Singapore: In search of Singaporeanness

October 13, 2015

Singapore: In search of Singaporeanness

by Patrick Sagaram

Lee Kuan Yew-LeaderBefore sovereignty, Singapore was a nation of immigrants, meaning that there was no ‘Singaporean nationalism’. Instead there was an excess of rival ethnic (Chinese, Malay, Indian) and national (Malayan) sentiments.

Void of a mythical, legendary past and lacking the elements of a romantic struggle against oppression, Singapore did not possess the resources for the psychological creation of a national imagined community in which the people are connected to their land and each other through shared heritage.

To counter this, the Chinese, Malay, Indian and Others (CMIO) race categorisation in Singapore was designed, cultivating a system of cultural representation and giving impetus to the myth of Singaporeaness.

This origin story is based on a shared identity whereby members of the country’s various ethnic communities are progressively integrated into the wider population and become Singaporeans not only by law but also in their hearts and minds.

It is the government’s pluralist approach to managing cultural differences and ensuring inter-racial harmony and authentic ‘Asianess’ (whatever that may mean).But like most categories, CMIO is starting to come under scrutiny, particularly when challenged by the complexities of the 21st century and an increasingly global world.

Speaking at a conference last week, Professor Chan Heng Chee, a former Ambassador to the United States, argued against scrapping the categorisation. She claimed that that jettisoning the category would be a cause for contention among the minority races even today.

“The majority community doesn’t feel uncomfortable. It’s the minority community where you have to keep emphasising its equal language, religion, culture and race,” she told the audience. Professor Chan argued that CMIO, an umbrella identity created through housing, education and national service policies, assures minority races that their place in society is not under threat. However, to truly share a common identity, Singaporeans must  think about ourselves in terms of nationhood rather than ethnicity.

One of the problems of CMIO is that every Singaporean is racially classified at birth. A child is assigned his father’s ‘race’ and other ambiguities are not taken into account. Additionally, the state recognises every citizen as a ‘hyphenated Singaporean’. For example, every Singaporean citizen is identified as Singapore-Chinese, Singapore-Malay.

The problem with this classification is that it encourages Singaporeans to only associate with their own culture and ethnicity. The paradox of this logic is that there is no culturally defined notion of Singaporeanness.

We should also consider making adjustments to our policy of bilingualism in education. Rationalised as a means for students to preserve their cultural connection the policy has been criticised fortifying ethnic autocracy. Once presented as a celebration of genuine cultural heritage, this policy is an unauthentic construct of Singapore’s cultural outlook.

As Chua Beng Huat states in the article Multiculturalism in Singapore: an instrument of social control, the notion of a ‘mother tongue’ automatically assumes that both parents are from the same racial group. With more inter-racial marriages among Singaporeans, children adopt the father’s race by law and may take the mother’s language as their second language in school. This choice may be motivated by economic factors.

But most disquieting is the fact that elite Chinese students have enjoyed an added advantage in the education system through the Special Assistance Plan (SAP). Launched in 1979, SAP schools are extremely prestigious secondary schools that place a strong emphasis on Chinese culture. In 2008, the Ministry of Education introduced enhancements and opportunities for SAP schools to deepen their learning of Chinese language and culture.Similar Malay or Tamil elite schools were not created.

This perpetuates an intellectually superior ‘Chinese Singapore’, and such inequalities are undoubtedly inconsistent with the spirit of what Professor Chan terms as ‘CMIO Singaporeans’.

It is arguable that our brand of racial categorisation can be considered both as ‘faux’ and ‘manufactured’ – both the government and the people are sycophantic about Singapore as a multicultural/multiethnic society.

While liberal democratic traditions such as Canada and Australia allow issues such as race, ethnicity and identity to be open to consistent debates and deliberation, Singapore’s stance on these issues tend to languish in a pristine ideological space.

The late Mr S Rajaratnam, who penned Singapore’s national pledge, was a strong proponent of creating a ‘race of Singaporeans’. A society that is able to transcend the estrangement of primordial sentiments.

From a pragmatic standpoint, it would be arduous and even seemingly impossible. But, at least we should try. Because in years time to come, we would have created something close to a truly Singaporean Singapore. 

Patrick Sagaram lives and works in Singapore  as a teacher.

14 thoughts on “Singapore: In search of Singaporeanness

  1. How to integrate is a real challenge for Singapore, but at least they are trying hard to make Singaporeans think Singaporean. Culture, religion and ethnicity are not easy to blend. –Din Merican

  2. Taiye Selasi provided a TED talk on the issue of multi-local of ‘Ask not where I am from, but ask where I call myself a local’. Placed a link to the TED talk, and a Chinese song on the same topic.

    Nation state is artificial, and very recently created. To be human, is to realize our cultural differences, and cherish that. A successful progressive nation-state is one that could harness the differences, and allow a space for all to live/work together.

  3. If the Almighty wanted us to be of only 1 race, he would not have create human of different skin colour and speak different language. Unless we are saying the Almighty is not perfect … which is blaspheme punishable by death on a wooden stake in a bonfire in the old days.

    So why can’t we embrace and accept diversity in human race than try to be super-hypocrites thinking it is a crime to consider ourselves different from others.

    The glue that binds a community or a nation is mutual respect for our ethnic and cultural differences and sharing of common values and goals that trancend these differences.

  4. Din,
    For this, we should look at S Rajaratnam penning of Singapore’s pledge. Furthermore Zubir Said’s inspiring majulah singapura which I believe that it should be adopted as Malaysia’s national anthem instead of that Negaraku

    Lee Kuan Yew’s take on S Rajaratnam’s Singapore pledge

  5. It is in the Lord’s infinite Wisdom to create differences, so that Man and his environment will ‘ evolve ‘ – yes, Evolution is the Lord’s mechanism to see how the Universe matures – hence Evolutionist/Scientist has come to accept a slightly changed perception of the original Darwinian theory on Evolution : It is now Evolution by Intelligent Creation, which may mean that things in Nature as it happens or evolves will be in The Lord’s schemes of things – what will happen in the next few thousand years , how’s Man to know ?
    BTW – Did Man evolve from the Ape ?

  6. Has anyone , the Scientist or the Philosopher , defined Evolution by natural selection as thought by Charles Darwin , which means that it is chance or random happening ? Why does the Scientist now say that its Evolution by ” Intelligent Design ” ? ( I admit of being ignorant, but can it be done by ‘ engineering ‘ the human body & flesh ?)

  7. Singapore was created by evil english men who main aim in life is to serve their Christian Queen by stealing from natives all over the world. In fact 77 countries to be exact. The Queen is anointed by God and this is clearly shown in the boston tea party revolt against a distance woman who claim tax sovereignty in Red Indians land. And so it was the British came to claim Malay land as belonging to their Christian Queen killing the Malay leader Maharalela who fought them.
    So Singapore is still a Malay island. The poor chinese from the rivers as Lee Kuan Yew told the Chinese mandarins tried their best to continue stealing from the natives malays.
    With the prosperity of China, there is no reason to hold the fort for the British anymore. With liberalism and secularism, the Queen is just an odd figure not some one to die for,
    How can you long for something that is never there in the first place. Chinese belong to China and Singapura still part of the Malay Peninsula in culture and in football.
    Gradually the indians would want to go back to prosperous mumbai, the chinese back to the modern motherland and nature would reunite the malays..

  8. “In 2008, the Ministry of Education introduced enhancements and opportunities for SAP schools to deepen their learning of Chinese language and culture. Similar Malay or Tamil elite schools were not created.” – Patrick Sagaram

    Well, then it’s about time these Malay and Tamil elite schools are created. Else, not all Singaporeans are created equal.

  9. In part Singapore is where it is today because of Malaysian policies. And I understand from usually reliable sources that an Ambassador-at-Lost is now trying to repay the favour.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.