Authorities in Singapore have long prided themselves on their stance on race relations. From initiatives such as “Racial Harmony Day” to the Elected Presidency to the Group Representative Constituencies (GRC), the idea that race relations in Singapore are a finely balanced priority of the Government is always ever present. Even legislation such as the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) has been justified in some way to prevent racism.
Despite the slew of efforts, it would appear that racism still exists. The Covid-19 pandemic and the comments that have been levelled at our foreign workers online is just an example of ongoing racism. Prime Minister-in-waiting, Lawrence Wong even talked about this in 2021 calling on the majority Chinese population to exercise more sensitivity, amid a spate of racially-tinged incidents.
This begs the question – have the various measures initiated by the Government really worked?
It is clear that the Government has made some effort to ensure the inclusion of all races in public service positions, and does take punitive measures against those who it views as having flamed race relations. That said, those measures are largely superficial and repressive and as such, do not deal with the root of the problem.
We have, to date, as a nation, failed to have a proper, honest and mature conversation about race.
The Government has also not always acted in a manner that is consistent with its expressed stance.
For example, while the Government has initiated “Racial Harmony Day” (which is of course useful in terms of creating awareness), it has also treated our migrant labourers (most of whom would constitute minority races in Singapore) in ways that many will consider unfair.
Does this not send out a confusing signal to the country? On the one hand, you are saying that we should appreciate other cultures and races, while on the other, you are preventing migrant workers from leaving their lodgings aside for work.
Another example is the Elected Presidency (EP). The Government maintains that this position should be carved out to protect minorities. Yet, the EP is a position that has virtually no political power. It is a ceremonial position for pomp and pageantry, and that’s about it. Reserving a powerless position for minorities could well be seen as tokenism, however unwittingly, thereby sending yet another mixed signal to the country.
And how about the publicly uttered sentiment that Singaporeans are not ready for a non-Chinese Prime Minister? Just in 2019, People’s Action Party (PAP) stalwart, Heng Swee Keat, had stated this in an interview without any empirical evidence to back this up. So, even as the Government is saying that it safeguards the country from racism, its heavyweight publicly says something that most will view as racist without any censure. It boggles the mind!
Personally, I disagree with the belief that Singaporeans are not ready for a non-Chinese PM. Let’s take K Shanmugam as an example. While he is not the Prime Minister, he makes many key decisions and is well known to Singaporeans. As Minister for Law and Home Affairs, he is one of the most politically powerful men in Singapore. While not conclusive, this is indicative that Singaporeans have no issue with a non-Chinese person being in charge. Senior Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam is also extremely popular among Singaporeans.
Does this indicate that those in power may hold outdated ideas on race relations and as such are unable to come up with up-to-date and relevant ideas on how to move these issues forward?
The GRC is yet another curious attempt to protect minorities. Ostensibly, it ensures that every GRC will have a minority but yet, many have criticised this system as one that enables less popular candidates to enter Parliament on the coattails of a more popular politician, which in turn benefits the ruling PAP given that smaller opposition parties have less access to potential candidates and this creates yet another obstacle to contesting. This has led the more cynical among us to query if the GRC system is really there to protect the PAP and not the minorities.
However, unintentional, this sends out mixed messaging and can have the effect of muddying the waters further.
Recently, a video of a student dressed as a terrorist enacting beheading scenes on racial harmony day has generated uproar. While the student has been warned and disciplined, I wonder if this is not an opportunity for open discussion as opposed to sweeping it under the carpet. The student in question did this rather openly, allowing himself to be filmed. This indicates that he saw nothing reprehensible in his behaviour. Isn’t this an indication that platitudes like racial harmony day have not worked?
We shouldn’t simply label this student as a “misbehaving one” and let the issue slide. We should take this opportunity to really try to uncover the gaps between the measures that have been taken and day-to-day life.
This student’s antics are also not isolated. There are many other incidences of ignorance that occur in everyday life. So much so that they have inspired popular TikTok videos.
The Government puts a lid on anything that it considers inflammatory. But perhaps, it is time for the Government to allow its citizens the chance to engage on these issues with candour and courage. The Government may also wish to take this as an opportunity to consider if its policies and actions send out mixed signals, or whether its current raft of measures is outdated.