Singapore's Multiculturalism

Evolving Diversity

Chan Heng Chee, Sharon Siddique

• Editore: Routledge
• Anno: 2019
• ISBN:
  9780429832192
• Edizione: 1
• Argomento: Social Sciences
• Categoria: Asian American Studies

Since independence in 1965, Singapore has developed its own unique approach to managing the diversity of Race, Religion, Culture, Language, Nationality, and Age among its citizens. This approach is a consequence of many factors, including its very distinct ethnic makeup compared with its neighbours, its ambitions as a globally oriented city-state, and its small physical size. Each of these factors and many others have presented Singapore society with a range of challenges and opportunities, and will in all likelihood continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

In the writing of this book, the author team set themselves the task of projecting the impact of current domestic and international social trends into the future, to anticipate what Singapore society might look like by around 2040. In doing so, they analyse the particular path that Singapore has taken since independence, in comparison with other multicultural societies and with regard to the balance between the necessity of forging a new national identity after British rule and departure from Malaysia, and the need to ensure that Singapore's ethnic minority populations remain socially enfranchised. They further consider how current trends may develop over the next couple of decades, what new challenges this may present to Singapore society, and what might be the likely responses to such challenges. In this book, Singapore is a case study of a global city facing the challenges of developed-world modernity in frequently acute ways.

1 The evolution of multicultural policy

Multiculturalism

The focus of this book is the evolution of Singapore’s multiculturalism. The Singapore social narrative begins in the colonial era, and is representative of what Dutch scholar JS Furnivall terms a “plural society”. Many post-colonial societies are still struggling to transition from colonial plural societies into stable, independent nation-states. Singapore has transitioned to a developed country, completing the journey from third world to first. Multiculturalism is firmly fixed as a focal point of nation-building – an integral part of the national narrative on managing the (inherited) plural society. As multicultural societies go, Singapore is generally regarded as a success and may also hold lessons for Western developed nation-states that are increasingly aware of the weaknesses of their own multicultural models.

Cultural diversity in population is a dominant feature of the vast majority of countries today. Describing the character of cultural diversity is intrinsically difficult, and this is made more so by the constantly evolving nature of migration processes. In recent decades, the term “multiculturalism” has come to describe this heterogeneity. We used to think diversity was a feature primarily of post-colonial societies, where colonial powers left behind what Furnivall labelled “plural societies”. These were mixtures of people originating from many countries, brought together through immigration by design to assist in the building of the colonial territory, or where borders were arbitrarily drawn in imperial expansion that resulted in a heterogeneous mix of peoples.¹ A declared new state could include people belonging to a neighbouring country forced together by the fiat of a pen. In Furnivall’s colonial plural societies, the populations met in the market place. They mixed but did not combine. And there was no intention to build a nation out of them.

In British colonial territories, multiculturalism had been discussed as a base strategy for dealing with the plural societies. Multiculturalism was not fully explored and implemented until the post-colonial era with the advent of independence when these territories had to govern themselves. In the 1950s and 1960s in the aftermath of World War II, many former colonies in Africa and Asia inherited a plural society social structure which was folded into the nation-building exercise. This was true also for British Malaya, including Singapore. Singapore’s plural society model has evolved into “CMIO – Chinese, Malay, Indian, Others” multiracialism. Multiracialism and multiculturalism are often used interchangeably in Singapore. In the same vein, the terms “race” and “ethnicity” are almost always used as if the terms referred to the same thing in Singapore’s context although it is noted that the definitions in literature and usage in other contexts are more nuanced.

Diversity and heterogeneity in society can also result from immigration resulting from push and pull factors between sending and receiving countries. This describes Singapore in the last few decades. The US, Canada, and Australia, with relatively open policies of immigration in their histories, illustrate these societies. Today, whatever the origins of the population of countries, there are very few homogeneous societies. Japan, Korea, and China are the exceptions that come to mind in Asia, but even in China there abide many ethnicities and diversity because imperial China was built out of the conquest of neighbouring states and other peoples, incorporating them into the empire. A multicultural society, with a mixture of ethnic groups, adhering to a variety of religions, speaking many languages and rich in many cultures, more correctly describes what is found in most countries now.

When the term multiculturalism was first popularised in the 1970s and 1980s, it was considered a positive trait: something that Europeans, Americans, Canadians, and Australians aspired to. Up until the 1950s, migration to Europe and the US was generally White, and it was assumed that the integration of migrants would proceed, with each group retaining its own unique cultures, which were largely based on the Anglo-Saxon population catchment area. It was assumed that these migrant communities would come together, merging with the dominant White population and its shared values. America was idealised as a largely white melting pot. It was assumed by many White Americans that the civil rights movement of the 1960s had largely addressed the legal, socio-economic, and cultural issues associated with discrimination against America’s Black citizens.

According to Amartya Sen, the concept of multiculturalism started off on a positive note. In 1971, Canada became the first country to adopt multiculturalism as an official policy. Canada embraced the concept by emphasising the potential for creativity in an egalitarian cross-cultural environment where various cultures mixed, mingled, and where individuals could enjoy the freedom to create their own unique multi-layered identities. The 1970s and 1980s saw the enthusiastic spread of multiculturalism to the UK, Europe, and the US. By the late 1990s, American sociologist, Nathan Glazer could claim, in his book by the same name, “We are all Multiculturalists Now”.²

The lid has been lifted in the 2000s, and the recent controversies of the treatment of Black American males by the largely white law enforcement agencies have grabbed headlines and spun the reality of continuing discrimination back to the 1960s. Australia pursued a White Australia policy. Multiculturalism was viewed as a process whereby migrant communities could integrate, becoming assimilated into the nation-state. But as non-White migrants became more numerous, this smooth process of integration and assimilation was challenged. The assumption that multiculturalism was a largely harmonious, unstoppable feature of globalisation was crumbling.

Obviously, enthusiasm for multiculturalism has waned, and to paraphrase the title of Sen’s article, “The Uses and Abuses of Multiculturalism”, the positive “use” of multiculturalism has indeed turned to “abuse”.³ What began as a promotion of cultural freedom and the power of the individual to explore and construct his/her multi-layered identity, had become by the 2000s a divisive, often acrimonious retreat into a negative representation of multiculturalism. What happened? Sen is less interested in defending the positive aspects of multiculturalism, which he champions, than in understanding why the concept of multiculturalism has had such a precipitous fall from grace. Why has multiculturalism earned a bad name?

In addressing this ‘why’, Sen introduces a new term – “plural monoculturalism”. He makes a case for a distinction between multiculturalism and plural monoculturalism. Plural monoculturalism is characterised as “Two styles or traditions co-existing side by side without the twain meeting”.⁴ This leads to what Sen calls “cultural conservatism”, in contrast to “cultural freedom” characterised by the porous boundaries of a true multicultural environment. Sen illustrates this by the example of a woman from a conservative immigrant family who wants to go out with an English boy. According to Sen, “…her choice can hardly be faulted on grounds of multicultural freedom”. But if her parents object and forbid the relationship, this is hardly a multicultural encounter because the intention is to prevent multiculturalism. This is rather an example of separation of “plural monoculturalism”. Sen rounds his argument by returning to the impact on the individual. For Sen, the imposition of plural monoculturalism robs the individual of freedom to experience elements of multiculturalism.⁵

His major criticism is that plural monoculturalism creates boxes which are imposed on individuals in society. It mediates and imposes definitions to which members of a society must conform. Sen resists this as curtailment of individual freedom. Ultimately, this limits choice and also discourages combining elements of a multicultural experience. “Cultural freedom can frequently clash with cultural conservatism”.⁶ Sen’s definition of plural monoculturalism bears a certain similarity to Furnivall’s plural society. He argues that an excessive focus on the composite of “monocultures” has left many countries unable to bind the “monocultures” together.

Nation-building and multiculturalism

As a national narrative, multiculturalism first surfaced in the 1960s. Kwen Fee Lian notes that multiculturalism appeared “…as a political and intellectual issue in Britain, Canada and Australia …when these countries accepted significant numbers of migrants of non-Anglo-Saxon origin”.⁷ This signalled a variety of national narratives framing the melting pot model of settler societies to the multicultural model of migrant society. The preoccupation shifted towards the production and elaboration of national narratives – stories about nation-formation. National narratives are created as expressions of national culture. The national narrative shifts as the national culture evolves. Multiculturalism is thus a national narrative of how society is organised.

Each country exhibits a unique historical trajectory with regard to the management of its own multicultural model. Four will be highlighted as illustrations. Alternative narratives are often generated by reinterpreting the dominant culture’s version of history. The genesis of national narratives in the past few decades is part of the process of post-independence nation-building. In former colonies, this often takes on the adjustment to a construction of a new nationalism framed in the post-colonial. The UK draws on a post-colonial dominant narrative that privileges migrants from former colonies although this has been blurred in recent decades by migrants from the European Union (EU) and refugees from the Middle East. Australia has shifted from a White Australia dominant narrative to a more multicultural narrative although there has been some pushback in recent years. The colour blind, dominant assimilationist narrative in France does not, in reality, live up to its ideal. Finally, in the US there still exists a dominant narrative of assimilation, with minorities – particularly non-Whites – creating their own alternative national narratives. As the world globalises, social orders become simultaneously more porous and rigid. In sum, the dominant culture is an ‘invisible hand’ which produces and tries to perpetuate the dominant narrative. The role of government can be pervasive, or relatively weak. The dominant narrative can be challenged, and this process is usually based on alternative cultural interpretations which challenge the ‘invisible hand’ of the dominant culture.

Thus, there are two models of multiculturalism. One is based on integration, whereas the second is an adaptation of a plural society model. The former tends to emphasise the addition of external migrants, highlighting the processes of integration and assimilation, whereas the second describes a society which is constructed and maintained by reference to a segmentation of society into race and/or religious categories. Sen views multiculturalism as a positive development, whereas he views plural monoculturalism as largely negative. This is of concern to our analysis of Singapore’s multiracial model, to which the label “plural monocultural” can arguably apply. Our analysis tends to demonstrate that Sen’s dichotomy between plural monoculturalism and multiculturalism, while valid, is oversimplistic when applied to the changing and complex realities on the ground.

There are divergent and distinct approaches for dealing with the population diversity adopted by sovereign states with varying degrees of success. The word ‘multiculturalism’ has different interpretations in different countries and represents a range of constructed strategies where they are implemented. France, the UK, and Australia primarily see themselves as established countries with a majority population with immigrant minorities who arrived in recent history. In dealing with these new immigrants, the UK and Australia practice a ‘multicultural’ model though France asserts an assimilationist model. The policies, each unique to its geopolitical situation, national context, and history, were perceived to be or believed to be essentially facilitating integration of the minorities into the national identity, either implicitly or explicitly, but leaving room for ethnic minorities to live their own lives, maintain their culture, and practise their religion. But, a closer examination of the policies shows that many countries practise a combination of both multicultural integration and assimilation, adjusting their approach when using one on its own did not seem to work well. A country may begin with spelling out a multicultural approach, but will adapt and adjust as the inflows of immigrant population present new challenges. This could be followed by an emphasis on integration, social cohesion, and some aspects of assimilationist strategy. Conversely, one could begin with an assimilation model as France proudly did, but find it inadequate to deal with the situation of increasing arrivals. We have seen states alternating from one policy to the other and tinkering at the edges. The challenges posed by large-scale emigration in the 1990s and in the last decade because of the conflicts in Europe and the Middle East have created a more acute situation.

This trend has accelerated in the last decade for several reasons: the destabilising impact of the failed states of the Middle East and South Asia; the international migration of large numbers of Chinese and Indians out of China and India, respectively; and the increase in the number of countries joining the EU. All these factors have meant that migration has emerged as one of the critical issues of the decade. The reaction of the West and the lack of any viable composite solution has directed the flow of public opinion to backtrack from the positive light in which multiculturalism was once held. The sheer number of migrants begs the need to deal with two additional issues. First is the recent spate of terrorist attacks in European and American heartland cities such as Paris, London, and New York, and second is the reminder of the connection between migration and the expansion of migrant ghettos, which feed off each other, and potentially produce hotbeds for radicalisation.

We will begin our study of multiracialism and managing diversity in Singapore by examining four cases, that of the UK, France, Australia, and the US because a brief comparative study provides a larger canvas and introduces new perspectives to assess Si...