Connect with us

Comments

"Some improvement" in race relations among Singaporeans except in workplaces, says Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam … but do minorities concur?

Published

on

While there has been a “slight increase” in the “perception” of racial discrimination at the workplace against minorities in Singapore, there has also been “some improvement” in race relations among Singaporeans overall, said Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam.
“Is there racism in Singapore? Of course there is. There is racism in every multi-racial society that we know of. And there is, in Singapore,” said Mr Shanmugam in a Facebook post on Sun (4 Aug).
He said that the government has never shied away from the fact that racism exists in Singapore, and have in fact opened multiple avenues such as the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) surveys to “discuss it openly”.
“They come out once every two years – details our people’s views on race, religious issues. The latest IPS survey issued last week showed in fact a slight increase in perception of workplace racial discrimination. In some other areas of race relationships, there was some improvement,” said Mr Shanmugam.
The “IPS-OnePeople.sg Indicators of Racial and Religious Harmony: Comparing Results from 2018 and 2013” survey, conducted by the IPS at the NUS Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, found that compared to other areas such as public infrastructure including transport and hospitals, racial minorities in Singapore were found “more likely” to perceive discrimination in the workplace.
While overall perceived workplace discrimination was “still relatively low”, with under seven per cent of respondents stating that they have regularly perceived such discrimination, the proportions were “expectedly were higher for racial minorities”.
The researchers found that approximately nine per cent of minorities “often, very often or always perceived discrimination at work compared to 2 per cent of Chinese respondents (see Table 28)”, with around one-third of Malay and Indian respondents perceiving discrimination at work “sometimes, often, or very often or always”.
“Conversely, one in 10 Chinese respondents expressed similar sentiments,” according to the researchers’ findings.

The perception of discrimination when applying for jobs, according to the IPS survey findings, was also higher among Malays and Indians (see Table 29).
The proportions who perceived such discriminatory behaviour often, very often or always was also “marginally higher in 2018 compared to 2013”. For instance, 22.3 per cent of Malays in 2018 felt discriminated “often, very often or always” when applying for a job, an increase from the 19.4 per cent who felt similarly in 2013, the report found.

Similar patterns were observed in the area of job promotions, in which it was reported that “at least 18 per cent of Malays and 20 percent of Indians” had “sometimes, often, very often or always” experienced discrimination when seeking job promotions, in contrast with around only three per cent of of Chinese Singaporeans who reported such sentiments.
The perception of racial discrimination in seeking job promotions have also increased over the years from 2013 to last year, according to the report, with 32.4 per cent of Malays reporting “sometimes” having such a perception last year compared to the 26.7 per cent who felt similarly in 2013, while 18.4 per cent reported “often, very often or always” in 2018 compared to 17.1 per cent in 2013.

 
 
Highlighting that MHA and other ministries have taken proactive steps to combat racism in Singapore society through various initiatives such as “regular conferences, symposiums, and dialogues”, Mr Shanmugam said that the Government can only do so much, and that “there are aspects where people have to become more aware, and more sensitive”.
“We have made much progress from that day on 9 August 1965, when Mr Lee Kuan Yew very powerfully said, “We are not a Malay nation, we are not a Chinese nation, we are not an Indian nation. This is a country for all Singaporeans,”” he added.
Nair siblings “had every right to raise the issue of racism”, but they did not do it correctly: Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam
Touching on rising YouTube duo Preeti Nair and Subhas Nair’s video response to the NETS E-Pay advertisement, Mr Shanmugam said that while “[t]he Nair siblings, like everyone else, had every right to raise the issue of racism”, he disagreed with the way they had expressed their indignation.
“I agree with their right to raise it, but question the way it was done. If everyone starts discussing race and religion in the way they did, then you will in fact get more racism, not less. That is our key concern. They have used the language of resistance in America, but we thankfully are in a very different situation,” he said.
Mr Shanmugam, however, also criticised the E-Pay advertisement, saying that it was done “in poor taste”, and that given the overwhelming backlash against the advertisement and the people involved in its production, he said that others “need to learn from that” and to “be much more sensitive” of the implications behind even such “casual” racism.
Highlighting political and social unrest happening elsewhere such as the Hong Kong protests, the Texas mass shooting, the Kashmir militant attack alert, and the arrest of 600 protestors in Russia, Mr Shanmugam said that while such countries “face different issues”, there is “much that we can be positive about as Singaporeans”, and that Singaporeans “can be thankful that we have avoided headlines like these”.
“As we approach our National Day, there is much that we can be positive about as Singaporeans, and look forward to further progress … We must continue to focus on getting things better, discuss issues openly and work on them,” he said.
Some minority race netizens sceptical of Mr Shanmugam’s claim that race relations have improved in areas other than the workplace
Several netizens, including those from minority race communities, agreed with Mr Shanmugam’s statements and the government’s efforts to improve race relations among Singaporeans, while claiming that other individuals of minority races who take a similar approach to the Nair siblings in their video are being “overly sensitive” and are merely fanning racial tensions among Singaporeans:




However, many minority race netizens have also questioned Mr Shanmugam’s criticism of the Nair siblings’ response to the E-Pay advertisement, suggesting that the policing of the latter’s language misses the point of the rap video, which was intended to spark an honest discussion about racism beyond the sanitised avenues of “dialogues and symposiums” as suggested by the Minister:





One commenter, in particular, suggested that racial discrimination at the workplace can be mitigated by banning job advertisements that require applicants to “be able to write and converse in Mandarin/Chinese”, as such a requirement will inevitably exclude many applicants from minority races who may have limited proficiency to none in Chinese:



Another commenter pointed out that certain government policies and measures appear to run contrary to what Mr Shanmugam has said about not engaging in inflammatory debates on racism:

MHA slams the Nair siblings’ “insincere” first apology, says Police are still investigating and seeking advice from AGC
In the rap video response to the E-Pay advertisement, which was released last Mon (29 Jul), the siblings were seen repeatedly uttering “Chinese people always out here f***king it up”, while condemning Chinese Singaporeans who engage in the exploitation of minorities such as Indians and Malays for their own profit via such racism.
Subhas, who was notably dressed similarly to the “K Muthusamy” character portrayed by Chew in the advertisement, pointed out in the video what many Singaporeans have highlighted in their response to the parody: “You should have cast a makcik [informal term for a slightly older Malay lady], you should have called her.”
“How can a man wear brown and wear a tudung? Two wrongs don’t make a right,” read one of the lines in Preeti’s verse, in a subtle jab against the perceived act of “brownface” done by Chew in dressing up as a Malay woman in a hijab.
The controversial advertisement, which has since been modified to remove the offending material, portrayed Mediacorp actor and DJ Dennis Chew as multiple “characters” of different races in Singapore, such as a Malay woman in a headscarf and an Indian man with darkened skin, a Chinese woman in a pink jacket and a Chinese man with a moustache in the advertisement.
The advertisement drew flak from many Singaporeans, with parallels being drawn to “brownface” — the racist act of darkening fair skin for entertainment purposes at the expense of people of “brown” races such as Indians and Malays, regardless whether or not it is intentional. Many critics have also pointed out why actual Malay and Indian actors or models were not hired to portray individuals of their respective races instead.
Preeti also poked fun at the C.M.I.O acronym — Chinese, Malay, Indian and Others — that typically characterises the fabric of Singapore’s multiracial society, saying: “Cancel Minority Is Ok!”.
In a scene depicting a conversation between Preeti and Subhas, the latter pointed out that an advertisement for last Deepavali entailed the same “brownface” act, in which a Chinese man was dressed to portray a Sikh man.
The video garnered 4,000 views and almost 150 shares on Facebook just two hours after it was posted. However, the video was taken down from Facebook and other social media channels by last Tue (29 Jul) afternoon after it was condemned by the government.
A police report was lodged against Preeti over the video, following which police said in a statement the same day that the video was being investigated for “offensive content that causes ill-will between races”. Police has also reminded the public not to circulate the video.
Subhas was also removed from “ROAR”, a CNA National Day musical documentary, for his involvement in the video, CNA announced last Wed.
MHA, in response to the siblings’ purportedly “mock, insincere” apology last Fri (2 Aug), said that Police are currently “continuing their investigations and taking advice” from the Attorney-General’s Chambers regarding the duo’s case.
Their apology, said MHA the same day, “is a spoof of an earlier apology issued by Havas Worldwide for the E-Pay advertisement (Nets subsequently issued an apology)”.
“This spoofing is a pretence of an apology, and in fact shows contempt for the many Singaporeans who have expressed concern at their blatantly racist rap video,” added MHA.
The Nair siblings issued a joint statement the next day, stating that they “unconditionally apologise for the tone, aggression, vulgarities, and gestures used in the K. Muthusamy music video”.
“People are offended and we sincerely apologise for it,” they said, adding: “If we could do it over again, we would change the manner in which we approached this issue, and would have worded our thoughts better.”

Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Comments

Dr Chee Soon Juan criticises Ho Ching’s vision for 8-10 million population

SDP chief Dr Chee Soon Juan criticised Ho Ching’s claim that Singapore could support a population of 8 to 10 million through effective city planning. He expressed scepticism, citing adverse effects like rising living costs and mental health issues. Dr Chee argued that smaller populations can thrive, referencing Scandinavian countries that excelled internationally and produced Nobel laureates.

Published

on

Dr Chee Soon Juan, Secretary-General of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), slammed Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s spouse, Ho Ching, for her assertion that Singapore could accommodate 8 to 10 million people with proper city planning and land reclamation.

In a video message published on 1 October, Dr Chee expressed strong scepticism regarding the narrative of increasing the population, highlighting that the current surge past the 6 million mark had been largely driven by the influx of foreigners, which led to several adverse consequences.

He further highlighted that smaller populations were not inherently negative, drawing examples from some Scandinavian countries that had flourished on the international stage despite their smaller populations and had even produced Nobel Prize laureates.

Ho Ching expressed confidence that with proper city planning, Singapore could accommodate up to 8-10 million people

Last Friday (27 September), in a Facebook post, Madam Ho, who was also the former CEO of Temasek Holdings, highlighted the growing demand for caregivers as the population aged and the need for workers to sustain sectors like construction and engineering, particularly as the workforce shrank due to lower birth rates.

“As we have less children, we need more people from elsewhere to join us to keep this city functioning, from repairing train tracks through the night to serving patients in hospitals through the night. ”

Dr Chee Highlights Risks of Population Growth

In response, Dr Chee recalled his experience of being reprimanded by Minister for Foreign Affairs Dr Vivian Balakrishnan during the last General Election for raising concerns about the implications of a rapidly growing population.

He questioned why Madam Ho, who shared similar views, had not faced the same scrutiny.

In his video, Dr Chee articulated several concerns regarding the proposed increase in population, highlighting the potential negative impacts, including increased demand for food, housing, and transportation, which would result in a significant rise in living costs.

With a larger population, Dr Chee pointed out that more flats, roads, hospitals, and public transportation would need to be constructed, which would ultimately require higher taxes and fees to maintain the necessary infrastructure.

The SDP leader emphasized that an influx of residents would intensify competition for jobs, exerting downward pressure on wages and potentially leading to higher rates of unemployment and underemployment.

Dr Chee further expressed concern over the environmental degradation that would accompany population growth, citing the recent clearing of forests for housing and industrial developments, including Tengah and Kranji Forests.

Dr Chee questioned the ability of existing infrastructure to cope with a growing population, referencing the persistent issues with the MRT system, including breakdowns and safety hazards.

He highlighted the toll that congestion and overpopulation take on the mental health of Singaporeans, noting a rise in reported mental health challenges.

“All this while the ministers live in secluded and luxurious bunglows and villas, far from the madding crowd which we are subjected to every single day.”

“So, when Ho Ching says that we can accommodate up to 10 million people, I’d like to ask her, where and what type of house she lives in?”

Dr Chee Argues for Innovative Economic Solutions Over Traditional Urban Expansion

Regarding the ruling government’s persistent push to increase Singapore’s population to what he considered “unhealthy levels,” Dr Chee suggested that the PAP lacked viable alternatives for fostering economic growth.

He implied that the government resorted to traditional methods of expansion, such as construction and urban development.

He highlighted that the government is fixated on physically expanding the city—“digging, pouring concrete, and erecting structures”—to sustain GDP growth.

This approach, he argued, creates an illusion that Singapore remains a productive economic hub, despite potential downsides.

Dr Chee Advocates for the Value of Smaller Populations: Cites Political Freedom as Key to Innovation and Success

Dr Chee further contended that a smaller population did not necessarily hinder a nation’s success.

He cited several Scandinavian countries and Taiwan, emphasising their global brands and innovations despite their relatively small populations.

Dr Chee connected the success of these nations to their political freedoms, arguing that the ability to think and express oneself freely fostered innovation and societal progress.

He contrasted this with Singapore, where he claimed that the government controlled media and stifled freedom of expression.

He criticised the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) for its centralised control and for limiting the potential of Singaporeans. Dr Chee used the metaphor of a “grotesque monkey” clinging to the nation, suggesting that the PAP hindered progress and growth.

Dr Chee emphasised that the quality of a population—its talent, energy, and potential—was far more important than its size.

He suggested that Singapore possessed the necessary attributes to succeed on a global scale but was held back by the current political landscape.

He urged Singaporeans to engage in critical thinking rather than passively accepting government narratives.

Dr Chee advocated for a more mature and sophisticated approach to governance and civic engagement, encouraging citizens to take an active role in shaping their society.

Continue Reading

Comments

Netizens criticise PM Wong’s video, urge Govt to address root causes of cost-of-living crisis

Netizens have voiced concerns over PM Wong’s approach to addressing the cost-of-living crisis. Many argue that distributing CDC vouchers provides only temporary relief and are calling for more substantial action on issues such as transport and rental costs.

Published

on

By

SINGAPORE: In response to Prime Minister Lawrence Wong’s video titled “Tackling Cost of Living Concern,” uploaded on 2 October, netizens expressed that the Singapore government should address fundamental issues like transport and rental costs, rather than relying on measures such as distributing Community Development Council (CDC) vouchers.

In the six-minute video, PM Wong acknowledged that although inflation has moderated, the cost of living remains a significant issue for many Singaporeans.

PM Wong assured Singaporeans that his team is committed to helping them through this challenging period.

He emphasised that while inflation is expected to decline further in 2024, prices will still rise from time to time.

He explained that delaying price adjustments would only worsen the situation in the future, but the government will work on mitigating the impact of any necessary increases.

The prime minister outlined that the long-term solution to managing living costs is to ensure Singaporeans have access to good jobs with better wages.

He added that higher wages should outpace inflation, allowing citizens to improve their living standards in real terms.

PM Wong also provided an economic outlook for 2024, predicting higher growth and lower inflation, which could lead to increases in real incomes for workers.

He noted that the government is closely monitoring economic conditions for 2025 and will reveal more of its plans in the upcoming Budget.

Recapping earlier initiatives, PM Wong said the government has allocated over $10 billion through the Assurance Package to help Singaporeans cope with rising living costs, including enhancements to the package.

He highlighted that this year, every household has received S$800 in CDC vouchers, alongside utility rebates and cash payouts.

PM Wong also touched on global inflation trends, explaining how disruptions from the pandemic and global conflicts affected prices.

He assured Singaporeans that the government has taken measures, such as strengthening the Singapore dollar, to shield them from the worst of these effects.

Netizens criticise government’s approach to rising cost of living

Hundreds of netizens have voiced their concerns under a Facebook post by The Straits Times on PM Wong’s video, criticising the government’s approach to addressing cost-of-living issues.

Many users expressed frustration, noting that despite the government’s repeated reassurances about helping Singaporeans, there has been a lack of action to address the ongoing increases in utility and transport fares.

Others echoed similar sentiments, with one user blaming the increase in GST to 9% as a major factor contributing to the rising cost of living. As Finance Minister, PM Wong was the key advocate of the GST hike and defended it when the opposition called for a deferment.

One netizen criticised the government’s actions as being counterproductive.  They pointed out that while the government raises prices in several areas, it simultaneously claims to be providing help, which they view as contradictory.

Netizens call for action on rising rental costs, criticise reliance on CDC vouchers

Many commenters also criticised the distribution of CDC vouchers as insufficient, urging the government to tackle root issues such as high rental and housing costs.

One netizen argued that CDC vouchers provide little relief, and reducing rental, medical, and food costs would be a more effective solution.

Another user called for standardised rental prices for hawker stalls and suggested that the government should fine landlords who raise rents excessively.

Other commenters focused on the need for more substantial measures, such as controlling hawker stall and coffee shop leases.

They argued that skyrocketing rental prices directly affect consumers through higher food costs.

One user proposed reducing government officials’ salaries and reforming other key policies such as lowering the GST and making housing more affordable as real solutions.

Additionally, some netizens highlighted the need to address transport and rental costs, noting that higher transport and raw material costs will continue to drive up consumer prices.

They urged the government to reduce rent for commercial shops and food stalls.

Netizens call for concrete measures in addressing cost of living

Some netizens expressed doubts about the government’s efforts to address the cost of living, calling for more transparency and concrete actions.

Many have called for clear metrics, such as housing prices, Certificate of Entitlement (COE) prices, transportation costs, and population growth, to be presented as proof of the government’s commitment to tackling these issues.

Other commenters urged the government to avoid short-term solutions such as payouts, which could ultimately lead to higher taxpayer costs.

They suggested more long-term measures, including lowering CPF contribution rates, which they view as a financial burden on lower-income earners.

 

Continue Reading

Trending