Epocalymus

Well, I’ve written a short academic essay regarding Singapore’s practice of multiculturalism earlier this year. So here’s the original piece:

As the world globalises, with large-scale immigration into Australia, Singapore, and many parts of the world, many societies have become increasingly multiethnic (Heckmann, 1993; Vasu 2008:24). Hence, it is evident that in multiethnic societies, such as Singapore, diversity and the need for multiculturalism is an inescapable fact of life (Ten 2004:1). Multiculturalism is a political ideology and a set of policies used to sustain cultural diversity of ethnic groups, who in turn accord to each other mutual respect, obligation, and benefits (Khun 1998:105; Ten 2004:1). Due to the fact that different multicultural societies have different approaches to their multicultural conditions (Vasu 2008:20), this essay will examine whether multiculturalism in Singapore has served to provide equal treatment towards the Malays in Singapore. Nonetheless, the criticisms multiculturalism faces as a concept will first be addressed in this essay.

The concept of multiculturalism has been challenged by liberal egalitarians that set out to defend the values of a liberal society. One prominent critic of multiculturalism was Brian Barry, whose Universalist view of human rights is against coercive assimilation of minority cultural groups into the majority group. In short, Barry does not support the idea of multiculturalism (In Rex 2004:37; Ten 2004:29). Barry argues that liberalism does not seek to promote diversity of cultures when such diversity violates the canons of equal respect, in which members of the minority groups are vulnerable to unfair treatments and decisions of the majority group (In Baumeister 2003:115-116; Kelly 2003:96; Kukathas 2002:185-188). Furthermore, Barry noted that people should be free to associate however they wish without causing harm to anyone and that the state has no business in stopping these individuals. Yet, if the cost of an individual leaving the group is too high, it would be justified that the state ensures that the group either enables the individual to leave on a more favourable term or to accommodate the individual (In Kukathas 2002:188; Ten 2004:29-30). Barry believes that cultural groups do not deserve special entitlements from the state to accommodate their beliefs or practices in the name of justice (In Ten 2004:33). This is because different cultural communities have different views of what justice is; thus, such entitlements create difficulty in implementing a centralised juridical state where liberalism entails (Kelly 2003:96). In addition, Barry noted that individuality rather than diversity is highly valued in liberalism, and that diversity should not be treated as intrinsically valuable and should thus be ignored (In Kukathas 2002:186). Barry’s criticisms of multiculturalism sparked rebuttals from multiculturalists who see the importance of cultural diversity.

Multiculturalists, according to Kukathas (2002:185), believe in Reformation liberalism and appreciate the value of diversity. Kukathas (2002:186) and Ten (2004:20) argue that liberalism values diversity as it increases the range of options available to individuals, hence allowing freedom of association. However, to ignore the value of diversity not only restricts an individual’s freedom of choice, but denies individual’s right to forming judgments about what is good and valuable according to their cultural beliefs, which is not liberalism (Kukathas 2002:186; Ten 2004:14-17). Like many multiculturalists who constantly stress the importance of toleration (Halbertal and Margalit in Okin 1998:670; Moore 2003:159), Parekh (2000:219) noted that tolerating different cultures in a multicultural society does not require each culture to be judged by its own internal standard, but rather involves consistent interaction and communication among these cultures in order to respect and nurture their diversity and unite them around a common way of life. Such ‘common way of life’, according to Barr and Low (2005:162) and Ten (2004:4), is seen rather as a form of cultural assimilation into a dominant hegemonic culture. This resulted from the lack of cultural sensitivity shown by many national elites who advocate cultural relativism or state-sanctioned multiculturalism in order to fulfil their high degree of self-interest in the process of nation building (Barr and Low 2005:164-165; Donnelly 1989:120). Singapore, in this sense, is a very good example.

In creating a ‘one united people’ sharing a common ideology of meritocracy and multiculturalism, the ruling People’s Action Party claimed to guarantee to the minority ethnic groups that they would enjoy full status of fair treatment as members of the nation-building project (National Archives of Singapore, 2003). Subsequently, the Esplanade was built to celebrate the cultural diversity that Singapore possesses, which include the Malay and Western cultures. Moreover, the Singapore Government encourages the citizens to freely participate in various cultures and interact with members of other ethnic groups to appreciate one another’s differences (Esplanade, 2005; National Archives of Singapore, 2000).

However, Barr and Low (2005:166) noted that in this process of nation building, the Singapore Government, which consisted of mainly Chinese, attempted to impose their own sectarian version of Chinese values upon the population. This was done by promoting Chinese values, known nation-wide as “Asian values”, in social and civil-service policies, and disguising the Confucian version of education system with the current education system (Barr and Low 2005:166). Yet, not every individual benefited from such policy. The Straits Times (2002) reported many Malay children are missing out on pre-school education, thus not learning the foundation of literacy. In addition, Muslim kindergartens registered with the Ministry of Education (MOE) are more expensive than kindergartens run by the People’s Action Party Community Foundation (PCF) (Barr and Low 2005:177). With the Malays, in general, earning the least (90.3 per cent earned less than S$1,000 per month) among other races such as the Chinese and Indians, many Malay parents already find it hard to send their children to pre-school education, not to mention Malay children being financially capable of furthering their studies (Chiew 1991:138-182; Lee 2004:30).

The Labour Force Survey 1992-98, revealed that Malays have lower educational levels than Chinese. This difference was often accused of causing persistent ethnic income inequality in Singapore, which resulted from unequal treatment by employers and harsh stereotyping (and discrimination) between the dominant Chinese ethnicity and the minority groups like the Malays (Barr and Low 2005:169-170; Lee 2004:38). Besides, the Malays were stereotyped by the Chinese as being endowed with traits of complacency, indolence, apathy, and lack of motivation, which largely explains their refusal to take advantage of economic opportunities due to their perceived laziness. Yet, without an equal opportunity to employment, it would be difficult for the Malay community to be financially capable of educating themselves (Barr and Low 2005:163).

In a dialogue between the then Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew and union leaders in 2003, Lee noted that Malays in Singapore are having difficulty finding jobs because of their religious and educational background (Yusof, 2003). This is because Malays are easily identified (and discriminated against) for not only as their almost universal adherence to Islam, reducing their intermarriage with other races, but in the world of post-September 11 fears, makes them vulnerable to stereotyping (Barr and Low 2005:162; Ismail and Shaw 2006:45-47; Vasu 2008:29). Rather than conceding the issue of discrimination towards the Malays as a problem, Lee said it was a reality of living in a multicultural society and such inequality serves to ‘motivate’ the Malays to get better education (The Straits Times, 2003). Such political view has detrimental effects upon minority cultural groups in Singapore such as the Malays, who would have to give up their sense of identity and well-being in order to be assimilated into the nation’s mainstream (‘melting pot’) ideology, while those that failed to assimilate would be marginalised (Barr and Low 2005:170; Holmes, Hughes and Julian 2003:184; Ten 2004:4). Holmes et al (2003:185) warned that such essentialist view of ethnicity would depoliticise other minority cultures turning them into superficial characteristics, such as food, music and dance, which enable members of the dominant group to experience ‘difference’ by consuming the cultures of minority groups at ‘multicultural fairs’, cosmopolitan restaurants and ‘ethnic festivities’.

Although multiculturalism is officially sanctioned in Singapore, there is still a marked tendency to think in assimilationist terms. Singapore is liberal in a sense that cultural diversity is very much appreciated, whereby people are free to participate in or associate with different cultures (Joireman, 2004; National Archives of Singapore, 2000; 2007). On the contrary, cultural assimilation is seen as necessary for the population to move forward as ‘one people’ towards economic success in the expense of other minority groups (Barr and Low 2005:173-174). Hence, multiculturalism still has a long way to go in providing equal treatment so long as the issues of different cultural upbringing and religious mentality of some minority groups (especially the Malays) remain unresolved.

Personal opinion:
So is multiculturalism ever a good strategy to be used in Singapore? I think there are two ways to look at it. (#1): Multiculturalism is useful – Either the Singaporean government cover their people like an umbrella and pamper them with much silencing within the local media, while letting the entire population assume that everything is fine (when it is not); moving forward as ‘one people’ is not an important factor to economic success, or (#2) Multiculturalism is hopeless – the population should be educated in the ethics of liberal discussions (which include the fact that religion and culture should be given an opportunity to be debated, questioned, or challenged), or else risk the exposure to brawls and riots by which only then, people would learn.

References can be downloaded here.