By Lisa Li

Crammed into Post-Museum’s exhibition space, the crowd kept shifting their chairs in to accomodate more and more people–eventually, about 70 people turned up at the forum ‘Politics and Ethnicity: Framing Racial Discrimination in Singapore’, held on 12 Febrary 2011.

Mr James Gomez

Dr James Gomez, the founding Executive-Director of Singaporeans for Democracy, started the forum discussion by presenting his paper “Politics and Ethnicity: Framing Racial Discrimination in Singapore”, which examined the significance of the UN Rapporteur Mr Githu Muigai’s visit to Singapore from 21 to 28 April 2010.

During this period, Mr Muigai met government authorities and members of civil society in order to ‘gather first-hand information on the main issues facing people living in Singapore in relation to racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance’.

The paper was also a timely reminder that Mr Muigai is due to present his findings on Singapore before the UN Human Rights Council and the UN General Assembly in June and November 2011, and–more importantly–that Singaporeans need to take stock of the current situation of race relations, in order to prepare for our response to Mr Muigai’s final report.

PAP’s likely rejection of the UN Rapporteur’s Report

It was noted that ‘in practice, states have often resisted or challenged the findings of the Special Rapporteur’ and the PAP-led Singapore government is not expected to behave differently.

UN Special Rapporteur Githu Muigai

In fact, within a few hours of Mr Muigai’s press conference in Singapore on 28 April 2010, the PAP government made a statement through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) which ‘rejected all of Mr Muigai’s suggestions’.

Although Mr Muigai’s press statement was not made public, his suggestions included allowing for more public debate and discourse, eliminating race from national identity documents in order to de-emphasize racial differences that contribute to racially based policies, and incorporating more flexibility in existing ethnic quotas for HDB housing.

James Gomez documented the PAP government’s rebuttal of Mr Muigai’s suggestions Although MFA stated that it had ‘an open mind’ and was ‘prepared to consider any practical suggestion that advances this goal [of racial harmony]’, in essence, it showed no genuine interest in accepting or even considering any of the recommendations.

Click here for the full paper ‘Politics and Ethnicity: Framing Racial Discrimination in Singapore’ by Dr James Gomez.

Click here for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Response to the Press Statement of Mr Githu Muigai, UN Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance.

Creating space for public debate

Moving on from the forum and papers, how should we, as ordinary Singaporeans, respond to the PAP government’s likely rejection of the UN Rapporteur’s report?

In response to Mr Muigai’s call for greater openness in the public discussion of sensitive issues, MFA’s statement was that they ’emphatically disagree’ with his suggestion because ‘race, language and religion will always be sensitive issues in Singapore’ and while ‘this does not mean that they cannot be discussed, a balance must always be struck between free expression and preservation of racial and religious harmony’.

Race and religion are viewed as sensitive topics, and the status quo in Singapore seems to be to avoid criticism or any extensive public discussion of race-based practices or government policies.

Ironically, Singapore’s Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew himself recently provoked the anger of many with his free expression in his book ‘Hard Truths To Keep Singapore Going’.

In this book, he referred to Muslims’ preference in eating and dining separately (so that the halal and non-halal food would not get contaminated) as a ‘social divide’, and urged the Malay-Muslim community to be less strict in their practice of Islam. Besides that, MM Lee also said that the Malays will never be able to bridge the gap between educational attainments with Indians and Chinese.

Not surprisingly, MM Lee’s comments were viewed as racially divisive, and on 27 January 2011, the Association for Muslim Professionals (AMP) released a statement that MM Lee’s comments had ‘hurt the [Malay-Muslim] community and are potentially divisive’.

Yet, these comments by MM Lee received little beyond mild rebuke from PAP politicians.

On 29 January 2011, the Minister-in-Charge of Muslim Affairs Dr Yaacob Ibrahim urged Muslims to take Mr Lee’s comments in perspective. “Let’s look at this rationally, read the book and understand where he’s coming from… At the end of the day, he has a certain perspective. That perspective may not be accurate now, maybe 40 years ago. So that’s where I disagree with him, as I mentioned, in the book. That the reality on the ground is people are working together side by side”.

On 31 January 2011, it was reported in the Straits Times that Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said “My own perspective on how things are in Singapore… is not quite the same as MM’s… Muslims are a valued and respected community, who have done a good deal to strengthen our harmony and social cohesion”.

What do we make of MFA’s rejection of free expression and extensive public discussion of race and religion, in light of the PAP government’s reluctance to curb a senior Cabinet member in his freely contentious speech?

This points to double standards of the PAP government, or a paternalistic view that ordinary people cannot be trusted to have a mature discussion about these sensitive topics.

Yet, the gracious dignity of AMP’s criticism of MM Lee’s comments, and the lively and respectful debate about race issues at Saturday’s forum is indication that Singaporeans can certainly handle public debate about difficult issues–and even if some of us cannot, we need to learn, not by shutting up, but by emulating good examples of genuine debate in public arenas.

The MFA stated that ‘this balance [between free expression and preservation of racial and religious harmony] is only for the Singapore government to determine because only the Singapore government bears the responsibility should things go wrong’.

The PAP government is afraid of being blamed should things go wrong, but make no mistake–we will all suffer and bear the responsiblity should things go wrong. Playing it safe by staying closed to the UN Rapporteur’s report and curbing Singaporeans’ space for public debate does not allow Singapore to mature, and it does not allow for difficulties in race relations to be truly resolved.

The PAP government can indeed reject the UN Rapporteur’s suggestions–but if we disagree with the PAP government’s response, we can only rely on ourselves to reclaim that space of public debate through the new media, through conversations with our family, friends and community. It is our responsibility to speak up and speak loudly, with respect, reason and maturity.

This article is the first part in a two-part article about Race Issues in Singapore. The second part will deal with the actual discussion of race issues that took place during and after the forum on 12 February 2011.

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

A tale of two rallies and Opposition solidarity

~ By Kenneth Jeyaretnam ~ Saturday night I stood in the historic field where…

接纳反对党建议 马国政府同意18岁自动登记选民

马来西亚希盟政府计划在国会推动修宪,把合格投票年龄从21岁降至18岁,并接纳反对党开出的两项条件,即把合格参与选举年龄,也降至18岁,且能自动等级成为选民。 马国首相马哈迪是在昨日对当地媒体作出如是宣布,指希盟政府认同18岁青年投票的权利,以及会落实自动登记为选民。 “这会是马国历史性一刻,所有政治领袖抛开歧见,为年轻人和下一代斗争。” 马国政府是在本月4日,在国会下议院提呈“2019年宪法(修正)法案”,寻求修宪降低该国投票年龄至18岁。有关法案的二读将会在7月16日进行。法案阐述,若通过该法案,将会有更多马来西亚国民有权通过投票选出政府,符合进步的民主制度。 在马国,修正案要在国会获得三分之二的票数,即148票才算通过。 这项修宪法案是希盟政府的竞选宣言之一,他们在宣言第17项中指出,承诺保障廉政的选举体制,其中一项就是将现有的最低投票年龄从21岁降至18岁。

陈振声:如需为马国员工安排住宿 可寻求经济部门、商会协助

有鉴于马来西亚首相慕尤丁昨晚(16日)宣布,马国从本月18日起至31日,将落实“行动限制”命令,禁止马国国民出国,外国游客也禁止入境。 突如其来的宣布也令许多在新加坡工作的马劳措手不及,只得连夜赶回狮城,以避免上述马国限制令影响出入境,无法返回我国工作。这也致使凌晨期间至今早,新柔长提上大排车龙,从马国入境车辆络绎不绝。 至于贸工部长陈振声则宣布,对于那些聘请马国员工的企业,如需要安排员工住宿,可向我国经济部门和商会求助。 他坦言自昨晚就有不少商家致电询问,他与表示在此时刻,经济部门可与企业、住宿经营者或酒店合作,以提供其他替代方案解决问题。 早前陈振声也在脸书表示,有鉴于马国最新的局势进展,那些有聘请马国员工的雇主和企业,有必要启动确保业务运营持续的计划。 “如需要帮忙,他们可联系我们的经济部门,随时准备援助。”他强调我国将继续和马国保持联系,确保企业和民众能继续维持生计。

逾37万次调查鉴定6500蚊虫温床 环境局罚款约900家庭

国家环境部(NEA)于今年首五个月,展开了37万2000次的调查行动,鉴定导致国内骨痛热症病例剧增的全国蚊虫滋生情况。 当局在23日发布的一项声明中指出,已经鉴定了将近6500个蚊虫滋生地点,并且罚款了约900户家庭。 兀兰二病例集中区 当局指出,两个最大的骨痛热症病例集中区,也可说是携带病菌体的伊蚊传播区都位于兀兰区,包括了兀兰6道、兀兰环路、兀兰新镇和兀兰圈。这些地区共累积了360宗病例。 其他的病例集中区有包括基里玛路(Guillemard Rd)和沈氏大道(Sims Avenue)的龙芽,共投报了115宗病例、菜市(112宗),以及包括惹兰仑巴汤申(Jln Lembah Thomson)、Soo Chow Rise和汤申路上段 (Lakeview)的汤申地区,共累积了99宗病例。…