them in time, but to ensure they remain living centers of practice and belonging that residents and visitors move through together, encountering their own heritage alongside their neighbors'.
The second and third pillars are less programmatic and more aspirational. Neo called on Singaporeans to care for one another as co-builders of the nation, and to commit to an inclusive society where the bonds of belonging are strong enough to hold even across difference and disagreement. What he was ultimately describing is a theory of resilience: that cultural investment, mutual care, and shared identity are not luxuries but the connective tissue that makes Singapore possible.
In parliament on Thursday, Acting Culture, Community and Youth Minister David Neo laid out a vision for Singapore that hinges on something less tangible than infrastructure or trade deals: a shared sense of who Singaporeans are together. The world is changing in ways that unsettle nations, he suggested, and Singapore's best defense against that uncertainty is a strong national identity—what he called a "we first" society, built deliberately and sustained through deliberate action.
The government's approach unfolds in three directions. The first is to create more spaces where Singaporeans encounter one another across lines of background and belief. This means expanding what the government calls the common space—the shared cultural ground where identity forms. The National Arts Council will introduce new programs in preschools and primary schools, seeding arts engagement early. More substantially, the ministry will launch a S$20 million Multicultural Arts Programme, a grant initiative designed to support artists and practitioners working in traditional and multicultural art forms. The money is meant to sustain the people who keep these traditions alive and visible in the city.
Placemaking is the second lever. The National Heritage Board will intensify its work in neighborhoods like Kampong Glam and Little India, strengthening the ethnic identities rooted in those areas. The idea is not to freeze these places in time but to ensure they remain living centers of cultural practice and belonging, not museum pieces. When people move through these spaces, the thinking goes, they encounter their own heritage and their neighbors' heritage side by side.
The second pillar of Neo's framework is more relational: the government wants to encourage Singaporeans to care for one another and to see themselves as builders of the nation together. This is less a program than a call—an appeal to the idea that national identity is not something the state manufactures alone, but something citizens construct through mutual responsibility and shared effort.
The third pillar is about inclusion. The government aims to rally the nation toward building a society that leaves no one behind, where the bonds of identity are strong enough to hold people together even when they disagree or come from different places. This is the hardest work, because it requires not just celebrating culture but ensuring that the benefits of belonging are distributed fairly.
What Neo was articulating, in effect, is a theory of resilience. A nation that knows itself, that has woven its people together through shared cultural experience and mutual care, can weather external shocks—economic disruption, geopolitical tension, demographic change. National identity becomes not a luxury but a strategic asset, the thing that holds the country together when other certainties fracture. The S$20 million investment in arts, the new school programs, the placemaking work in heritage neighborhoods—these are not cultural spending in the traditional sense. They are investments in social cohesion, in the bonds that make a small, diverse nation possible.
Notable Quotes
National identity will be Singapore's anchor to withstand the tests in a changed world— Acting Culture, Community and Youth Minister David Neo
The government urged Singaporeans to do their part in building a 'truly we first' society— Acting Culture, Community and Youth Minister David Neo
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does a government need to spend money on arts and heritage right now? Isn't that something people do naturally?
Not necessarily. Cultural practice requires practitioners, spaces, and resources. Without deliberate support, traditional art forms can fade, especially in a fast-moving city where people are busy. The grant is about keeping those traditions alive and visible.
But why does that matter for national identity? Couldn't Singaporeans feel connected just through shared economic interests or political institutions?
Possibly, but those bonds are fragile. When times are hard, economic interest can turn into competition. What holds a diverse nation together is something deeper—a sense of shared culture and mutual belonging. That's harder to build but much harder to break.
The minister talks about a "we first" society. Does that mean putting Singapore before individual interests?
It's more subtle than that. It means seeing yourself as part of a collective project. You care for your neighbor not because the state tells you to, but because you recognize yourself in the nation together. Arts and heritage are the languages through which that recognition happens.
What happens if these programs don't work? If people still feel divided?
Then the government will have to look deeper—at inequality, at whether the inclusion is real or just rhetorical. A S$20 million arts program can create space for connection, but it can't solve structural problems. It's a necessary condition, not a sufficient one.