Category: Singapore

In my society of Singapore, it would seem that diversity is embraced. The idea is enshrined in our national pledge, to be “one united people, regardless of race, language or religion”. This was vital to a nation of immigrants from all over the world, looking for a place to call their own and to develop a sense of national and cultural unity amongst the myriad of varying ethnicities. Indeed, Singapore has reached a commendable level of respecting and embracing diversity. However, this essay argues that there is still much to be desired as the nation strives towards maintaining and improving its level of social cohesion and avoiding conflict and dissatisfaction.

Singapore adopts a meritocratic approach to its society. As one of the five key principles of the nation, it would seem to suggest that diversity arising from race, gender, sexuality or age would not matter to one’s worth in society. The ideal of equal opportunity has been touted by many a politician, claiming that there is no discrimination, particularly in terms of race. Indeed, this often true in practice, as the nation strives towards creating job opportunities for all and ensuring that anti-discriminatory measures are in place. Diversity in the workforce is being promoted by the government through the encouragement of including elderly and disabled workers. Though economically motivated, these initiatives make a large impact on these workers’ lives, showing that the fiercely competitive and fast-paced workforce appreciates and includes them as well.

However, Singapore does not totally succeed in creating equal opportunities. Known for its demanding education system and highly competitive workforce, Singapore struggles to ensure that a sense of “classicism” does not form. Meritocracy allowed our forefathers to embrace good work ethics that propelled them into well-paying jobs regardless of their station in life. However, generations later, this same system has allowed an inherent disadvantage to the less well-off. While those working in well-paying sectors such as medicine and law are able to provide the best tutors, studying environment and even nutrition through financial support, those in less well-paying jobs may not be able to provide as much for the next generation. In a meritocratic system, this has created an unfairness that provides the children of the wealthy with an advantage. In a system that ranks students based on academic ability, wealthier students may have to struggle less to achieve the same stellar results any other student may have to slog for. This tends to result in enclaves, where wealthy students acquaint themselves with each other in ‘elite schools’ and form communities that seem impenetrable to those in neighbourhood schools. This inherent weakness in the meritocratic system Singapore employs thus creates a class divide that affects academics and future job opportunities. As a result, diversity in class may be poorly handled, as those with wealthy families more easily follow their parents to the upper echelons of society.

Still, it is respectable how Singapore has handled diversity through multiculturalism. This formation of a “mosaic” of different faces and religions amongst Singaporeans is touted by some in a patriotic passion. Indeed, Singapore’s policy of multiculturalism has allowed to remain largely conflict-free since independence. Following the violence and chaos of the Maria Hertogh riots in its early years, the nation has since learnt that race and religion have been and will continue to be of great sensitivity. On a practical level, the government achieves its brand of multiculturalism through the full integration in public school and housing. They claim that this creates opportunities for interaction that promotes the respect and embracing of other cultures. Indeed, this should be lauded, especially in contrast to the types of conflict that arise in the region. Our close neighbour, Malaysia, has struggled with dissatisfaction from the Chinese and Indian community surrounding the preferential treatment of Malays by the state. Meanwhile, ethnic Malays also resent that they seem to be excluded from the well-paying sectors the Chinese and Indian seem to dominate. Countries like Thailand also struggle with minorities that live far away from the centre of the nation’s activities in the cities, and grow up hardly interacting with it. Instead, Singapore’s equal treatment of all races and celebration of ethnic differences allows the most serious racial offense in years to be a couple of social media posts ignorantly complaining and attributing their personal hassles to the practices of the other races. These sentiments are also swiftly denounced by the nation.

However, one bears in mind the Singapore Recollections, “let us not take for granted that we have will always be”. While the nation has enjoyed relative peace, destabilizing entities such as ISIS have great impact on our majority Chinese nation in a community of Muslim-dominated states. Growing tensions surrounding religious extremism has cause for Singapore to reevaluate its effectiveness in handling diversity. Although multiculturalism purports cohabitation amongst different ethnicities, one questions if it truly upholds the embracing of differences as much as it does mere tolerance. A society where races can coexist but are not required to intermingle can be a brewing storm. The lack of the need to examine our differences and to face tough issues surrounding them may have made Singapore complacent towards its peace in diversity, A culture of casual racism has been largely swept under the rug, with a mindset of “going along to get along”, particularly in our youth, may be sources of friction with growing Islamophobia globally. To ensure further effectiveness in managing diversity, Singapore must be prepared to identify and address contention and suspicion between different ethnicities in order to prevent societal fissures in an era of uncertainty instead of merely alluding to it or ignoring it.

Finally, one of the biggest critiques against Singapore’s management of diversity remains its handling of alternative voices. Due to its particularly paternalistic ruling style, the government tends to censor much of the views it deems immoral or inappropriate. Though this has been argued as a means to cater to a largely conservative society, many liberal voices have taken issue with it. Most prominently, the criminalisation of gay relationships is perceived as oppressive and against a culture of diversity to the growing Pink Dot movement. There has also been growing discontent over a lack of positive portrayals of physical and mental disabilities outside of charity shows, which, even then, tend to portray these communities as weak or pitiful. In contrast to racism, sexism, Islamophobia or classism, this type of discrimination tends to hold more ground for the existing stigma , as they are largely perceived as “abnormalities” or “unnatural” by governments or the media. Thus, Singapore’s relatively poor representation towards LGBTQA and disabled persons is a source of much discontent as their diversity is not given its opportunity to be positively represented and instead this promoted an attitude of ignorance towards them on the part of the government and state-owned media.

Thus, although this essay regards Singapore’s management of diversity as largely effective, it is not blind to many flaws that tend to be inherent to its style of government or principles. In an age of growing concerns over individual rights and diversity, Singapore may face challenges in maintaining its control over diversity and the peace we currently enjoy. A sense of identity in the community is vital to ensure Singaporeans enjoy the level of peace and prosperity it strives to achieve.