For
50 years, Singapore's patchwork of races and religions has been held together
by a strict legal framework that not only mandates integration but also harshly
punishes those who try to rend the social fabric.
But
as the nation reaches middle age, the approach that has made it a beacon of
inter-racial harmony in a world driven by ethnic tension is coming under
unprecedented pressure.
The two factors of an unfettered cyberspace and a
growing empowerment and assertiveness among Singaporeans are strong currents
which threaten to upset the status quo.
While Singapore has always had strict laws against
those provoking ill-will and hostility between the races, these laws have
almost never been invoked until the past decade - a testament to the stability
that had been achieved.
The section of the Sedition Act which makes it an
offence "to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different
races or classes of the population" lay dormant since its inception in
1948 until 2005.But in the past 10 years, no fewer than 16 people have been
investigated either under the Sedition Act or the Penal Code for race- and
religion-related offences.
Many of them were young bloggers making thoughtless
remarks but some of them - like then National Trades Union Congress staff
member Amy Cheong - were working professionals who nonetheless failed to think
twice about showing their racism on social media. The spate of incidents has
spurred hand-wringing and soul- searching among Singaporeans.
Some worry that a new generation, for whom violent
racial riots are just a social studies lesson, is taking for granted
Singapore's hard-won social cohesion and sacrificing it to the millenial altar
of thoughtless self-expression. Others believe the currents are exposing the
limits to the government's approach of legislated multiracialism, and revealing
that it was a form without content.Was Singapore's multiracial project all
along just a flimsy house of cards, and can it survive another 50 years?
Singapore was forced to leave Malaysia in 1965 because
its founding leaders would not accept a system in which the races were unequal.
The nation's early years were marred by volatile racial tension, spurring the
creation of a system that required the different races to live, work, serve
national service and even run for elections together. The Housing Board has
quotas on the proportion of homes in a public housing estate that can be owned
by specified races, a move that ensures no minority-race enclaves could form in
these estates. The Group Representation Constituency scheme requires a team of
electoral candidates to have members from the minority races, to guarantee that
these races are represented in Parliament. In the urgent quest to build a
heterogeneous nation, every group was asked to make - and accepted -
sacrifices. For example, the Chinese gave up Mandarin as the lingua franca
(common language), while the Malays accepted that religious dress could not be
worn in certain public-sector jobs.But, conscious of the push- and-pull of
racial and religious identity, the government found concessions for each
group.Special Assistance Plan (SAP) schools where the Chinese language would
still dominate were created, while subsidised land for mosques and fully-funded
tertiary education for Malay/Muslim students were guaranteed.
Thaipusam, together with Panguni Uthiram and Thimithi
(fire-walking festival), became the only religious foot processions allowed
since 1964.All the while, the government took pains to convince Singaporeans of
its philosophy behind these decisions."We focus on our commonalities
rather than accentuate the differences," said deputy prime minister Teo Chee
Hean in 2013.Where the desire of racial and religious groups can be
accommodated without encroaching on what government leaders call "the
common space", they are allowed, or a compromise is found.
For example, Malay/Muslim women can wear the
headscarf, the hijab, in public-sector jobs like teaching, or as National Day
Parade participants. But they cannot wear it with their uniforms as nurses in
public hospitals or as policewomen. And while musical instruments cannot be
played during the Thaipusam procession, there are a few static points along the
route where music can be played.
But in recent years, more people are chafing against
the seemingly arbitrary nature of these rules and hankering for more space to
practise their customs and traditions.Whether leaders from the Chinese
community wanting more SAP schools or Malay/Muslim women desiring to wear the
hijab with all uniforms, growing religiosity and self-expression are pushing
against the perimeters of the government's common space.Last year, three
Singaporean men were arrested at the Thaipusam procession for various offences
after they clashed with policemen who stopped them playing traditional Indian
drums.
Some analysts believe the government's 50 years of
tight policing of the OB (out of bounds) markers of race and religion has left
a new generation unaccustomed to - or unaware of - the balancing act required
in a society with diverse races and religions.The government sees itself as
adjudicator over competing forces and protector of the common space.But its
central position has also bred an ignorance among the groups themselves of the
snowballing effect that could ensue if their demands were granted.
Some believe the recent string of arrests and charges
for promoting racial ill-will has also revealed that sensitivity to other
groups is no more than skin-deep among Singaporeans.But the invoking of harsh
laws against thoughtless, off-hand comments in itself preserves a superficial
state of affairs, some say."(There is) the unintended effect of limiting
frank exchange for fear of provoking a violent reaction or being prosecuted.
People avoid asking difficult questions and having a dialogue for fear of being
branded racist or, worse still, starting a racial riot," said Institute of
Policy Studies researcher Mathew Mathews.
Then there is a third force in the form of the steady
stream of foreigners and immigrants coming to live and work in Singapore,
bringing with them new customs and cultures.One of the 16 individuals
investigated in the past 10 years under laws forbidding the promotion of racial
ill-will was a Filipino nurse, Ello Ed Mundsel Bello, who faced charges over
his anti-Singaporean comments on Facebook.
From 2006 to 2010, a foreign influx boosted the
population by one million, giving rise to a sense of disorientation among
locals and contributing to an electoral setback in the 2011 General Election
for the ruling People's Action Party. The pace of foreign inflow has been
calibrated by the government since 2010, and has dropped from 80,000 a year in
2011 to 20,000 last year. But the foreign contingent in Singapore is still the
largest it has ever been.In 2013, the nation was stunned by a riot in Little
India where mobs of foreign workers set police cars and emergency vehicles
ablaze.
The shocking scene brought to mind, for some older
Singaporeans, the racial riots of 1964 and 1969 in which 40 people died. But
the riot did not cause any deaths and calm was restored within an hour. The
catalyst for it was the death of an Indian worker at the wheel of a bus. But
the authorities said alcohol intoxication played a big role.Observers added
that the different cultural framework of workers from India and Bangladesh -
including a traditionally antagonistic relationship with law enforcement -
contributed to the escalation of the incident.
A wide-ranging law forbidding public drinking after
10:30pm across the island, and also in the day on weekends in Little India and
Geylang, was passed by Parliament in March.The law had its detractors,
especially among younger Singaporeans who saw it as a draconian response that
would dampen the vibrancy of the city's nightlife. Such backlash, tension and
debate are now de rigueur in Singapore's public sphere, and will continue to be
on issues of race, religion and culture.For it is the growing diversity of
views and beliefs among Singaporeans that is the ultimate source of pressure on
the government's current approach.
The once near-unanimous belief in legislated
multiracialism has given way to competing views over whether the government is
doing too much, too little, or not the right things at all. But Singapore
approaches this state of flux from a position of strength.After all, debates
over multiracialism and multi-culturalism are global ones, with many countries
confronting far more urgent and violent situations.
The fundamentals of Singapore's multiracial project -
not just equal treatment for all groups, but an equal responsibility placed on
all groups to compromise, adjust, accept and tolerate - remain strong.This
steadfastness is not an innate one, but must be continually re-examined and
nurtured by each new generation.
As former ambassador to the United States Chan Heng
Chee wrote earlier this year, integration is "not a condition one can take
for granted"."It is not as if a society can cross the bar to become
an integrated society, and then that integration cannot be undone or
frayed," she said. A harmonious multiracial and multi-cultural society
took 50 years to build, but its rending could take far less time. - http://www.thejakartapost.
No comments:
Post a Comment