One is reminded of a similar strategy adopted by the Workers' Party at their very last rally in the last election. The use of the national anthem was to emphasize the loyalty of the party to the state, and to urge Singaporeans to consider the tenets of the anthem and the pledge when they go to the polling booths. The super sign in contemporary Singapore emerges then, with cultural consequences on the electorate that challenges the sole consideration of economic concerns in the polling booth. Workers' Party did well in the election due to its efforts in promoting a super-sign. The super-sign was lodged, if temporarily, in the positive consciousness of ordinary Singaporeans.

Once the proverbial pledge has reappear with the help of multiple agents in this years' national day, it was hard for the PAP government to contain it. To distance themselves away from the super-sign towards the PAP, Minister Ng brought up the French constitution, the Thai and Rwandan anthem, to show that their corresponding countries did not quite live up to their "rhetoric" of their pledge. Such a strategy has its flaws, but one has to admit that it was a vigorous attempt in containing the super-sign. In addition, the word "aspiration" was added into the amended motion, changing the commitment to the letter of the pledge, to an emphasis on the "idealized" nature of it. The super-sign was deemphasized, in place, the linear history and future emerge. MM Lee Kuan Yew reveals such a straight temporal line, drawing upon his own experiences in shaping one in his books, speeches and through his political proxies,

And I thought to myself, 'perhaps I should bring this House back to earth', and tell us and remind all what's our starting point, what is our base and if we don't recognise where we started from and these are our foundations

This linearity, which discounts idealism, appeared to be a rebuttal to the idealized future of the NMP. Yet, to what extent too was the NMP's vision not similarly linear too? The NMP wanted the pledge to lead the way forward in terms of "repoliticizing" the young, so that they will once again be interested in national affairs. A society of individuals where everyone would be highly informed on public affairs will result in a virtuous and wise and compassionate society, akin to the counterfactual scenario of Robert Putnam's "Bowling alone." More importantly, this progressive vision would enable a society where trust would permeate, rather than a top-down rule based on the assumptions of elites-know-best.

The popular website, the onlinecitizen, proclaimed a similar progressive future in its editorial on the issue if one would hold on to the pledge. In their words, "If you do, then I promise you, surely change will come."

The very discourse of hope and change in the form of linear future, from multiple agents in Singapore on the debate of the super-sign, invokes a sense of an utopia on both ends. The methods might differ slightly but the super-sign was constantly invoked. While the PAP appealed to phenomenal reality (look at this grandeur and comfort of this house, it reeks of accountability), the NMP and their supporters craved a more abstract story of pseudo social-construction (we were made to believe XYZ were better than freedom, accountability and participatory democracy).

The ends were similar though . The creation of a straightforward past, be it one of systematic undermining and co-opting of the opposition or the great economic growth of Singapore (or both), was now projected into a linear future of prosperity, democracy and justice. Both sides want the best for Singapore, so they claim in their speeches.

However, an uneasy disquieting lies below these utopic visions. Ultimately, they lack a sense of inclusion. For example, the onlinecitizen's editorial deliberately excluded those who appealed to the status quo:

Change will come from those citizens of our country who put their hands to their chest and mean every word of our National Pledge, not from those who deride it as impractical aspiration...... The day has come, a line has been drawn in the sand, between those who believe in living Rajaratnam's vision, and the men who see it as empty rhetoric. (notice the linear past evoked)

Likewise, the PAP showed its unhappiness towards the usual problematic suspects in its idealized future; those who cross boundaries on politics, race and religion that disturb a harmonious society. In other words, those "who refuse to come down to earth" will be dealt with.

More fascinating however, is how the NMP, with its rhetorical strategy in placing the super-sign front and center of the national debate, showed his status in the Singapore political hierarchy by his reaction. He appeared to backtrack on some of his points, calling the interpretation of his otherwise clear speech as a "misunderstanding." One not longer feels confident on his earlier assertion of a progressive future, or where he stands on the exclusivity of his political vision. In the New Paper, he revealed how he was afraid that MM Lee would give him a mauling. His backtracking might have revealed his instinctive position - as an NMP and chairman of feedback committees. Is it then the dilemma of a collaborator - someone who knows the system intimately, promotes the system by daring to be at the front line with the enemies and ordinary folks, but plays a loyal opposition, in search of the sympathy of elusive liberals in the political institutions?

Or is he showing what it means to be a human in the Singapore society - regardless of one's political position and power hierarchy in the system - in that one needs the super-signs, linear pasts and exclusive futures to survive in a system that is least understood from the within?

Postscript: The idea of "super-sign" was drawn from Lydia Liu's incisive analysis of the emergence of a super-sign in late Qing China between the interaction of the Qing state and their British counterparts.