It is a “new low” for Singapore’s own Prime Minister to deny the existence of Chinese privilege in the country, says Singaporean TikToker with_Navya in two one-minute videos.
She was referring to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s National Day Rally speech on 29 August when he dismissed claims of Chinese privilege in Singapore as “entirely baseless”.
Mr Lee said: “We treat all races equally, with no special privileges. Few countries have made this their policy, and even fewer have actually managed to make it a reality.”
He went on to stress that Singapore’s leaders have been firm in employing a policy of racial equality, noting that Chinese Singaporeans have also made concessions for the greater good of the nation such as adopting English as the lingua franca.
“Chinese Singaporeans made some concessions for the greater good. For example, to put the ethnic minorities more at ease, we adopted English as our lingua franca. The use of English put those who spoke only Mandarin and dialects in a disadvantageous position,” he explained.
“Therefore, it is entirely baseless to claim that there is ‘Chinese privilege’ in Singapore,” he added.
In his speech, Mr Lee went on to noted that after over five decades, this “fundamental national policy has benefitted all races, including the Chinese.”
He said, “It has also helped to strengthen our relations with our neighbouring countries, and built mutual trust.”
However, Mr Lee also noted that racial harmony may be taken for granted after decades of peace, leading to the majority Chinese population becoming less sensitive to how minorities feel.
“While the different communities have become closer, racial emotions still exist,” he said, mentioning how some Chinese homeowners who prefer not to rent out to ethnic minorities.
“Not all homeowners are like that, but it’s not difficult for us to imagine how hurt these minority tenants feel when they have such encounters,” said the prime minister.
He also noted the challenges minorities in Singapore may face when looking for jobs, particularly as many employers demand Chinese language proficiency.
“When we seek friends and life partners, we are drawn to those with similar linguistic and cultural backgrounds. This is human nature and common to any society or race. These are matters that concern our private lives and personal decisions, and generally have no great impact on society,” he said.
“But when employing someone or renting a house… These involve the common space that all races share and directly affect race relations. If we let the preferences of such employers and homeowners build up over time, they will become prejudice, and minorities will feel they are being discriminated against.
He cautioned, “If left unaddressed, such preferences will gradually deepen the fissures in our society.”
In her response to the premier’s speech, the TikToker was incredulous that the nation’s leader would way that the only places that minorities have difficulties is in renting a home and finding a job when, in actual fact, they have repeatedly tried to highlight other challenges minorities face as well.
She added that these two aspects – renting a home and finding a job – shouldn’t be treated as “just two things”.
In his speech, Mr Lee had also said that with social media, these sorts of issues have been played up and blown out of proportion.
Describing this as “embarrassing”, the TikToker said: “Chinese privilege has always been there. Social media is just putting a light on it. We’re not blowing anything out of proportion.”
She said later: “I don’t get why the government and Chinese Singaporeans get so defensive when us minorities tell them that they have privilege or are racist.”
Addressing common arguments from Chinese Singaporeans who say they are not racist or privileged because they don’t intend to be, she explained that privilege isn’t the presence of benefits but rather the absence of obstacles.
She stressed that this is why many privileged people may not feel their privilege. However, it doesn’t mean it does not exist.
Racial harmony via racism
Similar to the TikToker’s critique of Mr Lee’s remarks, a Singaporean YouTube channel Sad Coffee released a video commentary in 2018 on the race issue in Singapore titled “Racial Harmony via Racism” which looked at how the country manages racial diversity and the potential pitfalls of its race-based policies.
Suggesting that it is time to “put a stop to governing by ancestry”, the video notes that Chinese-Malaysia-Indian-Others (CMIO) framework used in Singapore to manage racial diversity may seem harmless at first glance, but actually isn’t.
Presenting data on the racial composition of Singapore’s citizen population over the last 40 or so years, the video highlighted that it has remained relatively constant since the 1980s, which “defies nature”.
The video points out that the Chinese population in Singapore have experienced the lowest fertility rates of the three main races in Singapore while the Malay population have had the highest. However, this isn’t reflected in the racial composition of the citizen population.
“It could only mean we’ve been very deliberate in filtering, the migrants who get to settle here,” the video posits.
“It explains why most of Singapore’s permanent residents and naturalized citizens are of Chinese and Indian descent. No need to bolster the Malay- Muslim population.”
A deeper understanding of racism in Singapore
The video goes on to dissect a documentary released in 2016 titled “Regardless of Race”, hosted by then-Minister of Communications and Information Janil Puthucheary.
The documentary was an attempt to examine race relations in Singapore. However, it fails to adequately explain that the CMIO model isn’t as harmless as people want to believe, the video said, adding that if people are able to understand each other’s immutable differences, the model wouldn’t be necessary at all.
Examining one of the sections of the documentary, the video pointed out that the video fails to highlight the straightforward distinction between an Indian stand-up comedian making jokes about all races versus a Chinese taxi driver who refuses to pick up Indian passengers.
The stand-up comedian’s racism “doesn’t harm or inconvenience” anyone nor does it extend beyond the act on stage. Also, audiences are free to leave.
On the other hand, the taxi driver who deliberately avoids certain customers due to race is “actively depriving those people of a service”.
The YouTube video stressed: “It’s obvious the show wants the viewer to understand that racism can be targeted at the majority race, which is absolutely true and should not be condoned; but it’s disingenuous to discount the fact that minorities encounter more instances of prejudice and to a greater degree.”
Ethnic integration policies do more harm than good
The video then goes on to talk about the country’s ethnic integration policy in relation to the quotas at HDB flats. It notes that while the policy encourages race-mixing, it actually “favours the majority race more than minority ones”.
The video argues that limiting the proportion of minority-owned HDB flats in a block makes it difficult for a person from an ethnic minority to form a mono-racial group. The majority race, however, will not have that challenge.
There is also the economic impact that the racial quota poses which is that it limits the pool of potential buyers for those in the ethnic minority leading to lower asking prices and an extended waiting period before securing a suitable buyer.
This has a ripple effect on the larger financial burden of a person from an ethnic minority and is “just not something that crosses the mind of an average Chinese person,” the video posited.
“It is these unspoken built-in privileges that need to be addressed,” it stressed.
The video continued: “No other probably cosmopolitan city manages their ethnic groups to the extent that Singapore does because it’s counterproductive to emphasize how ethnicity fundamentally differentiates us while, in the same breath, talk about the importance of being one united people.”
“You can’t have it both ways.”
This issue was also recently raised in a debate at Parliament, where PAP politicians sparred with Leader of Opposition, Pritam Singh over the relevance of the Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP) in present-day Singapore.
Time to let culture organise itself organically
Referring to the example of other multicultural cities like Toronto, New York, Amsterdam, London and Paris, the video notes how these cities do not focus on the populations’ ethnic makeup.
“The cultural hegemony of one particular race or ethnic group should be free to organize themselves as they please, which is why many of the above cities have authentic cultural enclaves that serve as both residences and businesses for their respective,” it said.
The opposite is true in Singapore where the city’s heritage sites are essential commercial attractions instead.
It added: “The above cities also don’t subject anyone to long-term integration policies, which means cultures cross-pollinate organically and unevenly under the guidance of local secular laws and customs.”
“This ensures that every city retains a unique identity.”
The video goes on to argue that these other multicultural cities understand that a set of physical characteristics and traditions, which change over time, are not a window into a person’s character.
It stresses that if the goal is to have every resident contribute their best, there cannot be systemic policies that “make people feel that they possess innately defective traits”.
Additionally, every resident should have access to the same rights and privileges, and live under the same law regardless of their race.
Ditch the CMIO framework
The video then suggests that it is time to do away with the CMIO framework and adopt a different approach instead.
As the video says: “Maybe it’s time to realize that before we can nurture a cohesive national identity that unites us all, we should put a stop to governing by ancestry. Maybe it’s time we lay the groundwork to remove racial restrictions and quotas in all aspects of society.”
When people are allowed to build communities with others who share the same traditions and languages as them, they could have a support system needed to make them happier and more productive citizens, and would not feel pressured to constantly protect their culture.
The video does acknowledge that this might lead to some people feeling confused or threatened by the formative of ethnic enclaves at first, which would force racism out in the open where it will have to be confronted.
However, it predicts that this will lead to more honest conversations about how to really get along and replace the firm lines of division that separate the current community into a more fluid dynamic.
Though the Sad Coffee video was published in 2018 and examines a documentary about race relations in 2016, many of the arguments it makes still holds up today.
This is particularly so following PM Lee’s assertion that Chinese privilege does not exist in Singapore and his highlighting of what the majority population has had to “give up” for the sake of a multicultural nation.
In his National Day Rally speech, Mr Lee didn’t get into how racism can be avoided, nor did he mention or acknowledge the systemic structures that might be perpetuating the situation. Without doing that, how can racism even be addressed?
As the video pointed out “How can you understand equality, much less fight for it, when you’ve decided that one ethnic group is the gifted group that must constitute most of the citizenry and the government in order for the country to be politically stable and prosperous.”
Watch the video here:
