Unending Project of Building Racial Harmony in Singapore

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourned to 11.30 am tomorrow."

Question proposed.

Mr Raj Joshua Thomas.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I relied on a number of people to help with this Motion – a "Chindian" woman, a Malay colleague, an Indian Muslim who wears the hijab, a Chinese Special Assistance Plan school graduand, something of a microcosm of Singapore. Even amongst the few of us, there were heated debates, passionate arguments and some very emotional sharing.

Sir, multiracialism is difficult and race issues will never go away. Racial harmony is an aspiration and a project that we must consistently and unendingly work towards. And because racial harmony is about people, about relationships, all of us have a part to play and we must do so with sensitivity, responsibility and in good faith. As Minister Edwin Tong said here earlier today, we need a whole-of-society approach. This unending project of building racial harmony in Singapore is an unending project of engagement, communication and calibration. And these are three thrusts that I will speak on today which are especially relevant, given the recent incidents in Singapore.

The first thrust, engagement, is about the willingness to reach out, to teach, to understand and to build understanding. Government bodies have played a big part in this regard and organisations like OnePeople.sg and the Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circles (IRCCs) have done great work. In addition to the efforts of Government and Government-related bodies, community groups and leaders also have a role that they can play.

An example is the Young Sikh Association, or the YSA, reaching out to influencer Ms Sheena Phua after she made an Instagram post describing Sikh turbans as "obstructions" obstructing her view of the Singapore Grand Prix race. The YSA's actions helped turn a divisive post into something positive for all Singaporeans. As its President Mr Sarabjeet Singh noted, "Ms Phua demonstrated humility, kindness, curiosity and sincerity, and that is more important to us…and all of us have walked away as better people."

Some might say that this is putting the burden of engagement on minorities and minority groups. But I would like to urge my fellow minorities not to see this as a burden but as a unique opportunity to help strengthen our racial harmony. Like the YSA has demonstrated, if we all choose to take this up, we will emerge as a kinder, more gracious and more caring Singapore – the new glue that will bind us together that Minister Edwin Tong mentioned on Saturday.

The second thrust, Sir, is communication, which entails having responsible, mature dialogue, a willingness to speak up without fear, to share lived experiences, to propose how we can do things better and an openness to listen. Communication is about both what we receive and accept and believe and what we put out.

A lot of communication is now done online. There is a multiplicity of sources from independent talk shows to analytical Instagram slideshows and confessional websites. This has enriched discourse but also spread thin the locus of public attention. Navigating these multifarious sources can be tricky.

First, as regards what we receive and accept online, I would urge Singaporeans to be wary of bad actors and opportunists. Bad actors are malicious characters who seek to sow dissent between our communities and opportunists may not be malicious but they seek to exploit certain incidents for personal gain – perhaps some attention, perhaps a few more likes or a few more clicks. While they may be hopping onto legitimate concerns, opportunists do not work towards resolution because they want to extract the maximum benefit from the situation and may therefore seek to exacerbate it and prolong it. This is why they can be dangerous.

This, of course, does not mean that we should be too quick to label people as bad actors or opportunists. In particular, for those who raise awareness on real issues and incidents they have encountered, commentators should not turn the tables on them and victim shame or accuse them of inciting racial disharmony. I do not think this accords with the law and it is a cruel and unfair way to treat the original poster. It may also lead to a chilling effect that may prevent future genuine cases from emerging.

Second, on information that we post, public figures like politicians, community leaders, even influencers and artistes, have a distinct responsibility when posting about race. I agree with fellow Member Raeesah Khan that, and I quote, "as leaders, we have the power to start difficult conversations and that it is vital to frame these conversations in a considerate and accountable manner". I was also heartened today to see that both Senior Minister Teo and the hon Leader of the Opposition Mr Pritam Singh affirmed their commitment not to politicise race issues.

The amplifying nature of social media can propel ordinary individuals who raise issues into the national spotlight. More of these will inevitably emerge. These individuals would then also have to exercise responsibility and, in particular, must be careful about writing large their personal experiences on their whole community.

The recent incident between Ms Sarah Bagharib and the People's Association (PA) is a case in point. When I first saw Ms Bagharib's Instagram post about PA using her photo as a standee without her consent, I thought that she had a genuine and legitimate complaint primarily rooted in intellectual property rights. PA apologised quickly, as did Member Melvin Yong. Minister Edwin Tong sent his unreserved apology and expressed dismay at the standee being used as a caricature. I had the impression that PA was quite ready to engage with Ms Bagharib, including on her concerns regarding larger issues she had raised, like the lack of understanding of the Malay culture.

But I thought that things took a different turn when Ms Bagharib made a call for feedback before her meeting with the PA and when her statements started looking like they were intended to be on behalf of the whole Malay community and on matters unrelated to the originating incident.

Sir, it is invariably more complex to engage with a self-appointed standard bearer because even within a community, people have diverse experiences and views. In fact, members of the Malay community did express disagreement with Ms Bagharib's reading of the incident. One Hanafi Ahmad wrote in The Straits Times Forum that he or she found Ms Bagharib's comments "unsettling". Former Member of Parliament Zainal Sapari said that the incident was not racist and that the PA was true to its mission of promoting racial harmony. Other minority commentators like Mr Devadas Krishnadas opined that "these pinpoint instances should not be used as opportunities to generalise loosely or to appeal or rally minority groups into some coalition of resistance".

Sir, in a multi-racial society, it is essential that individuals raise issues that affect them based on race. But these are an individual's views and experiences. They must be careful about assuming the mantle of a community spokesperson too easily. If they say, "My view is not just my view but the view of the community; my voice is the voice of the community and I will meet you and discuss with you on this basis", then, I think it is untenable.

If indeed this was Ms Bagharib's intention, then I think that the PA probably made the correct decision to disengage at that point. But this having been said, it was still an unfortunate outcome and I still hold out hope for an ultimate happy resolution.

Ms Bagharib has since made private the account that she used to first raise this issue and put out her statements. I was saddened by this. I watched her online interview and I found her articulate and passionate. She said her motivation of raising this issue was to build a better home for her daughter, which I think that this is the correct spirit, even if her approach could have been different.

I hope she will not self-cancel and I certainly hope no one attempts to cancel her. I invite her to return to the marketplace of discourse, even if not with the PA – perhaps, one day with the PA – but generally as well.

The third thrust of this unending project of building racial harmony is the ongoing calibration of policies, policy positions and the law. How should we look at policies? How can they be calibrated and what should we expect to be calibrated? I look at some examples.

Let us start with Special Assistance Plan (SAP) schools. What is it that bugs some people about the SAP schools? First, it is the impression that one of our constituent races, the Chinese, has an entire educational programme unto itself that benefits from state resources. I have seen comments online in response that, in return, minorities have madrasahs. Let me just be clear on this point, Sir, that madrasahs should not be considered the minority's equivalent of SAP schools. Madrasahs are religion-based, they are not race-based, and they exist for entirely different purposes.

Second, Sir, there is a fear that SAP school students are an insular Chinese elite, aloof from the other races. SAP schools have origins in the Chinese-education schools of old but their contemporary purpose is to build a group of Singaporeans well versed in Chinese culture and language to engage China, the world's second superpower and second largest economy. Language and cultural competency grant us a competitive edge.

For example, my colleague who studied Higher Chinese, is able to read, draft and negotiate contracts in Mandarin. This has enabled her to compete with Chinese lawyers in the Chinese market for legal work. As former Member of Parliament Low Thia Khiang said in this House, "the learning of Mandarin should be part of the overall strategy of anchoring Singapore as a Global-Asian node as it will help us to connect to 1.3 billion Chinese" and it is "a tool of soft power".

There is therefore a practical and pragmatic purpose to the SAP schools. So, let us take a step back and ask ourselves whether Malay SAP schools or Tamil SAP schools would fulfill the same purposes. Will such schools give their graduates a similar edge to compete in, presumably, India or Malaysia? My view is that it would be unlikely. India and Malaysia are very different economies and societies as compared to China. For example, business is more easily conducted in English in these countries and we also have the common language of the common law.

In this regard, we should avoid a "you have it, therefore I must have it too" approach when looking at ethnic or ethnic-based policies. Each of the communities in Singapore is different and policies must be designed accordingly to take into consideration these differences.

The pragmatic purpose of the SAP schools aside, it is, however, a legitimate and valid concern that these students may become an insular lot. My colleague, a SAP school graduand, told me that not only did she have little exposure to people of other races while schooling, but that she also did not feel any motivation to seek out, engage or befriend them outside of school as they did not feature in her own lived experience. She said that she only made friends from other races when she went to University. This SAP school experience was echoed by one Mr Lee Young Kai in a letter in The Straits Times Forum published just a few hours ago.

Sir, this is troubling. SAP school graduates may be expected to engage China but they are still Singaporean and they are still part of our multi-racial society.

Last year, Minister Lawrence Wong updated the House that all SAP schools will eventually offer conversational Malay programmes. He also elaborated on Dunman High School's Diversity and Inclusivity programme, which paired students with peers from other schools, including the madrasahs. Minister Maliki also spoke about such initiatives this afternoon.

These are good programmes and I urge MOE to expand on these programmes, to make them compulsory as far as possible and to ensure that SAP school students have exposure and can build meaningful relationships with all minority groups in Singapore. I also urge, Sir, for more transparency on what is being done in this regard.

Sir, moving on to GRCs. My view is that the GRC system has worked well in ensuring minority representation and the renewal of minority candidates in the elections. It has ensured diversity not only in the Parliament but also within political parties.

Furthermore, in a multi-racial country, the perception of bias in voting along racial lines is as dangerous as the reality. It is too easy for a losing minority candidate to claim that she or he had lost due to race bias. If so much heat and noise can be generated from an incident involving a standee and, recently, in the news, about a waffle – and I say this without trivialising those incidents – just imagine how much more divisiveness will be generated from claims of racism affecting elections or the electability of a minority candidate? The GRC system removes the possibility of this being claimed post-elections. The importance of this cannot be downplayed and is a uniquely Singaporean feature of our elections.

We must also take care to segmentise criticisms of a political nature from criticisms of the GRC system's function of ensuring minority representation. If there is a political concern about the GRC, then we should raise it as a political criticism. Let us not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

The next question is whether we will one day see a minority Prime Minister, which has been a long running topic.

The way I see it, Sir, the selection of a candidate to lead a political party to become the Prime Minister is quite obviously a practical decision. This person must be able to hold the confidence of Singaporeans of all the races and religions in Singapore and must be able to lead the country and, importantly, to win elections.

This is, however, quite different from saying that a particular group of Singaporeans may not be ready for a minority Prime Minister, and that a decision should be made based on this group's sentiment.

Sir, I am glad that Minister Wong expressed what I thought was perhaps a more calibrated, a more refined position on this. To quote Minister Wong, "A minority who wants to be Prime Minister should be aware of these attitudes. It does not mean that he or she cannot be Prime Minister. But these are the realities on the ground".

I think this position gives a very timely and needed assurance to Singaporeans of all races. In fact, Sir, if we look at the 2016 CNA-IPS Survey, which showed that while Singaporeans preferred a Prime Minister of the same race, the same survey also showed that Singaporeans were accepting – all above 50% – of a Prime Minister of another race. So, I would say that the results show that a minority Prime Minister could actually have a chance of leading a party to win the elections and I am encouraged by this.

Sir, as regards calibration of the law, I suggest that whilst keeping our harsh penalties for race-based crime, we could also introduce a rehabilitative regime similar to the Communal Remedial Initiative enacted in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. This will help to avoid hardening of views by offenders by building their understanding of other races and cultures.

Ultimately, Sir, we must look at policies and laws as a whole. If we just pluck out individual policies and critique them on their own, of course there will be much to say. But policies and laws do not exist in vacuo. The correct approach is to look at the whole, to identify gaps or inconsistencies, and to plug those.

Sir, after the recent incidents, Minister Shanmugam commented that he was not so sure that racial relations were moving in the correct direction. And I think, Sir, when Minister Shanmugam is not so sure about something, we should at least be a little concerned.

And in fact, the recent IPS World Value Survey showed that although Singapore has the second lowest proportion of respondents perceiving racism as occurring frequently, that the frequency of racist behaviour has been going up since 2012. So we still have work to do, to engage, to communicate, to calibrate and to strengthen our racial harmony.

Sir, I conclude, with a quote from a recent Facebook post by one Mr Vishnu Anandh. After describing several positive experiences with people of other races, he wrote and I quote, “I understand the frustration and anger when a lot of people are currently sharing videos that call out racism or racial disharmony. But along with that, let’s not forget the good stuff as well. It may seem like small things. Yet, in such tumultuous times, it is small episodes that assure us of our togetherness and that we are one people in this nation…United we stand. Majulah”. [Applause.]

Mr Edwin Tong.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Mr Raj Joshua Thomas for emphasising the importance of racial harmony and for reminding us that this is indeed a continuous work in progress, even as we all aspire to be a post-racial society.

Earlier today, my colleagues and I outlined the Government's multi-pronged approach to tackle racism, racial discrimination and also help realise our aspiration of building a society which values people equally, whether Chinese, Malay, Indian and other races, and are bound by their commonalities, and enlarged by their differences. These points are equally relevant to addressing the issues raised by Mr Thomas.

At a recent seminar, Minister Lawrence Wong outlined the Government’s position on how our present harmony is hard-won; a result of careful thought to laws and policies over several decades.

Our electoral system guarantees minority representation in Parliament; and in each political party who wishes to represent the interests of Singaporeans and no political party can prevail by narrowly appealing to one narrow racial or religious segment of society. Our housing policies, as you have heard, ensure that we have racially integrated neighbourhoods and not segregated ethnic enclaves. Our Presidential Council on Minority Rights has the power to reject laws passed by Parliament that infringes on the rights of any minority population.

Sir, these, and other steps, have enabled Singapore to progress from the darker days of racial riots in its early years of Independence.

Unlike, for example, the French model of assimilation, we did not set out to achieve harmony by ignoring or eliminating cultural diversity and getting ethnic minority groups to adopt the language and the norms and the attitudes of the majority group.

On the contrary, we have worked hard to entrench the interests of our multi-racial groups. The Constitution itself sets out basic obligations on the part of the Government to care for the interests of racial and religious minorities.

We have long recognised the need to protect both ethnic communities and also bridge them through a set of common values and a common language. Therefore, we have embarked on a unique path as a multi-racial and multicultural society – one that celebrates its ethnic diversity as strength, while having a shared sense of belonging and identity.

I dare say, Mr Speaker, very few societies around the world have succeeded in ensuring its citizens live harmoniously together, let alone one which has as much diversity as we do in Singapore. What we have achieved is something that we can all be very proud of.

At the same time, we are not complacent, nor do we presume that what we have achieved is perfect or completed, or that we have achieved a steady post-racial state.

Recent incidents, as Mr Thomas has outlined, of racist behaviour that have gone viral remind us there is nothing natural or nothing preordained about our state of racial harmony. And without due care and attention constantly, the good progress we have made can be lost very quickly.

As Mr Thomas has suggested, and I agree, this means that we need to work constantly to ensure our racial harmony. We also have to calibrate our laws, as he has suggested, and policies to ensure that they remain relevant and fair.

Changing social attitudes mean that every generation will of course have to decide its own balance on issues of race and other sensitive issues. So, our policies are not set in stone, but must be refined to keep pace with societal changes, keeping the overarching raison d'etre as the focus. And I thank Mr Thomas for the suggestions that he has made to calibrate some of our policies. My Ministry, together with other Ministries, will study them carefully.

However, as he has pointed out, the core, the essence, of our policies continues to remain relevant today.

As we review our policies, we will engage multiple stakeholders, some of whom who may well have conflicting views. We will endeavour to seek consensus on the changes that we choose to undertake, so that policy change and policy shifts can unite and not divide us.

At the same time, we must also be conscious that what might work in other countries, in other societies, in other jurisdictions, might not work in the same way as our context will be different and we must always remain sensitive to local realities and our own lived experiences.

Shifts in our policy positions will also not come about because of populist sentiments or from who shouts the loudest. But you can be assured, Mr Speaker, that at the heart of it, the Government will always seek to preserve our hard-earned multi-racial harmony.

Let me elaborate. First, on strengthening our community networks and institutions. Mr Thomas has emphasised the need to continually reach out and engage diverse groups in our society. We will continue to do so, with the support of community partners to actively promote opportunities to build bonds of trust between races.

At the national level, I chair the National Steering Committee on Racial and Religious Harmony or NSC to build close relationships between Government and our ethnic community leaders and also apex religious leaders.

We also have the National Integration Council (NIC) to integrate new citizens who may be ethnically similar to us but may come from very different context and different cultural backgrounds. At the local level, the Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circles (IRCCs) in each of the constituencies foster friendships and build mutual respect at every of these constituency networks. There were also several other initiatives which I have outlined earlier today in Parliament.

Second, enlarging our common spaces, something which Mr Thomas spoke at some length about, highlighting the need to ensure, in particular, that students from SAP schools do not turn into an insular group. Sir, we agree. SAP schools, and indeed all schools, should promote social mixing, and meaningful interactions and discourse with students from other communities.

Schools will always remain an important common ground to develop cross-cultural understanding and friendships from a young and early age and these will be relationships and mindsets and philosophies that we hope can last a lifetime.

In fact, Singapore’s approach to harmony has always been about creating as much common space as possible, working also through the domains of arts, culture and sports – domains that my Ministry is particularly interested in.

At the same time, Sir, I think we can do more than just simply bringing people together. We do not want our ethnic communities to just “co-exist” or just “tolerate” each other’s existence. And we certainly hope that people can embrace each other’s differences, appreciate that we all have something unique to contribute precisely because we are different, and to stand in solidarity despite our races.

We have witnessed many acts of embracement in the past year, as I am sure many Members in this House have, as we stood together as one people especially during the adversities presented by COVID-19. We want to continue this spirit of embracement, by facilitating and providing opportunities for individuals to join up their different talents for the common good.

To outline some examples. At the neighbourhood-level, we have appointed SG Cares Volunteer Centres to coordinate volunteers and resources to bring more local stakeholders working side by side on a daily basis to create a larger positive social impact, regardless of race or religion.

At the national level, we are expanding opportunities for individuals to partner with the Government to co-create solutions. In the spirit of Singapore Together, we have embarked on 25 Alliances for Action (AfAs), which are action-oriented across different sector collaborations to tackle complex issues. Again, not quite respecting strictly the boundaries of race and religion, but looking at the issue as they affect or impact on society.

Third, Sir, nurturing a constructive discourse to build empathy and mutual understanding, a third point that Mr Thomas touched on. In as much as it is important to expand common spaces, there will also be occasions of differences, discord and disagreement. We will need to be constructive about how this is managed.

Embracing each other’s differences also means being willing to hear from and engage with someone who shares a different view, especially on sensitive matters such as race.

Society falters not when we disagree about things, but when we lose interest in trying to make sense of the other person’s point of view or to understand or to learn and relearn on occasion and trying to engage that person on the merits of our own, to educate, to share and eventually come to a mutual understanding.

Mr Thomas for highlighted the important role of responsible and mature discourse as well, but at the same time, being acutely aware of the need to guard against those who take advantage of and exploit fault lines for their own malicious intent.

Community and religious groups and leaders also play a key role in encouraging constructive discussions, clarifying doubts and misconceptions. And often these doubts and misconceptions are innocent but yet they lie at the heart of some of these insensitivities or misapprehensions. They also play a part in rallying Singaporeans to stand against divisive rhetoric, a lot of which also appears online.

That is why MCCY is collaborating with technology companies, as I outlined earlier this afternoon, to support religious, interfaith and community organisations’ efforts to produce meaningful social media content, positive social media content on racial and religious harmony.

Sir, while MCCY and the whole-of-Government will continue to do its utmost to preserve the hard-won harmony that we have enjoyed, success will also require it to be a whole-of-society effort. The Government alone cannot, should not, compel Singaporeans to just have more friends of different races or religions. Neither would this be sustainable.

But we can create the conditions and the environment to foster stronger, deeper, more long-lasting harmony. And we will do so. We will convene, we will encourage, we will partner with the community, but I wish to stress that ultimately, connections can only happen when individuals want to make that happen, want to do so and reach out to one another.

For racial harmony to be enduring, the heavy lifting and the motivation really must come from all Singaporeans, collectively, in an open fashion.

Finally, Sir, let me close by thanking Mr Thomas for reminding us not to “forget the good stuff as well”, as he puts it. I think he is absolutely right.

Yes, we have to continuously work at forging racial harmony and it is not an easy task. It is a constant work in progress and we must take nothing for granted.

But we are also different from so many others in the world with what we already have: we have a guarantee of equality for all races; a racial diversity and harmony which has benefited from a system earlier generations of our leaders have set up, with wisdom and with foresight precisely to ensure that we do not fall into the difficulties that other racially diverse communities might have, with social mixing, integration, harmony. It is really so difficult for many societies to do this well, let alone a racially diverse society like ours. But we make a conscious choice that this is what our country will stand for on the very day of our Independence and have worked hard at it ever since.

So, Sir, let us not throw out what has worked well for us over the decades, a system which structurally delivers integration outcomes to foster better multi-racial and multi-religious relations.

I urge all Singaporeans from all ethnic communities to engage each other in our commons spaces to forge stronger relations, embrace diversity and also to practise it each day which is important. And if we can do that, I am sure that our lived experiences will come closer and closer to our aspirations of a truly post-racial society. [Applause.]

Order. The time allowed for the proceedings has expired.

The Question having been proposed at 7.00 pm and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at 7.30 pm.