Announcement:
Chief Editor of TOC, Choo Zheng Xi, will be leaving for New York University on the 27th of July. He’ll be in NYU to pursue his masters degree in law. As such, he’ll be stepping down as Chief Editor and he’ll also be leaving TOC. Andrew Loh will assume the Chief Editor position in the meantime.

Gerald Giam

With growing immigration from a more diverse spread of countries, will Singapore start seeing a dilution of our national identity as a result of immigrants insisting on their own cultural practices, even in the public sphere?

Last week, Straits Times reader Amy Loh wrote to the paper expressing her disquiet about the government’s emphasis on the need to speak Mandarin. This, she said, could be perceived as a clear signal to encourage residents of mainland China origin to choose to continue speaking only Chinese. She cited examples of how almost all new shop signs in Geylang are in Chinese only, fast turning this into a Chinese enclave.

In response, the Straits Times in an editorial slammed Ms Loh as being “xenophobic”, pointing to economically vibrant cities like London and Sydney as evidence that “recruiting foreigners” has brought great benefits to those cities. The paper went on to explain that the Geylang shop signs were in only Chinese for “purely commercial reasons”, as if that were an excuse for their cultural insensitivity.

This exchange raises another more important issue that Singapore, with its growing diversity and immigrant population, needs to start dealing with: The issue of multiculturalism versus a melting pot social make-up of our country.

Multiculturalism can be defined as a demographic make-up of a country where various cultural divisions are accepted for the sake of diversity.

A melting pot, on the other hand, is a society where all of the people blend together to form one basic cultural norm based on the dominant culture.

Countries like Canada and Australia have often taken pride in their practice of multiculturalism. The melting pot is often used to describe the US, where past generations of immigrants supposedly became successful by shedding their historical cultural identities and adopting the ways of their new country.

The Singapore model

The practice in Singapore has been rather mixed.

During the days of colonial rule, the British were happy to segregate immigrant races into different living quarters in the city, ostensibly in order to divide and rule the place more easily.

In the 1960s, then-Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew actively promoted the concept of a “Malaysian Malaysia”, as part of his attempt to ensure that Singapore Chinese were not disadvantaged by a political system that placed Malay rights above those of other races.

In 1989, the HDB introduced the Ethnic Integration Policy, under which the major races each have a representative quota of homes for them in a housing block. Once that limit has been reached, no further sale of HDB flats to that ethnic group will be allowed. The government claims that this is to prevent racial enclaves from forming.

During the tudung affair of 2002, MOE suspended two primary schoolgirls for insisting on attending school with their Muslim headscarves. Hawazi Daipi, the ministry’s parliamentary secretary, said that ”schools represent a precious common space, where all young Singaporeans wear school uniforms, as a daily reminder of the need to stand together as citizens, regardless of race, religion and social status”.

Backsliding towards a segregated society

Despite this apparent commitment to making Singapore a melting pot, there are examples of how the government has been promoting multiculturalism instead.

The Education Ministry continues to insist on its Mother Tongue policy in schools, whereby Chinese, Malay and Tamil Singaporeans are required to learn the language of their own ethnic group as a second language in schools. Thus Chinese Singaporeans have no choice but to learn Chinese, even if say their parents are Peranakan and don’t speak a word of Mandarin. Similarly, Malays do not have an option to learn Chinese to the exclusion of Malay.

The Speak Mandarin campaign started out as an attempt to get Chinese dialect-speaking Singaporeans to switch to using Mandarin. Over the years, it has morphed into a campaign to get English speaking Chinese Singaporeans to use Mandarin in daily conversations. Government leaders seemed oblivious to the grumblings among many Malays and other minorities about the blatant promotion of one culture over all the others.

“Ethnic self-help groups” like Mendaki, CDAC, Sinda and Eurasian Association have been formed to provide social services separately to Chinese, Malays, Indians and Eurasians.

Then there was the introduction of Special Assistance Plan (SAP) schools, which Mr Lee Kuan Yew sent his children to attend. SAP schools are given extra resources to nurture a generation of Chinese Singaporeans who are well versed in the Chinese language and culture. Again, nevermind the disquiet on the Malay and Indian ground.

Fast forward to last week, when the Straits Times all but condoned the use of Chinese-only shop signs in Geylang. Is our country sliding more and more towards a social model where it is acceptable for ghettoes of different races and people of different national origins to develop?

Many Singaporeans, and not just racial minorities, have expressed their irritation at service staff who are only able to converse in Chinese and not English, the de facto lingua franca of today’s Singapore.

With growing immigration from a more diverse spread of countries, will Singapore start seeing a dilution of our national identity as a result of immigrants insisting on their own cultural practices, even in the public sphere?

I hope not. Our nation may be young, but we have built up elements of a culture that is somewhat unique to Singapore — our local food, Singlish, a commitment to meritocracy to name a few. I welcome new immigrants who can contribute to Singapore. But I expect these immigrants to conform to Singaporean cultural norms rather than that of their country of origin. They should not think that they can simply continue to live and speak like they did back home, especially when interacting with Singaporeans.

As for local born Singaporeans, there is also a danger of our ethnic backgrounds taking precedence over our Singaporean identity. Chinese Singaporeans in particular need to be reminded that Singapore is not a Chinese country, even if their race might make up the largest proportion of the population.

Choosing the right model

I suppose there is no right or wrong in choosing multiculturalism or the melting pot. Different societies have tried both models, with varying degrees of success. Each nation will need to choose which one to emphasise more, depending on their unique circumstances.

My view is that Singapore needs to be more of a melting pot. This celebrates our commonalties rather than our differences. However this would necessitate giving up some aspects of our individual cultures, which some from the dominant culture may be loathe to surrender. But on the whole, I believe our society and culture will be stronger, more peaceful and more resilient if we emphasise our Singaporean-ness more than our Malay-ness or Chinese-ness

—-

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

评论:反对党能否扛得住行动党三连击?

翻译自: Augustine Low 所有的迹象都显示选举或落在7月。人民行动党正展现出真正的迫切感,投出了要击倒反对党的拳头。 第一拳:行动党认为此时正是时候,勿失良机。 冠病19阻断措施已放宽,行动党说我们要团结起来,赋予他们强力的委托,以便可以继续共抗疫情。 这无疑是竞选的呼声,这就是人民行动党最擅长的。在疫情中更一针见血,因为人民行动党知道新加坡人动摇了,可以利用他们的恐惧和不安全感。 第二拳:“糖衣炮弹”来得又厚又快。国人将在本月收到更多补贴。各种配套展开来协助穷人和边缘人,保住工作并创造就业机会。 行动党显示他们正竭尽所能帮人民减轻痛楚。国人手上有了现金,感到该党的慈爱和体恤他们的困境。行动党突然变成了圣诞老人和侠盗罗宾汉。 人们是看眼前的,考虑的是当下而不是选举后的事。 第三拳:疫情下的选举规则会很不同。但现在没人知道究竟哪里不一样,尽管反对党老早就要求把这些规则说清楚,但是行动党还“犹抱琵琶半遮面”。 早前李显扬就已分享贴文,所有政党都要做好进行“电子选战”的准备,基于对网络安全和外国势力干预的提醒,你永远不知道还有啥曲线球的杀着。 他也提醒当心“所有政党将在《防假消息法》的氛围下竞选。”…

Public criticises the government’s move to allow hiring more top foreign talents instead of locals

On Thursday (1 August), Trade and Industry Minister Chan Chun Sing said…

挡道脚踏车司机引冲突 罗厘司机被控鲁莽驾驶

你挡我的道,我推你一下,双双面对警方对付。 说的是日前在网上疯传的罗里司机和脚踏车骑士因为道路受阻而引起的冲突,警方已经介入调查,并且于今日逮捕罗里司机,依据鲁莽驾驶罪名对他做出提控。 视屏开始时是一驾罗厘车在倒退,后方有一名脚踏车骑士手提脚踏车站在路旁。该罗厘司机倒退险些撞到骑士,令骑士不满,趋前拍打罗厘车的车窗。罗厘司机随后将车辆驶入路旁,再次险些撞及骑士。罗厘司机随后下车,气冲冲地向骑士走去。欲离开现场的骑士见状即刻放下手上的脚踏车,举起双手将罗厘司机推倒在地上。骑士随后扬长而去。 视频在网路上疯传,共有超过1万1000人点阅,多人留言,也要求警方介入调查。 挡道事件是在2月24日上午10时20分,在友诺士路发生。 警方发文告指出,罗厘司机(55岁)的鲁莽驾驶危及其他道路使用者,所以被提空。一旦罪成,可被判坐牢长达6个月,最高罚款达2500新元或两者兼施。 32岁的脚踏车骑士也因为出手伤人,正在协助警方进行调查。警方表示,若蓄意伤人罪名成立,脚踏车骑士也可能被判坐牢2年,获罚款高达5000新元或两者兼施。 环境影响人们心理健康 网民的留言中,有对设施和在路旁设立脚踏车道的不满。虽然随后又网友反击说并不是设施的错,而是缺乏同情心和耐心导致以上的冲突。 但是随即就有网民反驳说,以上冲突无关同情心或耐心,而是事实是,1平方公里挤着9000人,就会对人类心理健康造成影响。 也有网民表示,新加坡的生活环境充满压力,不适合孩子的成长。 网民争论谁对谁错…

新加坡人口达570万人 去年新公民人数2万2550人

总理公署策略单位今日公布《2019年人口简报》,指新加坡人口截至今年6月,相比去年增长1.2巴仙,至570万人。 截至去年6月,我国人口达到563万人。 其中,公民增长0.8巴仙至350万人,非居民增加2巴仙达168万人,永久居民则维持在53万人。 非公民人口为168万人,比起去年增长2巴仙。简报称这主要是因服务业成长和建筑业复苏带动客工雇佣增长。其中工作准证(Work Permit)持有者占41巴仙,家庭女佣15巴仙,S准证持有者12把权限以及外籍学生4巴仙等。 与此同时,去年共有2万2550人成为我国新公民,其中,61.6巴仙来自东南亚国家人民,32.4巴仙来自亚洲国家以及6巴仙来自亚洲以外国家。 简报称,新加坡每年批准的新公民人数在1万5000至2万5000人之间,并指出移民“有助缓解老龄化和低生育率对人口的影响。” 至于去年加入的新永久居民达到3万2710人,比前年3万1849人更多,其中62.5巴仙来自东南亚国家、31.2巴仙来自亚洲国家以及6.3巴仙来自亚洲以外国家。 在今年8月,总理李显龙在一项公民宣誓仪式上,指出入籍我国的新公民,有着在不同地方成长和生活的经历,也能带来新技术和经验。他也认为,这是新加坡取得进步的方式。 他相信这些新公民的不同视角、价值观和文化,能丰富我国社会。