Singapore has to keep working to improve multiracial society, majority should be sensitive to minorities' needs
Finance Minister Lawrence Wong says all races must do so, with trust and compromise
By Yuen Sin, The Straits Times, 26 Jun 2021
Singapore’s multiracial society is a work in progress, and all races have to make efforts to accommodate and engage one another in a spirit of trust and compromise.
Making this point in an impassioned speech on the state of race relations Friday (June 25), Finance Minister Lawrence Wong added that the Government will continue to engage Singaporeans and update its policies on race and racial harmony.
“No community has gotten everything it wanted, but collectively, we have achieved more together than what we would have otherwise by just focusing on our individual agendas,” he said at a forum on race organised by the Institute of Policy Studies and S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies.
In his speech, he set out Singapore’s philosophy of multiracialism and gave suggestions to improve its system, noting a delicate balance has been struck through mutual compromise thus far.
He noted recent worrying incidents that have caused Singaporeans to consider the state of its racial harmony. The cases, which were highlighted on social media, have raised awareness of racism, and opened up conversations about how Singaporeans can hold themselves to higher standards on this issue.
Outlining three ways that Singapore can keep working at multiracialism, Mr Wong stressed the role that the majority community has to play by being sensitive to the needs of minorities, as it is harder to be a minority in any multiracial society.
This applies to all aspects of daily life, he added, highlighting those who face discrimination when looking for a job, potential tenants who learn that landlords do not prefer their race, and those who have to deal with stereotypes about their race or insensitive comments.
"These things do happen, not always, and perhaps not even often, but sometimes. And when they do happen, they cause real hurt, which is not erased by lightly dismissing them as casual remarks or jokes," said Mr Wong at a forum live-streamed from the University Cultural Centre Theatre at the National University of Singapore in Kent Ridge.
He noted that society's attitudes and conditions continue to evolve and change over time, and there are Singaporeans who feel it is time to take a different approach on race relations - namely that the Government should work on the basis that Singapore is a race-blind society, and remove all rules and practices that underline race in various ways.
These are aspirations that he shares, said Mr Wong. “Perhaps I am young enough to feel the idealistic instincts of the millennials, and old enough to understand the caution born of experience of my parents’ generation.”
Besides the majority community taking the extra step to consider the needs of minorities, he called on Singaporeans to continue with the approach of mutual accommodation, trust and compromise.
'Treat others in the way you would like to be treated'
Mr Wong said he believes the majority community in Singapore recognises the difficulties that minorities may face.
"I ask that we do more and take the extra step to make our minority friends, neighbours, co-workers feel comfortable.
"Treat others in the way you would like to be treated; and by your actions, teach your children to do the same. Remind those among your family members or friends who may slip up from time to time," he said.
At the same time, minorities have also reciprocated by recognising that the majority community has legitimate needs and concerns, he added.
Noting that people sometimes discuss "Chinese privilege" in Singapore, he stressed that it is important to recognise that the Chinese community in Singapore is not monolithic.
The term "Chinese privilege" is adapted from the concept of "white privilege" used in the United States, where privilege gives someone dominance in a society because of identity markers such as one's race or sex.
"There may well be biases or blind spots that the Chinese community should become aware of and to rectify," Mr Wong acknowledged.
At the same time, he said, there remains an entire generation of Chinese Singaporeans who are more comfortable in Chinese than English, and who consider themselves at a disadvantage in an English-speaking world.
"They feel that they have already given up much to bring about a multiracial society: Chinese-language schools, Nanyang University, dialects, and so on. 'What do you mean by 'Chinese privilege'?' they will ask, for they do not feel privileged at all," said Mr Wong, explaining that many of them will naturally object to being characterised in such a manner.
'Don't construe every compromise as an injustice'
Singaporeans must continue to speak up and even be prepared to have uncomfortable discussions about race, Mr Wong added. This is not to start arguments, but to begin civilised discussions, listen to one another, and understand all points of view.
"We should be upfront and honest about the racialised experiences various groups feel, and deal squarely with them," he said.
"But we should not insist on maximum entitlements and rights for our respective groups; construe every compromise as an injustice that needs to be condemned; or put the worst interpretation on every perceived slight or insensitivity," he cautioned.
The minister made clear that he was not saying Singaporeans should refrain from voicing their unhappiness, or that minority Singaporeans should stop talking about the prejudices they experience.
But when one group jostles aggressively to assert its identity and rights over others, it will not take long before other groups feel put upon, and start to jostle back, he said.
He pointed to trends in other countries, where one side uses identity politics to push its cause, which invariably emboldens another to up the ante and make greater demands.
"We end up fuelling our worst tendencies - our tribalism, hostility and vengefulness," said Mr Wong.
"If we go down this path, insisting on differences over commonality, minority groups will not win, and the outcome will be most unhappy for the majority community too."
He called on groups advocating change to be conscious about how they approach the matter, and do so in ways that expand the space for agreement, and not narrow it.
In doing so, they should also deepen cross-cultural understanding and not cause defensiveness and suspicion, and appeal to the "better angels" in all instead of instigating a "them versus us" dynamic, he said.
Updating racial policies
Making the point that Singapore's policies on race are not cast in stone, Mr Wong said the Government will continue to engage widely on the issue.
"For any policy - be it GRC, ethnic integration policy, self-help groups, or SAP schools, we continually ask ourselves: What is it that we are trying to achieve? Is the policy still relevant today? If so, can it be further fine-tuned or improved?" he added.
Mr Wong cited the ongoing review on whether Muslim nurses should be allowed to wear the tudung with their uniform. This process entails detailed study and extensive dialogue between the Government and various communities, he said.
"It cannot be rushed, nor should things be changed simply based on who shouts the loudest," said Mr Wong, adding that any policy change must ultimately expand Singapore's common space and strengthen racial harmony, while allowing each community as much room as possible to go about its way of life.
On immigration, he noted that a transient population of work pass holders has been gathered around the Singapore core, which enables the country to stay competitive, attract investments and create good jobs for Singaporeans.
"We control the inflow of these migrant workers. However, it is not possible for us to ensure that their ethnic mix matches our resident population, nor that they meld seamlessly into our social fabric. So from time to time, this creates frictions and issues within and among our communities."
Mr Wong said the Government understands these concerns, and thus continues to review and update work pass policies too, to ensure they meet Singapore's economic needs and also fit into the social context.
Like Singapore’s forefathers of all races, this Government is convinced that it must continue to strengthen a “Singaporean Singapore” and build an ever more perfect multiracial society, he added.
“Even when some of our compatriots fall short, or neglect to play their part in this vital national project, let’s see them as fellow citizens to be brought along, not adversaries to be shouted down or cancelled out.”
He urged Singaporeans to move forward with a spirit of mutual respect and fellowship by helping one another understand their different cultures, and finding the common stake they have in one another.
"We must have the humility to acknowledge our multiracialism is still a work in progress, the honesty to recognise that not everyone will want to move at the same pace, and yet persevere to protect our multiracialism - cherish it, nurture it, strengthen it."
Race dialogues should deepen cross-cultural understanding
Care should be taken to approach matter in ways that avoid causing defensiveness: Lawrence Wong
By Yuen Sin, The Straits Times, 26 Jun 2021
People should speak up about race and be prepared to have uncomfortable conversations about the topic, Finance Minister Lawrence Wong said yesterday.
But at the same time, those advocating for change should be conscious about how they approach the matter, and do so in ways that deepen cross-cultural understanding, instead of causing defensiveness and suspicion, he added.
In a keynote address at a forum on race, where he offered three suggestions to improve the country's multiracial model, Mr Wong made clear he was not saying that Singaporeans should refrain from voicing their unhappiness, or that minorities should stop talking about the prejudices they experience.
"On the contrary, we should be upfront and honest about the racialised experiences various groups feel, and deal squarely with them," he said at the forum organised by the Institute of Policy Studies and the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies.
Care has to be taken in discussing such issues, he said. If one group jostles aggressively to assert its identity and rights over others, it will not take long before other groups feel put upon, and start to jostle back.
He pointed to other countries, where one side uses identity politics to push its cause, which invariably emboldens another to up the ante and make greater demands.
"We end up fuelling our worst tendencies - our tribalism, hostility and vengefulness," he said. "If we go down this path, insisting on differences over commonality, minority groups will not win, and the outcome will be most unhappy for the majority community too."
In discussing matters of race, different groups should also expand the space for agreement, not narrow it, as well as appeal to the "better angels" in all instead of instigating a "them versus us" dynamic, he said.
Mr Wong also called on the majority community to do more and take the extra step to make their minority friends, neighbours and co-workers feel comfortable.
"Treat others in the way you would like to be treated, and by your actions, teach your children to do the same. Remind those among your family members or friends who may slip up from time to time," he said.
At the same time, minorities have also reciprocated by recognising that the majority community has legitimate needs and concerns, he added.
Noting that people sometimes discuss "Chinese privilege" in Singapore, he stressed it is important to recognise the Chinese community in Singapore is not monolithic.
The term "Chinese privilege" is adapted from the concept of "white privilege" used in the United States, where privilege gives someone dominance in a society because of identity markers such as one's race or sex.
"There may well be biases or blind spots that the Chinese community should become aware of and rectify," he acknowledged.
At the same time, he said, there remains an entire generation of Chinese Singaporeans who are more comfortable in Chinese than English, and who consider themselves at a disadvantage in an English-speaking world.
"They feel that they have already given up much to bring about a multiracial society: Chinese-language schools, Nanyang University, dialects and so on. 'What do you mean by 'Chinese privilege'?' they will ask, for they do not feel privileged at all," said Mr Wong.
Making the point that Singapore's policies on race are not cast in stone, the minister added that the Government will continue to engage widely on the issue.
"For any policy - be it GRC, ethnic integration policy, self-help groups or Special Assistance Plan schools - we continually ask ourselves: What is it that we are trying to achieve? Is the policy still relevant today? Can it be further fine-tuned or improved?" he added.
The Government is convinced that it must build an ever more perfect multiracial society, Mr Wong said. "Even when some of our compatriots fall short, or neglect to play their part in this vital national project, let's see them as fellow citizens to be brought along, not adversaries to be shouted down or cancelled out."
Singapore should work hard to change attitudes of race bias for Prime Minister: Lawrence Wong
Any minority who wants to be PM must be aware of realities on the ground
By Justin Ong, Political Correspondent, The Straits Times, 26 Jun 2021
A Singaporean of a minority race who wants to be prime minister should be aware of attitudes and realities on the ground - that a significant proportion of Singaporeans are more comfortable with a prime minister of their own race, said Finance Minister Lawrence Wong.
He said yesterday that such attitudes - which are reflected in surveys and cut across Singaporeans from different ethnic groups - should not be accepted.
"We should instead work very hard to change them," he said at a forum organised by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) and the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS).
His remarks come on the heels of racial and religious incidents in the past month that have continued to generate conversations on Singapore's multicultural identity.
During yesterday's dialogue, the moderator, Dr Shashi Jayakumar of RSIS, asked the minister: "Why can't an individual from a minority race be the PM? Doesn't this run against the grain of meritocracy, as we understand it?"
"The IPS surveys do show that a significant proportion of Singaporeans are more comfortable with a prime minister of their own race. This cuts across Singaporeans across different ethnic groups. This is what the survey indicates; I wish it were not so, but the survey results are as they are."
In the 2016 IPS study, 98 per cent of Chinese respondents said they preferred a Chinese prime minister. Just over half would accept a Malay prime minister, while six in 10 would be fine with an Indian one.
Malay and Indian respondents were also less accepting of a prime minister of another race than of one from their own.
"A minority who wants to be prime minister should be aware of these attitudes," said Mr Wong. "It doesn't mean that he, or for that matter she, can't be a prime minister. But these are the realities on the ground."
He added: "I certainly would look forward to the day when Singapore has a minority prime minister. I would welcome that."
He also said that the value of race-based policies such as the Chinese, Malay, Indian and Other (CMIO) classification model, and the Housing Board's Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP), should be recognised.
But he noted that these were not set in stone, and the Government would continue to review them.
The former national development minister was asked if the EIP - which sets quotas for flats owned by each racial group in a block or precinct - disadvantaged minorities by restricting who they can sell to or buy from.
Mr Wong said it was not just about the numbers, and pointed out that the EIP has led to social mixing and interaction across different races over the years. "That helps to build that sense of attachment, belonging and identity as Singaporeans," he said.
Without the EIP, ethnic enclaves seen in cities worldwide would form, with minorities squeezed out of areas with higher prices.
He acknowledged the difficulties faced by minority owners bumping into EIP limits while trying to sell their flats, and said appeals would be managed on a case-by-case basis, with "a whole range of flexibilities" - including waiving EIP limits in exceptional circumstances.
On the CMIO model, he noted criticisms that it reinforces racial consciousness and detracts from Singapore's "multiracial ideal".
"Consider this: If we were to discard CMIO, does it mean that people will start forgetting about their ethnic identities or paying less attention to their ethnic identities?" he said. "If we were to ignore racial differences, does that mean that the differences do not exist? It is not so clear to me."
Citing how double-barrelled race classifications were introduced in 2010, he said the Government would keep re-examining these policies over time.
Fine-tuning policies is one part of the joint effort needed to "double down" in addressing racism and arresting any risk of Singapore regressing as a multiracial society, he said.
"All of us want to dive deeper, to do more to understand better the reasons behind racism in Singapore," he said. "It requires us to look at things carefully based on our context, our circumstances, our realities... and then see what areas can be improved.
"It could be policy, it could be behaviours, it could be institutions. But whatever they are, look at constantly improving and getting better. I think that must be the imperative."
Policies like GRC system still needed as Singapore is not immune to racial discrimination: Lawrence Wong
By Hariz Baharudin, The Straits Times, 26 Jun 2021
Singapore has not arrived at a state where its people are free of racial discrimination, and it is for this reason that policies like the group representation constituency (GRC) system are still in place.
Making these points yesterday during a forum on race and racism, Finance Minister Lawrence Wong said recent incidents of racist behaviour have shown that Singapore has some way to go to move beyond race.
The GRC scheme was implemented in 1988 to enshrine minority representation in Parliament. Under the scheme, each slate of election candidates for a GRC must have one or more candidates who are non-Chinese.
Noting that some believe GRCs are not necessary as Singaporeans can be trusted to vote for the best candidates, regardless of race, Mr Wong pointed to the United States, where courts have to intervene to ensure there is diverse representation in their legislatures.
In Singapore, there is racially integrated - rather than segregated - housing, and no constituencies with built-in majorities of Indians and Malays.
"We have the GRC system to ensure at least a minimum number of minority legislators in Parliament," he said.
Mr Wong said he respects the views of Singaporeans who believe the country is ready to move beyond the GRC system, adding that nobody would be more pleased than past and present People's Action Party leaders with such an outcome.
"But we are not yet totally immune to the siren calls of exclusive racial and cultural identities. Neither have we reached a 'post-racial' state. Surely, recent events have, if anything, confirmed our caution," he said, referring to a spate of racist incidents that have made headlines here over the past two months.
Mr Wong said Singapore's founders knew the country needed deliberate policies and carefully thought-out safeguards to ensure minorities would be protected.
These efforts also had to ensure the majority would not abuse its dominance, and that bigots and chauvinists from any race would be constrained and curbed.
The nation's forefathers took difficult and drastic steps to achieve this, he noted. For instance, they refused to confine their political base only to the majority race and took firm action against all chauvinists of all varieties, including invoking the Internal Security Act against Chinese chauvinists.
They also made English - a neutral language common to all - Singapore's working language, the language of government and the main medium of instruction in schools.
Mr Wong pointed out that the founding leaders had changed electoral rules to guarantee that minorities would always be represented in Parliament, and that no party could prevail by narrowly appealing to any specific race and religion.
He also held up how they amended the Constitution to create a Presidential Council for Minority Rights, chaired by the Chief Justice, with the power to reject any law passed by Parliament that infringed on the rights of minorities.
Efforts like these have helped Singapore to be one of the few places in the world where people of different races and faiths have lived peacefully and closely together for more than half a century, said Mr Wong.
But he also noted that policies are not set in stone, and that the Government will continue to update policies on race and in other areas that help to strengthen racial harmony in Singapore.
"We are not perfect and there is still much work to be done," he said.
Singapore's multiracial model does not require any community to give up its heritage, traditions: Lawrence Wong
Embrace diversity and seek common ground
By Hariz Baharudin, The Straits Times, 26 Jun 2021
To achieve racial harmony, Singapore did not ask any of its communities to give up parts of their culture, and instead embraced the diversity they offered, said Finance Minister Lawrence Wong.
Speaking at a forum on race and racism yesterday, Mr Wong held up Singapore's model of multiculturalism, which he said is distinct from that of other nations.
He stressed that Singapore does not devalue diversity, but instead accepts and celebrates it.
Multiracialism does not mean forgetting the separate identities people have, and does not require the erasure of cultural differences and histories in favour of a "bland and homogenised broth", he said.
"Instead, it enjoins us to embrace our inheritances, respect those of others, and go beyond them to encompass a national identity and shared purpose."
He pointed out that Singapore's way differs from the French way, for example, which insists on assimilation into one master language and culture. People in France have to speak French, accept French ways and assimilate into French society.
For its part, Singapore decided to encourage each community to take pride in its own cultures and traditions while seeking common ground and strengthening a shared sense of belonging and identity.
Mr Wong recounted how the late theatre doyen Kuo Pao Kun had likened culture to trees. "This is what we are constantly striving to do. Go deeper to strengthen our cultural roots, and at the same time, reach higher to cross-pollinate with other cultures, and thus develop a stronger shared Singaporean identity," Mr Wong said.
The Republic's bilingualism policy is an important part of its approach to multiracialism as it allows children here to access traditions that the vernacular languages carry, he said. This is so they would know who they are, instead of becoming "pale imitations of Europeans or Americans".
Much effort is made to preserve these languages, he said, noting that this involves steps such as insisting that schoolchildren study their mother tongues.
Parliament provides simultaneous translations in all four official languages as well, even though all MPs can understand and speak English well, he said.
He acknowledged criticism that government policies to preserve and develop cultures could make Singapore more race-conscious and detract from multiracialism.
The Special Assistance Plan (SAP) schools are sometimes cited to make this point, he said, adding that he understands the concerns surrounding them. The Government will continue to see how multiracialism can be strengthened across all schools, he pledged.
But he asked critics of SAP schools to consider if society here would be better off if standards of vernacular languages were to fall, and Singaporean Chinese, Malay and Indian cultures were to wither and dissipate.
"For that is the primary reason for the SAP schools. They were pure Chinese-medium schools before. We retained some of them in this new form so we can still have a sufficient number of bilingual and bicultural students, equally strong in English as well as Chinese."
He said Singapore has programmes in a few schools besides SAP schools to enable students to deepen their proficiency in Malay and Tamil, and nurture their bi-cultural interests, among other efforts.
These efforts, and those involving a variety of Chinese, Malay and Indian cultural organisations, should not be done away with on the grounds of perpetuating racial consciousness and not being inclusive of others, he said.
"For that is not what we mean when we pledge ourselves to become 'one people, regardless of race, language or religion'. The Singaporean is not only the English-educated cosmopolitan, up to date with the latest trends in London, Paris or New York."
Singaporeans, he said, are "also our fellow citizens who are more comfortable in Mandarin, Malay, Tamil or other languages, and who have different cultural perspectives and views."
He said Singapore has also taken great care to ensure its ethnic balance remains stable because major changes can be unsettling to all groups, majority or minority.
Newspapers like Lianhe Zaobao provide a platform for exchange of views on race: ZB editor
By Yuen Sin, The Straits Times, 26 Jun 2021
Having open conversations about race is important, and newspapers like Lianhe Zaobao play a role in providing a platform for differing views, the Chinese daily's editor Goh Sin Teck said Friday (June 25) at a forum on race.
Responding to a question on why the paper had published a recent editorial on race that drew criticism, with a forum participant saying it "stoked racist sentiments", Mr Goh acknowledged the risk that comes with discussing such issues openly.
"But there's also a risk if you don't discuss it, and we don't talk about it, then if something major happens... (the situation may) just explode," he noted at the forum, which was organised by the Institute of Policy Studies and the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies.
In publishing pieces that discuss issues of race, Mr Goh said the paper ensures that the tone and language of such pieces are carefully calibrated, and that the authors are sincere in wanting to discuss issues, instead of merely stoking emotions.
"When we start talking about this, it is inevitable that you have people from different schools of thought... and then we have to accept that there are people who don't actually share such views.
"And we have to start to learn how to... open our hearts and minds to also listen to people who have different views," he said, adding that the newspaper can provide such a platform for the exchange of views.
The editorial, which was published on June 9 and titled "Expanding public space to promote racial harmony", had analysed the issue of race relations from three different aspects. It explained that the pandemic, the role of social media and popular ideological trends from abroad have all exacerbated racial tensions.
Critical race theory - the idea that racism is not just about personal prejudice but is also embedded and perpetuated by systems and policies, and which originated in the United States in the 1970s - was cited by Zaobao as an example of the influence of foreign ideas.
It prompted an open letter signed by over 200 people, namely academics and researchers, which criticised Zaobao for ignoring the dynamics of structural racism and for misrepresenting critical race theory as "promoting hatred of white people" in the United States, and by extension, of Chinese people in Singapore.
At the forum, Mr Goh explained that the term "Chinese privilege" could be misinterpreted by the Chinese-speaking community here.
It is a term adapted from the concept of "white privilege" used in critical race theory originating from the US, where privilege gives someone dominance in a society because of identity markers such as one's race or sex.
He said that while academics may understand what the term "Chinese privilege' refers to in an academic context, it can be misunderstood by the Chinese-speaking community, who have suffered marginalisation due to their lack of fluency in English.
"They would say - ' What privilege do I have?' And then, instead of forging understanding, we end up dividing people," he noted.
He added that the Chinese-speaking Singaporeans who say they do not enjoy any privileges are also misunderstood by others, who take an academic perspective and accuse them of denying that racism and racial discrimination exist in Singapore.
"This is not what they mean. They are just saying that as a Chinese-speaking individual, I don't see that I enjoy any privilege at all... (Then) this misunderstanding becomes even deeper," said Mr Goh.
He called for open communication when conducting conversations about race among different groups, and appealed to Singaporeans to try not to use sweeping statements in such discussions.
Should online 'safe spaces' that discuss race be more open or more closed?
By Hariz Baharudin, The Straits Times, 26 Jun 2021
How should society approach social media channels that serve as discursive "safe spaces" for minorities to talk about race, but also have the potential to divide?
This was a question academics tackled at a forum on race and racism yesterday, as some called for more involvement of other groups in such spaces, while others highlighted how their closed nature helps people feel safe.
At the discussion, the panellists were asked by Professor Paulin Straughan, a sociologist from Singapore Management University who was the moderator, about the polarity that such safe spaces can cause.
An online platform is considered a safe space when participants can speak freely and confidently of their experiences, without fear of discrimination, criticism or harassment.
Associate Professor Elmie Nekmat, one of the four panellists, said the nature of social media is such that there are multiple pockets of safe spaces, given how people will pick their own spaces to discuss various issues. Morally loaded issues like race and religion have "no right or wrong", and hence there will be polarisation when people seek safe spaces to have discussions, he said.
Prof Elmie, deputy head of the Department of Communications and New Media at the National University of Singapore (NUS), suggested that such safe spaces go beyond social media and take place in real-life settings, to be more inclusive of people like seniors.
But sociologist Laavanya Kathiravelu, an assistant professor from Nanyang Technological University, said people who have experienced racism might feel it is important to have safe spaces closed in some way in order for them to articulate their experiences.
She said: "Even though these spaces might seem polarising, I think there is a space for them because people need their experiences validated, acknowledged. And I feel it is therapeutic, but it is also necessary to find a community who validates your own experiences. So, we shouldn't dismiss these spaces that are exclusive or self-selected completely, and say, no, we only want open spaces."
Associate Professor Daniel Goh from the Department of Sociology at NUS held up pages on Instagram like @minorityvoices and @lepakconversations that started out as safe spaces to talk about race, but have since opened up. Calling such a move courageous, he said opening up is important as it shows the majority that racist experiences are still happening and should not be forgotten.
The panellists also discussed the concept of "Chinese privilege", which is adapted from the concept of "white privilege" used in the United States.
Prof Goh said discussions on privilege should start with experiences people face, be it in institutions or everyday life. He stressed that the question of privilege is important and has to be talked about, but cautioned against using blanket terms without context.
"To use it as a blanket term will be to revert to the same kind of racism and racialisation that we do not want, which is to say that, okay, 75 per cent of the population, you have privilege, you don't realise it, you are complicit in racism. It puts everyone into a defensive posture, it cuts conversations off," he said.
Multiracialism and faultlines
Singapore's distinctive model for racial harmony is a work in progress, and its people have to be prepared to listen to each other, even if it means uncomfortable discussions on issues such as Chinese privilege or the CMIO model. But the way forward is to find common ground, and avoid a divisive "them vs us" dynamic, says Finance Minister Lawrence Wong. Here is his speech from IPS-RSIS Forum on Race and Racism in Singapore.
The Straits Times, 26 Jun 2021
Lately, several worrying incidents have given us pause to consider the state of our racial harmony.
In May, a Chinese man kicked an Indian woman in the chest while uttering racial slurs. Earlier this month, a Chinese man confronted an inter-racial couple, saying they should date within their respective races. In the same month, a Chinese woman was filmed hitting a gong to disrupt her Indian neighbour's prayer ritual.
And recently, a Malay lady was sentenced to jail for hurling racist insults at an Indian female commuter on a bus.
These racist acts are unacceptable. I feel the hurt caused. And like all of you, I wish these incidents had not happened.
Some have asked why we are experiencing this recent spate of racist incidents. They wonder if racism has gathered speed. I think we should see this in a broader context.
The government monitors closely all incidents involving race and religion, because we know how sensitive they can be. From our tracking, we know such racist incidents are not new. They were far more numerous earlier in our history, but declined gradually over the decades, although this past year has seen significantly more cases than usual, most likely because of the stress of Covid-19.
Such incidents don't always make the headlines. But racism still exists in Singapore; it is among us - in our streets, our neighbourhoods and our workplaces.
In the past, racist incidents would likely have been resolved amongst the parties involved and behind closed doors. Nowadays, the cases are highlighted on social media, and circulated more widely to a larger audience.
In a positive way, social media has helped to create greater awareness of racism here. This has made us, especially the majority, look closely in the mirror and reflect deeper about who we are, and who we want to be.
And we clearly cannot leave things as they are. We are better than this. Whether online or offline, we must hold ourselves to higher standards, and tackle racism wherever it exists in our society.
The question is: what do we do now?
How we got here: Building a Singaporean Singapore
To answer this question, we must first understand our past and how we got here.
Race is never an easy issue for any society in the world, especially highly diverse ones like ours. It is highly emotive because the question of race is wrapped up with our identities, our cultures, our ways of life. The natural instincts of humans are to look out for people who are most like us, and to keep a distance from others.
It is not impossible to overcome such discomfort, as we and other multiracial societies have shown. But we would be fooling ourselves if we believed that racial and religious harmony were the natural order of things. It does not fall ready-made from the sky. There is nothing pre-ordained about a multiracial society.
For Singapore, the question of race has been a fundamental issue from the beginning. To put it simply: If race did not pose an existential challenge, Singapore would never have separated from Malaysia, and we would never have become an independent, sovereign state.
Our 23 months in the federation showed the tendency of each race to emphasise its identity, its rights, and its primacy - often at the expense of other races. Against the grain, our founding leaders set out to build a "Singaporean Singapore".
As Mr Lee Kuan Yew declared on Aug 9, 1965: "We are going to have a multiracial nation in Singapore. We will set the example. This is not a Malay nation; this is not a Chinese nation; this is not an Indian nation. Everybody will have his place, equal…"
But our founding leaders also knew that creating a Singaporean Singapore was not simply a matter of mouthing slogans. They knew we needed deliberate policies, carefully thought out safeguards, and resolute efforts to ensure:
• (1) That minorities would be protected
• (2) That the majority would not abuse its dominance
• (3) That bigots and chauvinists from whatever race would be constrained and curbed
So the founding generation willed such a nation into existence, taking difficult and sometimes drastic steps to achieve this fundamental national ideal:
• a. They consistently refused to confine their political base only to the majority race, to the exclusion of all others
• b. They took firm action, including invoking the Internal Security Act, against chauvinists of all varieties - including Chinese chauvinists
• c. They made English - a neutral language common to all - our working language, the language of government and the main medium of instruction in our schools
• d. They changed electoral rules to guarantee that minorities would always be represented in Parliament, and that no party could prevail by narrowly appealing to any specific race and religion
• e. They amended the Constitution to create a Presidential Council on Minority Rights, chaired by the Chief Justice, with the power to reject any law passed by Parliament that infringed on the rights of minorities
Because of what they achieved, we are in a much better position today. The racial riots of the 1960s are confined to history textbooks, and Singaporeans of my generation and our children have experienced decades of peace and harmony.
We are not perfect and there's still much work to be done. But Singapore is one of the few places in the world where people of different races and faiths have lived peacefully and closely together for more than half a century.
I know not all agree with the policies we have put in place. For example, some believe the GRC system is not necessary, as Singaporeans can be trusted to vote for the best candidates, of whatever race, without the aid of the GRCs.
But look at the United States, another polyglot society. There the courts have intervened to ensure electoral districts with built-in majorities of African-Americans and Hispanics, so as to have diverse representation in their legislatures.
In Singapore, because we want racially integrated rather than segregated housing, we no longer have constituencies with built-in majorities of Indians and Malays. Instead we have the GRC system to ensure at least a minimum number of minority legislators in Parliament.
So whether it is America or Singapore, both have systems to guarantee the representation of minorities in legislatures. Both recognise you cannot have E pluribus unum - Out of Many, One - by simply assuming the many don't exist.
I respect the views of Singaporeans who believe we are ready to move beyond race, and so think we no longer need the GRC system. Believe me, nobody would be more pleased than the PAP leadership - past and present, from Lee Kuan Yew and S. Rajaratnam onwards - if one day we no longer needed the GRC system to ensure sufficient minority representation.
But we are not yet totally immune to the siren calls of exclusive racial and cultural identities. Neither have we reached a "post-racial" state. Surely recent events have, if anything, confirmed our caution.
Our distinctive model of multiracialism
This leads me to another important point: we did not set out to achieve racial harmony by creating a monolithic society. Our multiracialism does not require any community to give up its heritage or traditions.
Ours is not the French way, insisting on assimilation into one master language and culture: speak French, accept French ways and assimilate into French society. Instead we decided to preserve, protect and celebrate our diversity.
Hence, we encourage each community to take pride in its own cultures and traditions. At the same time, we seek common ground among our communities, and aim to expand our common space and strengthen our shared sense of belonging and identity.
Our bilingual policy is a key plank in this approach. We believe that by affording our children access to the rich traditions that our vernacular languages carry, they would know who they are and won't become pale imitations of Europeans or Americans.
So we expend considerable efforts to preserve the Chinese, Malay and Tamil languages: insisting school children study their mother tongues, pouring resources in to keep up standards in the vernacular languages, and helping to sustain the vernacular media.
To this day, Parliament provides simultaneous translations in all four of our official languages, though all MPs can understand and speak English well. It is an important practice which we continue to uphold - not least to let the world and our own citizens know that we are not to be confused with the West and Westerners, though English is our language of business and we are connected to the world.
Some criticise our policies to preserve and develop our component cultures. They feel such policies make us more race-conscious, and detract from multiracialism. Special Assistance Plan or SAP schools are sometimes cited to make this point.
I understand the concerns about SAP schools. We do want our young to grow up interacting with people in other communities and making friends among all races. So we will continue to see how we can strengthen multi-racialism across all our schools.
But I will ask those who criticise SAP schools to consider: would our society be better off if standards of our spoken and written vernacular languages were to fall, and Singaporean Chinese, Malay and Indian cultures were to wither and dissipate?
For that is the primary reason for the SAP schools. They were pure Chinese-medium schools before. We retained some of them in this new form so we can still have a sufficient number of bilingual and bicultural students, equally strong in English as well as Chinese.
Similarly, we have programmes in a few schools to enable our students to deepen their proficiency in Malay and Tamil, and to nurture their bicultural interests.
We also have madrasahs, strong vernacular media, as well as a huge variety of Chinese, Malay and Indian cultural organisations - from the Chinese Orchestra to the Malay Heritage Centre to the Indian Fine Arts Society.
Should all this be done away with on the grounds that they perpetuate racial consciousness and are not inclusive of other races, other languages, other cultures, other traditions? Obviously not, for that is not what we mean when we pledge ourselves to become "one people, regardless of race, language or religion".
The Singaporean is not only the English-educated cosmopolitan, up-to-date with the latest trends in London, Paris or New York. The Singaporean is also our fellow citizens who are more comfortable in Mandarin, Malay, Tamil, or other languages, and who have different cultural perspectives and views.
I might quote here what Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said in 2017, at the opening of the Singapore Chinese Cultural Centre. It encapsulates well how our model of multi-racialism is not to be confused with French universalism or the American "melting pot". "We are… a multiracial, multi-religious, and multi-cultural society," the Prime Minister said. "This diversity is a fundamental aspect of our respective identities. Our aim is integration, not assimilation. No race or culture in Singapore is coerced into conforming with other cultures or identities, let alone that of the majority.
"Ours is not a melting pot society… Instead, we encourage each race to preserve its unique culture and traditions, while fostering mutual appreciation and respect among all of them. Being Singaporean has never been a matter of subtraction, but of addition; not of becoming less, but more; not of limitation and contraction, but of openness and expansion."
This is our distinctive philosophy of multiracialism. We do not devalue diversity, but accept and celebrate it. Multiracialism in Singapore doesn't mean forgetting our separate racial, linguistic, religious and cultural identities. It doesn't require us to erase our rich inheritances in favour of a bland and homogenised broth.
Instead, it enjoins us to embrace our inheritances, respect those of others, and go beyond them to encompass a national identity and shared purpose.
I am reminded here of something that I had read by the late Kuo Pao Kun when I was at MCCY. He likened culture to trees - they are separate at the trunk but touch at the tips of their branches where cross pollination occurs, and at the tips of their roots where they draw sustenance from the same soil.
As Pao Kun observed, it's important to move higher and deeper to realise the beauty of pluralism. This is what we are constantly striving to do. Go deeper to strengthen our cultural roots; and at the same time, reach higher to cross-pollinate with other cultures, and thus develop a stronger shared Singaporean identity.
Is this easy to do? No. But is it worth trying to achieve this? Yes, absolutely.
Our distinctive philosophy of multiracialism underpins our rules, laws and practices which we have developed, pragmatically, to meet our own circumstances and realities.
Sometimes, we say we must take into account race, for we cannot pretend that racial identities don't exist. So in national politics, we have been deliberate in making sure people of all races are represented; in housing, we have consciously ensured a balanced mix of ethnic groups and avoided racial enclaves.
And on other occasions, we say let's go beyond race, let's be race blind. So in employment, in our education system, we have striven to give everyone, regardless of race or religion, equal opportunities.
Moving forward with mutual trust and accommodation
One key reason why our system has worked is because of the mutual understanding and trust forged between our communities. We did not get to where we are today through confrontation or compulsion. Nor did every community assert its own entitlements, and press its claims against others.
Instead, through mutual accommodation and compromise, we have found a balance that all can accept. No community has gotten everything it wanted. But collectively we have achieved more together than what we would otherwise have attained by just focusing on our individual agendas.
Everyone is generally comfortable, and we are all able to live harmoniously together.
This is a delicate balance, but it is not a fixed position. The situation is dynamic.
Society's attitudes and conditions continue to evolve and change over time. There is now a greater mixing and interaction between races - in schools, at the workplace, in society.
Younger Singaporeans have grown up less conscious of racial differences, and more accepting of other races as compared to their parents and grandparents. More than one in five marriages in Singapore are inter-racial.
Indeed because of where we are today, there are Singaporeans who feel it is time to take a different approach on race relations - that the Government should now work on the basis that we are a race-blind society, and remove all rules and practices that underline race in various ways.
I appreciate these desires. Indeed, I share these aspirations. Perhaps I am young enough to feel the idealistic instincts of the millennials, and old enough to understand the caution born of experience of my parents' generation.
But we can all agree that our multiracialism is not perfect, and we have to keep working at it deliberately, to reduce our imperfections, step by step.
Let me offer some suggestions on how we can do so.
First, we must recognise that in any multiracial society, it is harder to be a minority than a majority. This is so everywhere in the world. So, it is important for the majority community in Singapore to do its part, and be sensitive to and conscious of the needs of minorities.
This cuts across all aspects of daily life:
• (1) It matters to someone who faces discrimination when looking for a job
• (2) It matters when someone feels left out when everyone else in a group speaks in a language that not all can understand
• (3) It matters to potential tenants who learn that landlords do not prefer their race
• (4) It matters to our students, neighbours, co-workers and friends who have to deal with stereotypes about their race, or insensitive comments
These things do happen, not always, and perhaps not even often, but sometimes. And when they do happen, they cause real hurt, which is not erased by lightly dismissing them as casual remarks or jokes.
I believe the majority community in Singapore understands this.
So I ask that we do more and take the extra step to make our minority friends, neighbours, co-workers feel comfortable. Treat others in the way you would like to be treated; and by your actions, teach your children to do the same. Remind those among your family members or friends who may slip up from time to time.
At the same time, I am grateful that minorities have reciprocated by recognising that the majority community has legitimate needs and concerns too.
In this regard, it is important to realise that the Chinese community in Singapore is not monolithic.
Sometimes people talk about "Chinese privilege" in Singapore. There may well be biases or blind spots that the Chinese community should become aware of and to rectify.
But please understand that we still have a whole generation of Chinese Singaporeans who are more comfortable in Chinese than English, and who consider themselves at a disadvantage in an English-speaking world. They feel that they have already given up much to bring about a multiracial society: Chinese-language schools, Nanyang University, dialects, and so on.
"What do you mean by 'Chinese privilege'?" they will ask, for they do not feel privileged at all. Naturally many of them would object to being so characterised.
This brings me to my second point, which is that we must continue with our approach of mutual accommodation, trust and compromise.
Let me be clear: I am not saying that we should refrain from voicing our unhappiness, or that minority Singaporeans should pipe down about the prejudices they experience. On the contrary, we should be upfront and honest about the racialised experiences various groups feel, and deal squarely with them.
We must continue to speak up, and even be prepared to have uncomfortable discussions - not to start arguments, but to begin civilised discussions, listen to each other, and understand all points of view. But we should not insist on maximum entitlements and rights for our respective groups; construe every compromise as an injustice that needs to be condemned; or put the worst interpretation on every perceived slight or insensitivity.
Because when one group jostles aggressively to assert its identity and rights over others, it will not take long before other groups feel put upon, and start to jostle back.
We already see this playing out in so many places around the world: when one side uses identity politics to push their cause, it invariably emboldens another to up the ante and make greater demands. We end up fuelling our worst tendencies - our tribalism, hostility and vengefulness.
If we go down this path, insisting on differences over commonality, minority groups will not win, and the outcome will be most unhappy for the majority community too.
So I hope all groups calling for change will be conscious about how they approach the matter. It is natural to want to be heard, to want to see the changes we think ought to happen. But let's do so in ways that:
• (1) Expand the space for agreement, not narrow it
• (2) Deepen cross-cultural understanding, not cause defensiveness and suspicion
• (3) Appeal to the better angels in all of us, not instigate a "them vs us" dynamic.
Finally, the government will continue to engage widely, and to update our policies on race, as well as other policies that help to strengthen racial harmony in Singapore.
Our policies are not cast in stone.
For any policy - be it GRC, EIP, Self-Help Groups, or SAP schools, we continually ask ourselves: what is it that we are trying to achieve? Is the policy still relevant today? If so, can it be further fine-tuned or improved?
One current example is our review of Muslim nurses wearing the tudung with their uniform. This process entails detailed study and extensive dialogue between the government and our various communities. It cannot be rushed, nor should things be changed simply based on who shouts the loudest.
Ultimately, any change must expand our common space, and strengthen our racial harmony, while allowing each community as much room as possible to go about its way of life.
Take, for example, the ethnic balance in Singapore. Some say we should go beyond CMIO. But how would Singaporeans feel if the proportions of C, M, I and O were to shift dramatically? In fact, we have taken great care to ensure this balance remains stable for our citizen population - precisely because we understand how unsettling major changes can be to all groups, majority or minority.
You can see in the latest census report how we have maintained this balance over the decades. At the same time, we have worked hard at integrating new citizens, to ensure they too embrace our values and way of life.
Because while many new citizens are ethnically similar to us, they come from different cultural backgrounds, have not grown up or spent many years in our multiracial society, and will take time to fully appreciate or understand our multiracial approach.
Around this Singaporean core, we have gathered a transient population. They live and work here for a time, but will eventually return to their home countries.
These work pass holders are crucial to our economy. They enable us to stay competitive, attract investments, and create good jobs for Singaporeans.
We control the inflow of these migrant workers. However, it is not possible for us to ensure that their ethnic mix matches our resident population, nor that they meld seamlessly into our social fabric. So from time to time, this creates frictions and issues within and among our communities.
We understand these concerns. So we continue to review and update our work pass policies too, to ensure that they meet our economic needs, help Singapore to grow and prosper, and yet fit into our social context.
Such are the realities of living in a diverse society, in a dynamic, globalised world. We have to make constant adjustments; repeatedly check to make sure we get the balance right.
To conclude, this Government will never waver in our commitment to promote harmony among all races, and ensure that all Singaporeans enjoy full and equal opportunities in life.
Like our forefathers of all races who made this their home in 1965, we too are convinced that we must continue to strengthen our "Singaporean Singapore", and build an ever more perfect multiracial society, even when some of our compatriots fall short, or neglect to play their part in this vital national project.
Let's see them as fellow citizens to be brought along, not adversaries to be shouted down or cancelled out.
Let us each be our brother's keeper, our sister's keeper.
And let us move forward with a spirit of mutual respect and fellowship: educating each other about what matters to us, helping each other understand our different cultures, and finding the common stake we all have in one another.
We must have the humility to acknowledge that our multiracialism is still a work in progress. The honesty to recognise that not everyone will want to move at the same pace.
And yet persevere to protect our multiracialism - cherish it, nurture it, strengthen it. Then step by step, we can approach ever more closely to our ideal: "one united people, regardless of race, language or religion".
REACH-Zaobao Dialogue on Multiculturalism -24 July 2021
Singapore enjoys racial harmony because majority know what's at stake: Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam
Most Chinese have helped foster a society at peace despite its diversity: Shanmugam
By Tham Yuen-C, Senior Political Correspondent, The Straits Times, 25 Jul 2021
Singaporeans have managed to enjoy living in a peaceful and stable multiracial society because most people here understand the fundamental ideals on which the country was built, said Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam yesterday.
The vast majority of Chinese in Singapore know what is required to uphold this ethnic harmony, and what is at stake, and have helped foster a society at peace with itself despite its diversity, he added at a public forum on race relations, organised by feedback unit Reach and Lianhe Zaobao.
"We are in a very good situation in Singapore… Overwhelmingly, Singapore is a peaceful place, with good racial harmony, good religious harmony," the minister said.
"The large majority of Chinese Singaporeans, the large majority of Singaporeans, understand the ideals, understand what has made us work, and really, they know what's at stake."
Elaborating, he said that if the three major racial groups in Singapore were to collide like balls crashing into one another, the Chinese would prevail by virtue of its size.
But this would cause unease among the minorities, and the pushback that could arise would leave everyone worse off.
"Just because there have been recent discussions, a lot of them led by people from the minority communities, doesn't mean we have to go down this road, doesn't mean we have to push along lines of race," said Mr Shanmugam.
"We have reached where we are today because there's been a lot of give and take, and the Government has held the ring as an honest broker, referee, and tried to pull all the races up together and move everyone up. Let's keep to the path."
His remarks come as recent incidents of racism have sparked soul searching about the state of race relations in Singapore.
Also on the panel were Senior Minister of State for National Development and Foreign Affairs Sim Ann, Singapore Federation of Chinese Clan Associations president Tan Aik Hock, lawyer Hee Theng Fong, actor Tay Ping Hui, and moderator Ho Sheo Be, political editor of Singapore Press Holdings' Chinese Media Group's NewsHub.
Mr Shanmugam noted that the Chinese, as the majority race, and institutions like Lianhe Zaobao, have a role to play in holding society together. Zaobao has persuaded the Chinese ground to align to the values of multiracialism, even as it promoted Chinese culture and language.
"Singapore is based on a very powerful ideology which runs contrary to the rules of race and nature. Zaobao has helped in nation building by accepting that and putting that forward. It would have been far easier to have played a role as an advocate for Chinese chauvinism. It didn't do that," he added.
This is in contrast to the majoritarian sentiment expressed by some, he said.
At the dialogue, one participant asked why the majority race in Singapore should not be given the right to decide on the direction to take on issues like education and language use, like in other countries. Another had lamented that minority groups were given more and more concessions, but the Chinese were still accused of always having its way.
Noting these are not mainstream views, the minister added that they were dangerous and could lead Singapore down a slippery slope.
It was the rejection of majoritarianism that led Singapore to separate from Malaysia in 1965. Right from the start, Singapore's founding leaders had worked to stamp out any kind of chauvinism, whether Chinese, Malay or Indian, to pursue the equality in Singapore that very few societies have tried to achieve, he added.
"I will tell the majority that if we move away from that, the minorities suffer, but the country will suffer, and the Chinese will suffer too. So, let's have a care," he said.
During the dialogue, the minister was also asked about a WhatsApp message, purportedly written by a former Malaysian living in Singapore, who said Singaporean Chinese were naive for allowing Indians to "dominate almost all Singapore's national institutions", such as the judiciary and the Cabinet.
Describing the message as "nasty, dangerous", Mr Shanmugam said it was worse than the racist sentiments uttered by a former polytechnic lecturer who had berated an interracial couple, saying an Indian man should not be "preying" on Chinese women.
"That was crude and unacceptable, but this is poison, and it's dripping poison," said the minister.
He noted that if Singapore moves away from its current principles towards majoritarianism, statements like those in the WhatsApp message will start to gain traction.
He noted that politically, it was easier to appeal to the Chinese ground to win votes, but hoped Singapore would never go down this route. "Singapore will be destroyed, demolished, and the Chinese will suffer as well in the long run, because the racial fault lines will be deeper, you will have a permanent underclass based on race, and that means that the country as a whole will not prosper," he said.
Mr Shanmugam also said that antagonism and extremism has crept into discussions on race here, and warned against this tit-for-tat approach.
One participant at the dialogue, for instance, had suggested that if Special Assistance Plan schools, accused of lacking a multiracial mix, are to be closed, then madrasahs should similarly not be allowed.
Saying he was sad the questions had taken such a tone, Mr Shanmugam added: "Have a care in making these points, because it may come across as pushing very hard. And when the Chinese community pushes hard, it's a scary thing for the minorities."
Another topic that emerged was the issue of "Chinese privilege", or the applying of the idea of "white privilege" to Singapore. The latter refers to differences in institutional treatment of whites and African-Americans in the United States that continue to persist.
The minister noted: "If you tell a significant number of Chinese Singaporeans that they enjoy Chinese privilege, they will be perplexed and they will be upset. Because for them, they gave up their university; they gave up Chinese schools; they gave up what is common in every other society when one race is 75 per cent - that (their) language dominates."
Noting that in every society, being part of the majority brings certain advantages, he added: "But that is not, in my view, the same as privilege. Privilege and structural racism are different from the natural advantages that come from being part of the majority, and some of the disadvantages that come from being part of a minority."
Singapore has worked because the Chinese community had been very mindful when discussing such issues all along, he said, adding that has helped the country safeguard its racial harmony.
Related
Regardless Of Race: Will We Ever Get There? - 2021
Ethnic Integration Policy remains critical in Singapore, says National Development Minister Desmond Lee
CECA and FTAs: Ministerial statement and debate in Parliament, 6 July 2021
No comments:
Post a Comment