Some articles of this discussion have been abstracted. To read these article in full, click on the speaker's name.
Tan Chong Kee:
I feel that in order to discuss how we could improve race relations, we must first understand clearly what the problems are and why they exist. Discussions in this area have not been very active because of its sensitivity and official policy of making it taboo. So, let me be the devil's advocate here and start with the education system.
Non-Chinese students may take Chinese in school but Chinese students cannot take Malay or Tamil. SAP schools only offer Mandarin and English. People perceive this as discrimination against non-Chinese in the education system. Is this a case of erroneous perception or is the education system unfair? If it is erroneous perception, than more official explanation of this policy is needed. If it is unfair, then perhaps we should establish Malay and Tamil SAP schools or at least ensure that these languages are offered in the existing SAP school.
PM Goh (as quoted in Lai Ah Eng's recent book, Meanings of Multiethnicity) said that the Chinese community has been very understanding and accommodating to minorities, e.g., accepting that land at concessionary prices for mosques is set aside in housing estates, while they themselves are discriminated against in having to compete in the open market for space to build their temples. The principle he is appealing to here seems to be give and take, and the assumption is that the government shall decide the areas where each community should do so: Chinese 'give' in land for temple but 'take' in education while for minority it is the reverse.
Such a line of reasoning leads us to ask: is the unhappiness expressed in the minority communities purely about actual unfairness in the overall relation of their communities to the Chinese majority, or do these complaints also have elements of unhappiness with regards to how such multiethnic negotiations are done? Can we enhance our present level of inter-racial harmony by allowing some state decisions to be made by the communities? Or is a questioning of the rules of game at this stage more destabilizing than beneficial?
With the establishment of Yayasan Mendaki, SINDA, CDAC and Eurasian Association, there is now a forum where these inter-racial issues can be discussed. These organisations can act as facilitators. I am not sure if decisions can be made by the communities, but they can be and should be consulted in ethnic issues that are relevant to them. We should make use of the opportunities that are available. These self-help groups need not be introspective, but instead, they can be and are valuable tools in raising the society's understanding of the different ethnicity.
A questioning of the rules of game at this stage can be beneficial. In a multi-racial country like Singapore, ethnic relations and issues need to be handled with care, however, its sensitivity does not imply that we should leave it to the "experts" or not question it. Dealt in the appropriate manner, there can be better understanding. At a time when the respective cultural groups are active in working in their respective "patches", cross-cultural dialogues and discussions are useful to keep a overall perspective. Questioning can lead to better understanding, rather than destabilizing ethnic relations.
James Gomez:
I think it is limiting if we see the "discomfort" of the Speak Mandarin campaign or the overall Sinicization/Asianisation process as being restricted only to the Malay/Indian (MI) minorities. This discomfort is also shared by those Chinese who speak only English or dialect (Lai, 1995). Another consideration are the Eurasians. To address the effects of the Asianisation programme in terms of MI minority anxiety is to simplify the issue of race and intercultural relations in Singapore.
We also have to take into consideration the changing ethnoscape of Singapore. That is, the Filipinos, Thais, South Asians, HongKongers, Japanese, Koreans, Chinese Nationals, Taiwanese, Indonesians, the CMI categories from Malaysia and the different Caucasian communities working and studying in Singapore.
But of importance, both the Preamble and Chong Kee do not raise the question of cultural hybridity. I want to suggest 3 conceptions of hybridity for the panels' comments. Presented here in their basic forms.
The Malayan Hybrid: The was borne out of the socialisation strategy of Malayanization in the pre-merger and merger period. The purpose: to make the people living in Singapore part of Malaya's cultural ethos. To this end Malay was promoted as a principle language together with Chinese, Tamil and English as other options. So much so, some Singaporeans currently older than 55 years can still manage an acceptable standard of Malay and cross ethnic boundaries with other Malay speakers .
The English-educated: This is largely a monolingual group, possibly with a weak competence in a second language. This group has historically been one of Singapore's distinct group but its numbers expanded in the immediate post-independence period. However, given the strict application of the CMI categories, this group remain submerged in it. Nonetheless, a distinction is always maintained between the English and vernacular educated both in the academic and social-political discourse. The essential different lies in a set of socialisation experience that make the English-educated less ethno-centred than their ethnic counterparts. Part of the current Asianisation programme is to arrest the growth of this group.
The Singlish Hybrid: This group speaks the patios English with a competence in a second language. This is group is more ethno-centered than the English educated. This is borne out of the different socialisation experiences between the English-educated and the Singlish speakers. The socialisation experiences of Singlish speakers are essentially those that do not re-enforce the English language. Instead they re-enforce the second language and their associated cultural values.
However, cultural exposure is something that all Singaporeans experience through multiethnic living. It is more pronounced in the case of minorities. Thus, in some sense, most Singaporeans are cultural hybrids. If this is the case do the CMI and their related sub-categories still apply? I believe that they are still meaningful, to the Malayan and Singlish hybrids, but less so to the English-educated. Thus, we have to separate the "English-educated" and recognise them a distinct group.
I pose these basic hybrid forms, philosophically and not in anthropological terms. This is an alternate route to deconstruct ethnic categories in Singapore. The other well known route is through class.
James, when you talk about the Asianisation programme - do you mean the current move that has in some ways resulted from the "Asian values" debate, the idea that as Asians, we are different and in some respect, better than the west, thus we should focus on our "Asianess"? Would encouraging the English-educated Chinese to learn to speak more Mandarin in the 1994 Speak Mandarin Campaign count as Asianisation of the English-educated? Also, is there any difference between the CMI English-educated? Are you assuming that the English education is the common denominator between the different groups? That English-education has "over-ridden" their Chinese, Malay and Indian roots?
Tan Chong Kee:
James, I feel that in trying to privilegize language, and in particular English (e.g., why 'English educated' and 'Singlish' but not 'Chinese educated' and 'Singdrin'?) in your framework, you have committed the same error of simplification that you critiqued. Try fitting the present panelists into your categories and you'll see what I mean. For example, I am a Chinese educated Singapore who is also fluent in English. Our chair, Li Lin is English educated but fluent in Mandarin. There are quite a number of people like us. Furthermore, we speak and are influenced by more than just Chinese, English, Malay or Indian languages: Japanese, French, Spanish, German or even Esperanto are a few more common ones that come to mind. Quite a few also have non-Singaporean spouses and our children are even less neatly classifiable. Within any one of the mentioned hybrids, say Malay, a focus on only socialization has also left out the Babas.
Put another way, deconstructing MCI through hybridity only demonstrates that reality is always more complex than philosophical types. It opens itself to further deconstructions until an abyss of innumerable types is reached. Deconstructing through class is to use another set of categories to classify this reality. This is not to say that such exercises are useless, but the question to ask is how much explanative power does each one have.
Your hybridity framework advances ethno-centrism as an explanation. Reactions to the 'Speak Mandarin' campaign can also be explained by many different hypotheses other than ethno-centrism. (You have also aluded to the asianisation programme trying to arrest growth of the English educated, can you clarify the how and why?) These other explanations include among other things economics ('Chinese has no economic value') and politics ('Don't tell me what I should speak'). From the fast growing popularity of Chinese among the English educated Chinese, we could perhaps discern the linguistic influence of a booming Chinese market.
I feel that when trying to answer questions such as 'why are there unhappiness over the speak Mandarin campaign', we should do at least two other things: one, look beyond language, and two, look at how people self-identify rather than what they 'are'. For example, if an English educated Chinese self-identify as Chinese (a more objective test of this criterion might be the observance of Chinese tradition) but dislike the campaign, it could be because she feels that it might strain the present racial harmony. In this way, we could perhaps uncover more interesting dynamics beside an 'Us vs. Them' jostle for linguistic power.
Chang Li Lin:
Chong Kee, thank you for your comments.
It has been brought to my attention that in our discussions, we have stated that there is unhappiness among the ethnic minorities. I have been asked what evidence is there with regard to the unhappiness among ethnic minorities. Also, there is no official policy of making it taboo to discuss race relations. Instead, it is more a case of reluctance to discuss a sensitive issue, in other words, "kiasi-ism". Perhaps, we can ask, why is there such a perception of "unhappiness among ethnic minorities"? At the same time, we will need to be more specific. Do we mean that the policy-makers have to be more understanding or are there regulations that are or perceived to be repressive? Giok Ling has highlighted to me that in the case of Singapore and Malaysia, we are the few countries who have gone on a fundamental integration approach. Integration in social and economic terms. We have managed to maintain harmonious relations between the different races. In terms of housing, there is no discrimination in home ownership. There may be differences in the proportion, but there is no discrimination.
James, your point about English-educated and monolingual. As Chong Kee has mentioned, there are English-educated people who speak another dialect at home, though they need not necessarily know Mandarin. About deconstruction of the ethnic identity, perhaps a comment about post-modern thinking. All research is not value-free, it is all bound up with the cultural baggage of the author. Each author will define his/her own. So, perhaps, we cannot speak of deconstruction of the ethnic identity.
While reviewing the progress of the state the ethnic relations in Singapore, we should also be looking forward to see how things have evolved. What are the urgent needs now? Like what James said, is there a new definition of the cultural identity in Singapore? How are we, if at all, incorporating the new aspects that have been brought in by the newer emigrants? Also, issues like the self-perception and the needs of the underclass in the Chinese majority in Singapore. How does this compare to the needs of the ethnic minorities?
Perhaps, we can refocus our attention to what our cultural identity is and what will it be - looking at this aspect of multiculturalism in Singapore.
James Gomez:
Thank you Chong Kee and Li Lin for your comments.
But first, I would suggest that you reread my definition of the English educated and not simplify it for me in terms of only language.
The English-educated: " The essential difference lies in a set of socialisation experiences that make the English-educated less ethnically oriented that their CMI ethnic counterparts".
Chong Kee - as to the issue of "the asianisation programme arresting the growth of the English-educated". All I can say here is that you have to study the relevant literature and follow information generally available in the ST. The findings are part of a larger manuscript and it is tedious for me to recount it here. (But perhaps you can respond to my other posting and we can take it up from there)
Li Lin - you inscribe onto my "deconstruction of ethnic identity" post-modern thinking. The issue here is not post-modernism, rather it is whether the continued use of the CMI and its sub-categories overlooks the alternative category of the "English-educated". This category is meaningful for some and has been documented in history and contemporary works but has always been side-stepped for simplifying discussions of ethnicity in Singapore.
A general comment - Since the focus is on minority reaction to the perceived increased Sinicization in Singapore and how this affects race relations. I hope to end the discussion on the English educated here and let the traditional categories of CMI take over. Nonetheless I post an over view of the English-educated entitled "Rethinking the English-educated as Anglo-Asians". I welcome your comments at gomez@merlion.iseas.ac.sg
Cheers!!!!!!!!!
JB Bungar:
The main reason I held off responding has for such a long time has to do with the fact that I have great problems with the preamble to this discussion. In setting up the discussion this way, the people who wrote the preamble have cast the minorities as the problematic -- this I have grave problems with. In fact, I have so many problems with the preamble, that I can't begin to address them. In fact, I find it patronising and demeaning, as well as misleading Anyone from another culture/country/polity/context reading the preamble would assume that Singapore is a Chinese country for that is the picture the preamble paints.
Written the way it is the preamble, subverts itself and its claim that there is ethnic/racial equality in Singapore. The reference to Indians/Malays and Others as "minorities" and the list of concessions made for their benefit as the writers see this, speaks volumes.
If they are indeed minorities, then they are not equal, are they? I think it is true to say that non-Chinese Singaporeans are not interested in being treated as minorities. To quote a good and very wise friend, NP "I am not interested in concessions to minorities. I want full rights as a citizen." For that is indeed what they are, surprising as it may be to some.
James, In anthropology there is a rich body of work in the area of ethnicity. However, anthropologists have dealt with the issues in a far more dynamic way, emphasizing the fluid nature of the concept of ethnicity, over time and space and the political investment that goes into creating, defining and maintaining so-called ethnic boundaries. ( I am afraid that in trying to describe the work anthropologists have done in this area in just a couple of lines, I have committed the sin of over-simplification, and not done justice to the discipline.) I find your categories rather tired, as I'd like to think that the social sciences in general, philosophy included have long since moved on from dealing ethnicity in this way. I strongly recommend a long cup of coffee or a tall glass of iced tea with Mariam Ali of the NUS, Dept of Sociology, who has done a brilliant job of dealing with the notion of ethnicity.
I will say however, that I found Simon Tay's contributions very illuminating. Thank you Simon. You have certainly given me plenty of food for thought. Perhaps we can chat sometime.
Like Joan, I have held off responding until now. I feel that the preamble to this discussion gives too much away. I think that there is something that we can understand about ethnicity in Singapore from taking a broader look at what is happening on the international scene and from the region. Perhaps this is suggested, but it may be better to make this an express context.
I also think that we might take equality as a starting premise. Let me therefore repeat what I wrote to Li Lin earlier on the laws of equality, now for all those in the discussion.
"There is no anti-discrimination legislation. But the Constitution sets out rights to equality (i.e. anti-discrimination).
Art. 12 (1) provides that all persons are equal before the
law. On race, Art. 12 (2) specifically provides that there shall
be no discrimination on the basis of religion, RACE, descent or
place of birth in any law or in (a) the appointment to any office
or public employment
(b) dealings in property
(c) business regulations
Art. 16 (1) provides the same protection against discrimination in respect of public education and institutions.
This is more specific than the American Constitution and some others in which no protection against racial discrimination is spelt out. In comparison to some countries, however, we lack legislation that strikes against private or social discrimination.
So, discrimination by the state and its agencies as a matter of law is not allowed. The Presidential Council for Minority Rights is supposed to guard against this. So would the minority MPS under the GRC scheme. If a discriminatory law is wrongly passed, the courts would have the power to review the law and strike it down as being contrary to the Constitution."
This idea of equality represents, to me, the ideal of citizenship. That it is citizenship that solely matters, not the ascriptive characteristics of race, religion etc. That is what the pledge embraces (does anyone remember the pledge?), when it talks about "regardless of race, language or religion". I emphasize, "regardless". It is not that we should have policies with "due regard to race".
Let me go on from there. I see that this then provides the background to which we can see what Joan has reminded us is "the political investment that goes into creating, defining and maintaining so-called ethnic boundaries". We have seen a return to "ethnic community" and a retreat from race-blind citizenship. Is that move welcome? Who instigates and drives it?
Chang Li Lin:
Joan, you have found the preamble to be "patronising and demeaning, as well as misleading". Could you please explain what you have difficulty with and perhaps also suggest what we should be focusing on instead? I recognise that this is the reason that has held you from responding, but for the benefit of our readers', who may not be widely read about the subject (including myself). Please could you enlighten us further. I agree with you that the non-Chinese groups are also full citizens, they are not minorities. This issue was not dealt with properly in the preamble, which brings us to the questions that Simon has raised i.e. "We have seen a return to "ethnic community" and a retreat from race-blind citizenship. Is that move welcome? Who instigates and drives it? "
The intention in the preamble was not to suggest that the Malays, Indians, Eurasians do not have as much rights as the Chinese. As pointed out by Simon - there is legislation that deals with this. The point I was trying to make was that there seems to be this perception that relative to what the Chinese get, the Malays, Indians and Eurasians are not getting the similar amount of. What are they getting - using TV as the example again. From a few hours on the former SBC's channel 5, compared to the more hours of English programmes versus the Malay/Indian focused Prime 12. There is a change, but the rights of the Chinese, Malays, Indians, Eurasians have not been changed then or now. However, the change seen in TV programming is indicative of something. This perception is one of the issues raised in this discussion. Why is there this sort of perception? Does it still exists? Has it changed? Like Joan has mentioned - discussion of racial relations have moved on from this sort of boundaries.
Could someone bring us up-to-date to what is the current framework in discussion of ethnic relations, what categories are being used and which of them applies to the Singapore case? Are there other alternatives than those raised by James Gomez?
In response to Simon's questions, could we see it from another angle, that instead of a retreat from a race-blind citzenship, it is a move from race-blind citizenship. Through the social and economic integration that has occured, the "return to the ethnic community" is not read as racial segregation therefore translated into potential racial conflicts. Instead, the impression that this return is not a potential confrontation, but as a more efficient way in helping the respective community, on racial terms. I would venture to say that this move has been welcomed, from the point that at least now we have 4 self-help groups addressing areas of need that were not dealt with before. With respect to who instigates it and drives it? I suggest that it is the community-building spirit of people who feel that they should contribute to society, to help the lesser endowed fellow citizens. To that end, I wonder if the Chinese contributing to CDAC would have qualms about contributing to Yayasan MENDAKI or SINDA. I am inclined to think that it would not matter to them which self-help organisation they contribute too. This begets the question - why not a central self-help body, instead of ethnically based groups?
Keep the questions and comments coming. It is only through discussion, that we can look at areas that have not been given adequate attenton and action. Keep it up!
JB Bungar:
Hi Simon
I think your latest contribution was a source of tremendous relief after that preamble. I am glad to see that everyone sees the "problem"( for want of a better word) the way it is set out in there. I must say though, that your term "Ethnic community" is much kinder than the ones I would use to describe the situation. Suffice it to say for now, that the present -- and in my opinion unhealthy -- obsession with ethnicity and they way it factors in policy-making smacks of the old British and Japanese governments' divide and rule policy
I remember a time when we talked about a Singapore for Singaporeans. What happened?
Li Lin
I would suggest that you start with the fact that I take exception to the preamble. As I said earlier, it casts "minorities" as the problematic. This is demeaning.
It is misleading to because it implies that Singapore is a Chinese country -- if it is, then that's news to me -- and suggests that non-Chinese Singaporeans are here on sufferance.
The list of concessions to the "minorities" is patronizing and the interpretation of their existence is naive.
I'm afraid I can't make it any simpler.
James Gomez:
Hi people! Been away for a few days. But its good to see that there is a slight increase in traffic. Just a few quick responses.
Joan - as to your unsolicited advice on the study of ethnicity. I say, "I had my Pints and Espressos over the issues that you raise about the ethnicity sometime ago, am current in my reading and no thank you". But if you must, the categories used were offered from positions of temporal closures.
As to your other posting, where you raise implicitly the idea of the Singaporean Singapore (much more interesting! ). I think you are fifteen years too late. The younger cohort of children have been socialised or are being socialised towards observing and practising ethnic purity (all in line with the re-ethnicisination measures of the state). Any deviation is strictly "disciplined" both by institutional and social re-inforcement measures. The characteristics of the Singaporean Singapore, I suspect would lie with those who have been socialised on the "neutral"/"less ethnically-oriented"/non-ethnic appoarch to building a common ethos/national identity/social culture taken from the time of independence to the early 80s. However, the specifics of the socialisation measures need to be loooked into further. But that need not detain us from understanding why such policies came to be or even to suggest retraction of such policies. This leads me into the next point.
Simon - I would have thought that the instigator behind these moves towards re-ethnicisation is the state. The government/the PAP if you prefer. Whether the move is welcome would depend on who you are or who you see yourself to be? If you are ethno-centred, than perhaps yes. If not, no. Or any other variations within. Share with us your own views on this Simon.
Tan Chong Kee:
I'm glad that the discussion is now starting to take off, but please allow me to put in a word before we continue. Rereading the preamble, I think its problem lies in painting too perfect a picture of race relations in Singapore by pointing to institutional safeguards to equality at every turn without asking why these safeguards were deemed necessary (because the dominant race, Chinese or otherwise, always tend to be racist?) or how effective they have been. To be fair, I feel I must defend Li Lin as I do not see (perhaps because I'm blinded by my own Chinese insensitivity, in which case I hope fellow panelists will not hesitate to point that out) how she has maintain that minorities can be denied their rightful equality as full citizens by concessions. Naturally, one could read the preamble as casting 'minorities as the problematic', but one could also read it as an effort by the dominant race to try to understand her cultural other. None of us can get that right on the word go (I could equally find suggestion that I do not think non-Chinese Singaporeans full citizens demeaning), but the effort should not be dismissed with so much disdain, as otherwise, we cut off dialogue.
Simon, regarding equality as the ideal of citizenship, how close do you think Singaporeans are to attaining that ideal? When talking to someone from the government, I was told that they found each ethnic community more receptive to the government's message if the messenger is 'one of us'. So, to answer Li Lin's earlier question, perhaps we could say that there are separate self-help groups because these can do the work more effectively than a national body (I won't go as far as suggesting that it makes no different which group one donates to though). That could be one reason why we are seeing a return to ethnic community now. Might it not be a state recognition and utilization of ethnic self-identity than a state driven re-ehnicisation programme?
Finally, I would be quite careful in linking the 'Asian values' discourse (I presume, James, that is what you meant by 'Asianisation programme') with the internal state management of race relationship. To me, 'Asian values' is in large part the regional governments' strategy to counter American claim of ideological supremacy and to consolidate state power. Singapore's Confucian bias is probably because of ignorance than design. In Malaysia there were similar state sanctioned efforts, and they have tried to fuse Islam with Confucianism. This of course does not stop us from questioning how it has been used in an ethno-centric way by some parts of the Chinese community, but you would need to convince me that this is a conscious effort to polarize the ethnic communities by, to me at least, a government paranoid about racial discord.
Edmund Chia:
Just a comment, it does seem that the discussion is directionless. I am confused as to whether the panel is involved in a mapping exercise to define the boundaries that presently exist - some form of advocacy, i.e. which boundaries should exist - an attempt to identify sources of/for racial tension that may or may not exist - an attempt to examine if there is equality between the races and if such equality is legally protected.
IMO, if you want to engage in a mapping exercise, then the whole issue becomes rather academic. However, if the mapping exercise is but a preamble to a discussion on the sort of ethnic boundaries that should be present (or absent) in Singapore, then you've got the beginnings of an interesting discussion. Should we try to opt for a Singaporean Singapore where ethnic lines become increasingly blurred with each succceeding generation OR should we try to maintain the main CMI ethnic boundaries with its inherent dangers of encouraging ethnic purism - what are philosophies or ideals that guide these choices, what are the policies that can advance these causes all become food for discussion.
A discussion on policies or social transformations leading to ethnic tensions that have arisen or have been avoided is another way the discussion can flow. This I believe was the attempt of your preamble. It highlights several policies that some have suggested were the cause of growing ethnic tensions, e.g. SAP schools, etc and solicits discussion on whether the assumption of ethnic tensions were real, if so, why and how can they be managed. If ethnic tensions are not present, why and how were they avoided.
Or the discussion can also look at the dominance of the Chinese majority and its implications - does the rise of Chinese popular culture to the mainstream in Singapore (e.g. Cantopop, etc) threaten the equality between races, and how is equality defined - equal or proportional time slots for ethnic langauge TV programming, equal or proportional funding for ethnic-based organisations, etc. I think you tried to introduce this in the preamble as well but I could be wrong. How about the notable absence of protection against discriminatory employment practices in the private sector? Malays/Indians are unable to prenetrate the Chinese business community - is there a similar problem in Singapore - do Singaporeans overseas tend to identify with each other or do they merge into their racial groupings, e.g. Singaporean Chinese with Malaysian Chinese, with Hong Kong Chinese, etc.
Finally, given our cultural and political similarity, you might want to look at the Indonesian and Malaysian options. Pancasila in Indonesia basically seeks to establish an Indonesian superidentity to which all other cultures, langauages, etc are subordinate. In Malaysia, communalism with strictly defined cultural, economic, and political boundaries between the ethnic groups is the policy. Singapore had occupied the middle ground - can we maintain our 'balance'.
Simon Tay:
Just a few quick points in response to some points by (a) James Gomez (b) Chong Kee and (c) Edmund Chia:
1. It seems a consensus that ethnic policies in Singapore have changed. From the "Singaporean Singapore" some of us grew up with to what some have called "CMI". It is a question how we think of CMI -- as a problem, "natural", a help to foster a sense of "community", a corollary to being "Asian".
2. How we think of the overall policy then meshes into the particular questions that people have raised e.g. SAP schools, Chinese dominance, Confucianism, discriminatory employment practices in the private sector
3. I think an international context is of some use. Multiculturalism debate in Singapore differs from debate in the USA. Edmund Chia's suggestion to the Indonesian and Malaysian options is interesting. Some may say the situations differ between the 3 neighbours because economics and politics shape cultural policy differently. The Malaysian NEP differs in this sense from Affirmative Action in the USA. And both differ from efforts to help Chinese Singaporeans.
4. Unlike Chong Kee, I do not think that Asian values debate is irrelevant to the present discussion. I think that the Asianisation of Asia (and Singapore) is essential to the claim that we are "different" from the West. What then happens in Singapore is two fold exercise. The first is to recognize separations between Chinese Malay Indian and Others. Then it is to overarch these categories as "Asian". The overarching effort is not however in terms of a lived culture, or a fusion. It is abtracted to the level of "values"/ ideology. This approach is described in the typical "art" performance of Singapore -- separate elements put together but not fused/ hybridized.
5. From the above, I think there are at least two levels for us to continue this discussion. The first is at the level of what we can call particular policy/ experience e.g. SAP schools etc. The second is at the broader level of concept. That's where James Gomez's "mapping" exercise is helpful (even if some do not agree with him). The two levels of "policy" and "concept" are not separate. If they are, the conversation will be all anecdotes or, on the other hand, too abtract. But I think there is some distinction between them and we need to proceed with some balance.
6. Legal promises and realities. What was the legal promise of equality? It was that the government would not discriminate by law. Those who complain about private sector discrimination (and I am one of them), must then see that it is not the failure of existing law/ promise, but the refusal to extend that promise to another sector. Those who wonder if the government discriminates, must deal with the question of Art. 152 of the Constitution. This is another legal promise: that the government would take steps to protect racial (and religious) minorities.
7. The ideal of nationhood that I mentioned. This is an ideal that has merit, as surely as we believe in equality. But the ideal comes against another. That is the ideals of uniqueness and of community. Racial identification is not negative if it helps us belong to a group, or helps us assert human dignity and uniqueness that refuses to be made into a drab and uniform identity. I think that is a tension we must recognize.
Arun Mahizhnan:
I would like to make some very general points.
First, I find ethnic discrimination is a fact of life in every society I have ever lived in or studied. So, to me the question is not whether there is discrimination but how do we manage it so as to minimise it.
Second, management of ethnic discrimination does differ from system to system. Singapore has gone through several gyrations in defining and managing ethnic relations. My feeling is that we are still in a very fluid state as to what our common identity is or should be and what our group identities are or should be.
Third, in minimising tensions between ethnic groups, we need to look at both the formal institutional arrangements -- such as constitutional laws, rules and regulations and corporate practices -- and the informal codes of conduct. If we focus only on the institutional framework, we would be missing out on a whole host of personal acts and decisions that actually have a great impact on the overall state of ethnic tensions.
Fourth, we may be misdirecting ourselves if we think the tensions between ethnic groups are unique to them. The same kind of tensions actually do occur within an ethnic group (eg: between the Englishe-educated Chinese and the Chinese-educated Chinese), within the same nationality (eg: between the English-educated Singporeans and the other Singaporeans, as James Gomez has been at pains to point out), between classes and between genders. Discrimination is a process that all these catagories have suffered from.
Fifth, I believe part of the problem and part of the solution lie in the same source: our ability and willingness to understand each other. This, no doubt, sounds rather naive or hacknyed. But I happen to believe rather strongly that unless we fundamentally alter our normal disposition from tolerance to understanding, we will no go very far. I am joined in this belief by several others, who together have formed an informal working group called the Cross-Cultural Communication Group. We are very new, very small, and, as of now, very unambitious! We want to take some small steps towards helping people communicate across boundaries -- be they ethnic, inter-ethnic, linguistic or gender boundaries. Obviously the jury is still out as to whether this is a good idea. We thought we would give it good shot anyway.
Thank you for your patience.
Chang Li Lin:
I think there is general agreement that racial tension does exist. There are differing opinions as to how this tension has been and is being managed. In terms of definition and terminology, the panelists represent a good selection of the wide spectrum. Different suggestions have been made as to how the discussion should be focused. Edmund's piece captures the various alternative courses that this discussion can take. I propose that we take some of his points in turn.
First, looking towards the future, if we can look at the course ethnic relations is taking in Singapore. Assuming that the goal has been to create a "I am a Singaporean First" identity, before the Chinese, Malay, Indian and other identities. Simon rightly points out that the tension will always be present. For a person, it is not possible to deny his ethnicity, no matter how Singaporean he wants to be. At the same time, the ethnic identity need not be perceived as being in conflict with the other identities. A person can have many roles simultaneously. I suggest that instead of focusing on the tension that exists, if we assume that this tension can be managed and that one can comfortably be Malay and be Singaporean simultaneously. Are there any policies implemented along communal lines? If yes, what impact does these policies have? How about housing policies? Its effectiveness in managing the nation's ethic relations, can it continue to be the main policy area where ethnic relations is managed, if it is the main policy tool? The purpose here is to explore the alternatives that are available. The bigger question perhaps being that should we continue to emphasize on being xxxx Singaporean? Does this need to be modified?
Tan Chong Kee:
Following on Arun and Li LIn's points, I would like first to compare the ethnic discourse of Asian and Irish Americans and then discuss how it relates to Singapore. As I see it, one of the Asian Americans' concerns is with being accept both as Asian and American. They have to fight both a gradual loss of their ethnic culture and a reluctance of the 'white' population to accept them as truly equal. There seem to be a trade off between being 'Asian' and being 'American' (and many would argue that even if Asians succeed in being culturally 'white', they will still not be completely accepted). In response, various strategies have evolved to deal with such contradiction.
My Irish American friend turn his nose up at such a term. He simply calls himself Irish. 'American' is understood. Voicing the second term only demonstrates that integration is still incomplete. He organizes Irish film festivals, Irish dinners, and is very knowledgable about things Irish. The difference is that 'Irishness' is seen as part of 'Americaness' in a way that 'Asianess' is not.
Perhaps we could look at Singapore in the same way and frame the present 'ethnization' as an opportunity to institute ethnic diversity in our conception of nationhood. We are each Chinese, Malay, Indian or whatever lable we like to stick to ourselves, with the second term 'Singaporean' unvoiced because it is understood. I feel this is an improvement over what we had before where the second term 'Singapore' crowded out the first. That was a time when it seemed somewhat improper to dwell too long on one's ethnic identity, when the priority seemed to be a delimiting of ethnicity from nationality. We were insecure about where, say, a Malay Singaporean's first allegiance laid -- with Malaysia or with Singapore. This is a variant to the American 'melting pot' model where all immigrants were expected to melt into the WASP mould, except that the 'Singaporean' mould in use then had only political but no cultural content. So personally, I would problematize the 'Singaporean Singapore' model and go for 'ethnization' (this is a loaded word) because one can only be equal (regardless of race, not in spite of it) if one is able to fully express one's ethnic identity.
Arun's caveat is very important here. Without a willing to understand and reach out to each other, such an expression can only alienate. Such a caveat also shifts the responsibilty from the state to the individual. The state can, for all its good intentions, manage ethnic relations to a certain extent, but the sphere of action ultimately lies in civic society.
Tan Chong Kee:
I was just thinking that the state's aggregating policy was not altogether unsuccessful since we now more or less tend to think of the 'Chinese' category as 'natural', when perhaps 20 years ago, it was more natural to think in terms of Hokkien, Cantonese etc. Conversely, the present ethnicization programme is not altogether successful either since all Singaporean, MCI or otherwise, can understand and more or less speak Singlish.
Hence, instead of relying on English, I would think that it is in Singlish that an overarching, hybridized and non-ethnocentric national identity is being formed. Singlish cuts across ethnic boundaries and draws its speakers into national identification, whereas English might be a common language but it is also a language of exclusion. James' categories of English-educated etc illustrates that. Perhaps it is within this common language that we can balance the tension between ethnic and national identity that Simon mentioned.
We would then have a situation analogous to the Irish American case: each Singaporean is MCI or whatever, while the very language we use to speak these labels signal to each our membership in the same nation. Arun pointed out the difference between the law and private practice, I would also add that the law implies enforcement through asymmetric state violence (in the technical sense). Socialization through an indigenous language can probably constitute the national subject more effectively. (This is an argument about relative effectiveness, not the uselessness of law)
Koh Thong Wei:
I have a few questions about race relations in Singapore. I am not too sure if the apparent racial harmony in Singapore is due more to the economic success of Singapore than to official attempts to address racial equality and integration. Much as I wish that the real reason is the latter, I have a nagging suspicion that racial and religious differences are merely papered over by material prosperity. Things would be very different if opportunities and jobs are not as abundant and if the Singapore economy is to experience a prolonged period of slowdown.
i) Which policies were successful in integrating the different cultures into the Singapore society? Why?
There were examples of pro-active policies mentioned - planned integration in HDB estates, and schools. Were they really effective, and if so, why? One obvious reason why they should work is that these policies ensure that generations of Singapore have 'shared experiences'. But are these 'shared experiences' enough? The Muslims and the Serbs in Bosnia were neighbours before the outbreak of hostilities, so were the Jews and Germans before the world war.
ii) Is there evidence that racial or religious discrimination is a major problem in Singapore?
What does the religious-harmony act mean? Can and should we legislate harmony?
iii) Should there be any change in official policies, or requirement of new initiatives to correct any imbalance?
Did the SAP schools create resentment? What about the gifted programme and independent schools? How should our media reflect the diversity of language and culture in Singapore?
iv) What does the future bring? Will the constitution of racial mix in Singapore change? Is racial harmony in Singapore an illusion brought about by decades of rapid economic growth?
There were expressions of concern by the government that the balance of racial mix is changing with the change in the birth rate of the different races? How will this affect the situation in Singapore? Will racial politics be any different if there is no longer a numerically dominant race in Singapore?
How does the proposition, 'There is no racial harmony in Singapore, the only harmony is the clamour of voices for material prosperity.' stand? It is indeed difficult to provide empirical evidence to either prove or disprove the proposition. I think the underlying message is that we should never take racial harmony for granted. Parameters and assumptions change with time, and inter-racial and inter-personal relationships should be worked at constantly and with sensitivity.
Chang Li Lin:
Thank you for your comments Chong Kee and Thong Wei.
Thong Wei, I would agree with you that economic success has a lot to do with racial harmony and that the differences are less emphasized. If there was an economic slowdown, like the scenario you painted, things may be different, but I suspect too that we should not expect a situation like the former Yugoslavia. Before one jumps the gun and think that I am advocating complacency and the attitude that we have "arrived", please hold your horses.
The point that I am raising is that the Singapore economy is integrated to the extent that there are many companies with employees from the different ethnic groups. If we assume a worst case scenario where the economy becomes divided on racial lines, I don't think that some of these companies can function. Granted that there are certain companies that are monoracial - for e.g. a Chinese/Malay/Indian Restaurant, but then again, it is not surprising to see an Indian working in a Chinese Restaurant. The famous Bee Chun Heng BBQ Pork Shop at Chinatown has an Indian, among the other Chinese employees who grill the meat.
I think Singapore is fortunate in that we have at least have had some experience in living together in a multiracial society. No doubt, there are the questions raised like how real is the integration, can we withstand a situation like the former Yugoslavia, where they have intermarried, been neighbours, etc. We are a young nation and we do not have the rich history like the others. The short history Singapore has, can also be an advantage in that we do not carry that much historical baggage like others. Yes, we have had our racial riots in the 1960s. The unrest was also due to political reasons too. Perhaps, there is a greater chance for harmony and integration than with the nations that have had centuries of differences.
The coincidence of Chinese New Year and Hari Raya this year serves as a wonderful reminder of the harmony we have. TCS did a piece on Chinese Muslims and how they celebrated the festivities this year. I think people who have intermarried, non-Malays who have converted to Muslim, and those who do not fit "neatly" into the categories of CMIE - show us that there is no absolutes when it comes to the question of race. What we need is instead a big dose of understanding and tolerance - points that have been raised by Arun and Chong Kee, that this reaching out towards one another is important. Whatever ethnic group we belong to, we do not live in a vacuum. Times have changed the parameters, boundaries, that one ethnic group cannot seek to live exclusively. They may try - but at a very high and painful price. In the case of Singapore, it is not a plausible scenario. However, we should guard ourselves against taking this harmony for granted. It is heartening to see the ads on TV showing both the New Year and Hari Raya greetings together, some shops have chosen to play Malay and Chinese New Year tunes alternately. These may be commercial gimmicks, but at least, it shows that there is sensitivity and an increased understanding.
In the discussion so far, we have dipped into some theory of multiculturalism, the different perceptions of the assumptions behind multiculturalism in Singapore, if there is real multiculturalism and the prospects for a multicultural Singapore. There are many questions we still have to grapple with. I intend to throw in another. What are the ways where greater understanding of the different ethnic groups and the multicultural element in Singapore can be facilitated? For instance, to include elements of this into the education curriculum?
Here's wishing all a very Happy Chinese New Year and Selamat Hari Raya Aidilfitri!
Racial discrimination seems to be a fact of life in almost any multi-cultural society in the world today. I mean, I have little doubt that if Singapore were 75% Indian and 15% Malay and 7% Chinese, the Malays and Chinese might feel discriminated against. having said that, I must confess my belief that my life as a minority in Singapore is a lot more bearable than it might be in many other places. however, to me this seems to be a result of our economic prosperity, rather than an enlightened and progressive population....we are all satisfied fat cats, with a tight labour market and plenty of wealth to go around, most all of us can afford to ignore racism as we encounter it and still get by quite comfortably in life. if and when the money gets tight, however, things may not be so rosy...which is why we should tackle this issue Now. A few points :
I am troubled that so many genuinely bias-free Chinese here are oblivious to the often daily racism faced by minorities in this country. on the rare occasions when this is hinted at (it isn't easy for the ant to hint to the elephant that the latter might be taking up too much space), these people usually react with disbelief and the suspicion that the minorities are exaggerating and blowing things out of proportion. we need to acknowledge, at national level, that racism is a sad fact of life here which needs to be frowned upon. racism is such an explosive topic that it is now taboo....so much so that while we are now at the stage where we should attempt to deal aggressively with it, since it has not reached Bosnia proportions, we are ironically to scared (for no good reason) to do so. the government has no idea how much the mere acknowledgment of this problem would please minorities...a few speeches would be a good start (especially in an election year!).
The promotion of understanding between races is essential to ending racism. people fear what they do not understand. this is why sap schools are so disturbing to the minorities.....no, we do not feel left out. the government has completely misunderstood minority worries if it feels the answer is to offer them similar Malay or Tamil sap schools (which in any case would be a practical impossibility) the point is that sap schools segregate kids, as was the case in the US and south Africa before. What's worse, these kids are going to be important one day. they will be national leaders and they will be far less aware of and sensitive to minorities...and as a matter of personal loss, their lives will be less rich as they will have no or few non-Chinese friends. BTW, the people who are most racist to me (often-I hope- unintentionally) are from sap schools - because they simply do not know how to mingle with other races comfortably)
Racism on the job is especially troubling as it affect the socioeconomic well being of individuals and communities...this is one area where a Bosnia like situation can spark - e.g. times of economic hardship. perhaps employers should have to justify to some authority why they need to pursue racially exclusive hiring policies. What's especially troubling is that this problem doesn't just happen at the blue-collar level. despite having struggled and worked hard to climb the educational ladder, many minority professionals face difficulties getting jobs and promotions because of workplace racism...I personally know of 3 bright and talented people who were denied employment or advancement because of clearly racist policies. the government needs to take the lead here in legislating anti-racist hiring laws and establishing or empowering an authority to police it.
Tan Chong Kee:
The economy of the US is also quite integrated but that did not prevent the LA and other riots from happening. I don't think economic integration per se is a factor. We will probably have to look at how each ethnic group 'integrate' in the economy and be aware of underclasses that are predominantly of one or two ethnic groups.
I am also a little skeptical with the point about historical baggage. Switzerland might appear to be a very peaceful and prosperous country now, one that Singaporean leaders constantly make referece to and try to emulate. Switzerland had a very bloody history of war and the confederate was born out of many deaths. Historical baggage can work both ways. No doubt, what can happen in the future is somewhat constrained by what happened before, but one must remember not to be too deterministic.
Dinesh raised a very good point that SAP schools segregate children who are suppose to be the elites and future leaders of our society. What about possible racism in the private sector? What do people think of that?
Chang Li Lin:
CK and Dinesh, thanks for your comments. In response to CK's question about possible racism in the private sector. Sadly I have to say that it is not just possible racism, it exists. The question being whether the racism is explicit or implicit. For companies that do not seem to be hiring minorities, apart from adopting "racist" policies, it may also be a lack of thinking through what are their policies for employment from the ethnic perspective.
If we go to the other end of the spectrum where there are legislation in place, such as the US. Implementation of the legislation may result in situation where positive discrimination enabled less qualified African-American Firemen to get promotions over their more able Anglo-American peers. I suggest that in the case of Singapore, perhaps we, the citizens and relevant organisations, can come up with a set of guidelines to recommend the best practice in terms of employment - so that people like Dinesh's friends can stand a better chance of getting the jobs they want. I am skeptical that we can ever have utopia where all men are equal. However, we can at least create conditions where the disparity is reduced as much as possible.
Chang Li Lin:
Hello everybody
Thank you for giving us your thoughts and comments. In many ways, we have only scratched the surface. I have enjoyed the discussions and I have been challenged in my thinking of what multiculturalism is, especially in the Singapore context. Though we could not cover every angle of the topic, it is good to know of the efforts others are making in bridging the gap between the different ethnic groups, such as the Cross-Culture Communication Group. The discussion has also shown that we need to re-think the framework with which we see racial relations, definition of multiculturalism and ethnicity.
I also want to take this opportunity to thank Chong Kee - our efficient Panel Secretary who has been the driving force behind the panel. The proceedings are archived and they can be found under the SIntercom webpages. (see http://www-sintercom.org/~chongkee/singapore.html)
The topic for the forthcoming panel is on Singapore Broadcasting Authority's (SBA) new regulations for the Internet and its content. There are many serious implications for SBA's regulations for Internet users like us. Please let me know if you are interested to be part of the panel discussion, if not, I will be unsubscribing you from the panel.
Thanks again for your support.
Till we meet again on the next panel *-)