Sunday, February 18, 2007

Treatise on the Issue of Race

Race has always been a sensitive topic throughout the four decades of national history. Unfortunately, this issue is one of the unique cases whereby action precedes word. It is a concept that is shaped more often by personal experience than logical thought. As such, it is hard for the individual to conceive racial concepts in an objective manner, on a macro societal level and harder to, borrowing the oft-used phrase, “put oneself in the other’s shoes”.

As such, while older generations have been deterred by their shared experiences in racial conflicts, the younger generation is ostensibly unperturbed by the issue of race precisely because of their lack of similar experiences. The twofold nature of Singaporeans’ attitudes towards race has become a paradox that has affected government policy in an awkward manner. While the concept of Racial Harmony has found fertile grounds in the youth of today, it is in the middle-aged people that the resonance is greatest. This dissection of the young and old into different target groups is arbitrary and unnecessary.

This has given a new Uniquely Singaporean dimension to the Race issue here. The tendency for youth to perceive Race as a problem merely exclusive to Singapore can be attributed to the solely Singaporean examples provided in textbooks, and the solely Singaporean solution of Racial Harmony. Focusing on textbook-style inculcation of values will inevitably lead to youth perceiving Race as an issue that is anachronistic, outdated and irrelevant, simultaneously drawing their personal experiences (having friends from other racial groups, etc) from today to substantiate their beliefs. As such, there is a pressing need to expand the horizon of our youth, using foreign examples to demonstrate that the racial issue is neither confined to nor as placid as Singapore’s. This is the objective of this essay – and to serve as an objective, but nevertheless clear warning against our departure from Racial Harmony.


What many Singaporeans fail to comprehend is that the potential for Race to explode into a grievous issue is similar or greater in other regions of the world. While many nations of today are enjoying the peace and stability of a society relatively unplagued by racial tensions, these same countries have also had their share of genocides and civil wars springing from this common social division. Claiming that “Singapore does not, will not, and cannot, have a culture of its own” is perhaps premature; How could anyone predict that other cosmopolitan societies are any stronger than our own beyond the image that they project? If even a predominantly traditional and relatively undisturbed society as that in Iraq can be driven to sectarian violence, what volumes does this speak regarding the integrity of our society in response to similar pressures? Does this spell doom then, that our modern societies, always in a constant state of flux, would fracture into a million splinters when the time came? Or, is it perhaps an indicator that Race is no longer an issue in “modern” societies?

Racial discrimination has always been prevalent throughout history, through the attribution of negative stereotypes to a group of people based on racial prejudices. So long as the underlying assumption that racial discrimination is solely caused by racial prejudices holds true, then, if all people were of one race, there would be no discrimination, since the social divisions caused by race are eliminated. Yet, it is often forgotten that stereotypes do not materialize without reasons; racial discrimination is more likely the culmination of a combination of grievances: social, economic and political. As long as these underlying jealousies exist, it is likely that even with the assimilation of various peoples into one homogenous race, these undercurrents would continue to manifest themselves in more subtle forms, gender and age, for example, of discrimination.

The main reason behind the predominance of racial discrimination in the hierarchy of discriminatory types is the inherent structure of society. Since the ancient times, communal identities have always formed as a result of a congruence in political, economic, and hence social aims. The Egyptian identity was based almost exclusively on their monopoly of the fertile Nile delta, while the Chinese have a common history in the Central Plains. Such examples serve to illustrate the gap between the haves and the have-nots, which as time passed tended to manifest itself in terms of civilization versus barbarian struggles. Chinese chauvinism expressed itself in the most ardent form in the Qing Government’s high-handed treatment of and obvious disregard for European envoys in the 19th Century. This mindset of Chinese “supremacy” and “superiority” has prevailed since the Qin dynasty, and was based on the profitable tea trade during the 19th Century. All of this points to geographical factors influencing the political, economic and social background of a people’s identity, which is termed race. Hence, race is merely a shroud for deeper inherent prejudices which have prevailed in society. Removing race would solve the symptoms of discrimination in the short-run, but as long as the long term inherent factors persist, the disease would nevertheless persist, and manifest itself in other forms.

Discrimination is also often based on a majority-minority set of rules. The roots of anti-Semitism go back to when the Jews were dispersed in small communities throughout Europe, and where they were faced with impotence in stopping mass pogroms, which were socially acceptable norms. Today, in America and Europe, despite racial discrimination being outlawed (especially after the Holocaust) as being socially unacceptable, and technically, “Race being no longer an issue”, Jews continue to be attacked for their economic dominance in society. As such, this example illustrates that despite the removal of racial barriers, certain minority groups continue to be targeted – Jews because of their physical minority, and Blacks due to their being an ‘economic’ minority. Race notwithstanding, discrimination continues to manifest itself in power-politics.

Racial discrimination is again becoming increasingly irrelevant in the globalized world of today. The formation of homogenous, cosmopolitan societies across the globe means that racial distinctions are blurring. Certainly, globalization and its results have assisted in reducing racial discrimination, since the various races (especially foreign talent) all play an integral and irreplaceable role in society and more importantly, the economy. Furthermore, racial discrimination against a particular minority would almost inevitably provoke a reprisal against one’s own minorities overseas. This is most aptly illustrated by the Prophet Mohammed Cartoon saga where Europeans in the Middle East were targeted in reprisal for perceived religious/racial attacks on Muslims in Europe. Hence, it can be seen that racial discrimination is becoming unprofitable not only for the victim, but also the proponent as well, and thus, is being actively curtailed across the globe.

Yet, globalization does indeed bring its fair share of discrimination, though in more subtle forms. Reinforcing the majority-minority argument supporting the continued eminence of discrimination are sexism and ageism. These two forms of discrimination prey on perceived weaknesses of females being the weaker gender, and bank of the inability of the older workers to resist discrimination. As such, globalization has served to transform discrimination from its hitherto blatant, physical form to a more subtle, virulent form. It is precisely this subtlety and “logical” discrimination that makes it extremely hard to counteract these days: Proponents of sexism and ageism argue that such people being discriminated against is proper and rational, since they are less economically useful. What such an argument serves to highlight is the inherent social Darwinism evident in society: the strong dominate the weak; the majority overrules the minority.

The cunning façade offered by the decrease in racial discrimination can be said to have hidden or overshadowed the rise of more subtle forms. Discrimination is in itself a culmination of many inherent factors defining a certain identity, which then chooses to assert its dominance over another group of people. As such, discrimination will continue to exist as long as social divisions are present in society, and the number of forms of discrimination can take is defined by the number of fault lines in society. It is indeed regrettable, that globalization has often caused the rise of a more fragile cosmopolitan society, with a weaker social integrity and fabric than the societies of the past. What one can expect, then, is not the reduction of discrimination, but its mutation into less discernible forms.

It is perhaps apt to conclude with a quote from Samuel P. Huntington, author of “The Clash of Civilizations” – “One can only love what one possesses, and hate what one does not”. Nowhere did he mention Race. Unfortunately, it is simply the most brutal yet effective means of adhering to this ingrained human doctrine.