Racism in the Successful Country

On July 21, 1964, soon after Singapore became part of the Federation of Malaysia, an Islamic ceremony was organised to mark Muhammad's birthday. A procession was to start at the Padang and end in Geylang. But the festive occasion ended in disaster, Malays in the procession and Chinese bystanders taunted and attacked each, the conflict escalating into nationwide violence.

The Government imposed a curfew. When things finally settled down, 23 people were dead and nearly 500 injured. It was believed to have been an orchestrated attempt to stir up racial tensions. No one had seen anything like this since the riots that followed the decision in the Maria Hertogh case in 1953.

Two months after the 1964 riot, another broke out after rumours spread that Chinese men had killed a Malay trishaw driver. 13 died. Hundreds injured.

These are history. In the 21^st Century, is modern, independent Singapore now free of such tensions? July 21 each year is celebrated as Racial Harmony Day. Young Singaporeans go to school wearing racial garb and learn the virtues of respecting diversity. Some mumble “lip service”. Some whisper about the policy of not allowing Malays in the air force. The government has its reasons. So do racial groups, and the reasons do not always gel.

It would be folly to think, in this age of media and social dogma fueled racial and religious tensions across the world, that race and religion matters are no more the divisive issues they once were. Singapore’s constitution demands that the government constantly “care for the interests of” its racial and religious minorities. It specifically recognises the "special position of the Malays, who are the indigenous people of Singapore".

One should question this assumption, common to Singapore’s neighbours as well. The Malays are not the original indigenous people. Just ask the Orang Asli—at least those who have not been wiped out.

Lee Kuan Yew promised to build a multiracial nation. Everyone had his place as an equal. His government decreed that the country would have four official languages: Malay, standard Mandarin, Tamil and English. The National language was to be Malay. It was a good start. Government decrees would be great if we did not have to apply them to people.

Singapore may be an island. That does not mean it is isolated from events in neighbouring countries. Such disturbances impacted on Singapore in the early years of its independence. When rioting between Malays and Chinese broke out in Kuala Lumpur in May 1969, tensions spilled over. Singapore authorities acted quickly to contain things.

Despite the Government’s controls, not everything has developed ‘equally’. Economic growth has been spectacular, but not everyone benefits equally. Minority communities lag behind in areas such as education and employability. Such inequalities hide beneath the surface of this seemingly placed place. For the most part, most Singaporeans have benefitted from economic policies and growth. Few rock the boat: but some do—especially if they are a minority.

Today, as Singapore’s economic strides falter reflecting world-wide economic and political tensions, racism murmurs below the surface. Like the bubbles in a fumarole announcing an impending eruption, they sputter away: abating? Therein lies the concern. The riots of the 1950s and 1060s are but a distant memory. They are ignored at the peril of Singapore’s social cohesion. 

Increasing incidents of conflict and dislike between races are occurring. Social media has a field day when they erupt. The Government tried to ban and control, but IT is a slippery customer when it comes to control. There is more than one door to open Pandora’s box. Some have railed against alleged "Chinese privilege": arguing that the dominant racial group has neither the desire nor the ability to consider the rights of the minorities.

Over the past few years, dozens of people have been investigated, either under the Sedition Act or the Penal Code, for race or religion-related offences. These acts have not needed to be applied since their formation in 1948.

Take a few cases. In 2012, Amy Cheong, a former National Trades Union Congress employee, was sacked for her online diatribe against Malay weddings in void decks. She fled to Australia after the resulting backlash.

In 2015, a foreign worker was run over by a bus in Little India. This sparked a riot in which 54 officers and eight civilians were hurt, 23 emergency vehicles were damaged, including five that were torched. While the riot was quickly contained and not officially linked to race, the social media went into meltdown with overtones of racial hatred against “South Asian” rioters.

In March 2017, a United States immigration judge granted teenage blogger Amos Yee asylum, saying he was ‘persecuted for his political opinions in the South-east Asian city-state’.  Yee had been jailed twice in Singapore for his ‘offensive’ (read racial and religious) diatribes.

Are these a threat to Singapore’s much vaunted cohesive society? Such as image does dominate: but the fact that prejudices and stereotypes increasingly surface is cause for concern.

In a world where the downside of improved communication and IT is giving a voice to the “great unwashed and unthinking”, one would expect people to be more united and cohesive. That is not happening. Differences serve to highlight differences. These are exaggerated. Result? Racism.

Laws and controls do not ensure that people willingly accept them. The majority are fine. The issue is, in a world where social media has become more powerful than governments as the agent of change, that the minority voice becomes the dominant voice. And therein lies a problem for Singapore.

Singapore’s challenge is to get the silent majority to make a noise. History shows is that can happen. Sometimes.