![Eastlaw.Net [东方法律网]](https://i1.wp.com/www.eastlaw.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/create_thumb.png?fit=220%2C169)
Law Against Racial Discrimination in Singapore: Notes and Cases
‘This is Singapore’ is no excuse for racist behaviour
Post on bigotry hits home, guide on breast cancer is well received, and a prankster cops it
YOUR SINGAPORE V. MINE
What is your definition of Singapore, and what happens when a fellow Singaporean has a vastly different idea of what the country should be or represent?
A 28-year-old poet has taken to social media to relate an incident last week in which racism reared its ugly head.
Ms Jennifer Anne Champion, a Singaporean with Ceylonese Tamil, Malay, Indonesian and Chinese heritage, was waiting for her partner’s return at Changi Airport last Tuesday, according to her Facebook note. Standing next to her were other people waiting to welcome returning family and friends, including a bespectacled Chinese man in his 40s.
When a Filipino family reunited at the railings near the exit of the gate, the bespectacled man began his tirade. At first, he said: “No hugging here. Can you see? This is Singapore. Go hug outside.”
In her note, Ms Champion said she thought the man was perhaps asking the Filipino family not to obstruct the exit. Unfortunately, she was proven wrong.
When confronted, the man reiterated his message, this time in nastier words. “This is Singapore. You Filipinos. Go back to the Philippines. This is Singapore.”
Ms Champion said she was stunned. “My heart feels sick for this family that such ugliness is the first thing that greets them. The entrance to Singapore, so heavily checked for tax-evaders, contraband smokers, drug takers, but not racists,” she wrote.
She decided to stand up to the racist. “Sir, I am Singaporean and I don’t approve of what you did just now,” she said.
“You Singaporean? I don’t care,” came the curt reply.
The subsequent exchanges followed in the same vein.
It was then, Ms Champion said, that she realised how the bespectacled man might view her.
To him, being xenophobic was the norm, believing he was higher up the food chain in “cultural superiority”.
But a Singaporean who did not tolerate or abide by his viewpoints was an even greater “unknown”.
- NOTABLE TRENDS
GIVE ME BACK MY TERREX CHIA: YouTuber Alvin Oon uploaded a humorous music video addressing the Terrex incident in a lighthearted manner, sung in several dialects. It is the top- ranking local video, according to search giant Google, with more than 270,000 views since it was uploaded on Jan 9.
OBAMA FAREWELL: US President Barack Obama gave his farewell address on Jan 10, as his second term in office comes to a close. Aside from his farewell speech, the other video that trended was of him awarding a surprised US Vice-President Joe Biden with the Medal of Freedom.
O-LEVEL RESULTS: The release of the results was a top trending search on Google. Students who took the O levels last year have outperformed their seniors, with 84.3 per cent of the cohort attaining at least five passes.
“In all fairness,” she wrote, “what happen(ed) here between us should be a national conversation. How to deal with the trauma when Singaporeans come head to head with different ideas of what Singapore is.”
She added: “In my Singapore, the invocation ‘This is Singapore’ as a way of excusing bigoted behaviour in public is not regrettable, but punishable. Because the people of Singapore are a result of never-ending waves of migration.”
The bespectacled man, Ms Champion believes, routinely mistakes privilege for a sense of entitlement that stems from nationality and social standing.
“You work hard, other people are lazy and cannot own your success. You, however, can buy and own others,” she wrote.
“We are a lot of things, but the one thing our historical, cultural, societal make-up does not allow us to be is bigoted.”
Ms Champion’s note had more than 250 likes, comments and shares. But a post’s popularity, or lack thereof, has no bearing on how insightful a piece of writing can be, or how accurate it is.
On social media, many studies have shown that in this era of fake news, it is often the hateful pieces that feed racism and xenophobia that do well and spread quickly.
After all, it is easy to like, share or comment upon a piece that will likely not have any impact on your day-to-day life.
But there is no doubt that there are strong undertones of bigotry in many facets of social media, across all platforms. This is why it makes it all the more important that encounters like what Ms Champion experienced should be shared to encourage dialogue.
BREAST CANCER ISN’T A GAME
If your Facebook feed is suddenly filled with little heart emojis, there’s a chance it may have something to do with breast cancer.
The premise is this: A user posts a heart on a female friend’s Facebook wall, then sends her a private message to tell her to get her breasts checked for lumps.
This “game”, which has resurfaced several times over the years, is supposedly meant only for women. The person who posts the heart emojis is supposed to keep silent if a male user asks her what it is about.
But the “gamification” of the potentially fatal disease has made some critics see red. They argue that the way the game plays out does little to raise awareness of the cancer. Last week, a breast cancer survivor came out to condemn the act even further.
Facebook user Erin Smith Chieze said she realised she had breast cancer in 2015 when someone on her Facebook feed posted a photo of what the cancer looked like.
“I saw an indentation that looked like one of the pictures, I instantly knew I had breast cancer,” she said. “A heart did nothing for awareness.”
She was diagnosed with the cancer five days later, and was informed that it was stage 4.
“A picture of what to look for keyed me into knowing I had a terminal disease. We need to give real information, not cute hearts.”
Instead of posting emojis, Ms Chieze posted a photo of what breast cancer looks like, using lemons as a guide. The lemons, arranged neatly in an egg tray, show symptoms like whether a breast has bumps, redness, indentation or skin erosion.
“If you truly want to help people with cancer, or those who will get cancer, share photos like this one,” she said.
Her message seems to have worked. The photo, posted on Jan 11, has been shared more than 36,500 times.
PRANK VIDEO GONE WRONG
There are limits to playing pranks in the name of raking in hits, as one YouTuber recently learnt.
Police in India arrested prankster Sumit Verma last week for his prank videos which showed him kissing random girls in public places without permission.
The 21-year-old Verma, who goes by the moniker “The Crazy Sumit”, has more than 155,000 subscribers on his channel.
Following the outrage, Verma took down the video and put up an apology, saying that his pranks were purely for “entertainment”.
Some of his other videos involve abusing customers in a barber shop by hitting them and using a towel to forcibly cover their faces, and going up to strangers sleeping in a park and hugging them.
The police have charged Verma with assault. His accomplice, camera man Satyajeet Kadyan, has also been arrested.
New reports say that Verma has denied the charges, and that he kissed only women who had given their consent. So far no one in the video has stepped forward to defend his actions.
Retired poly lecturer admits inciting violence
APR 12, 2017, 5:00 AM SGT
He asked others via Facebook to beat up Brit in road rage case
A retired Singapore Polytechnic lecturer yesterday pleaded guilty to inciting violence, via a Facebook page he had created while pretending to be someone else.
On the Act For Singapore (AFS) Facebook page he created in 2014 under the name Emett Haqq, Tang Koon Huat posted racially offensive barbs calling on vigilantes to beat up a Briton who had been convicted over a road rage incident.
On Jan 14 last year, Mr Alan Benjamin Maybury had been given the maximum $5,000 fine for punching a teenage driver. Later that day, Tang posted on the page, writing that it was time to form a “Singaporean vigilante group to go to beat up troublesome” Caucasians in the drinking joints. “Teach these bumps (sic) a lesson,” he added.
Tang, now 63 and retired, pleaded guilty yesterday to one of two charges of communicating an electronic record containing an incitement to violence.
Mr Maybury, 35, had hit 19-year-old polytechnic student Lum Kwok Weng after an accident on Nov 30, 2014, at around 1.30am.
Mr Lum had lost control of his car as he navigated a bend in South Buona Vista Road, resulting in a head-on collision with a taxi.
Mr Maybury, a former consultant, was in the taxi with his wife on their way home.
Mr Maybury, who had two glasses of champagne at a friend’s house earlier, got out of the taxi and shouted an expletive at Mr Lum before punching him in the face.
Tang was angered that Mr Maybury was given only a fine. In the post, Tang had contrasted how three local men were charged with “murder” of a drunk American and a further four charged with rioting during a brawl in Circular Road on Dec 24.
Following a report lodged by a member of the public on Jan 19, police identified Tang as the “true face” behind Emett Haqq and arrested him on April 15 last year.
During investigation, he admitted he had created the AFS page because of his negative perceptions of the influx of foreigners and the declining population of “native Singaporeans”.
Tang’s lawyer, Mr Alfred Dodwell, asked for time to prepare a submission on sentencing, arguing that the case would have an important and profound effect on freedom of speech and postings on social media.
He is asking that a fine be imposed on his client, who is “extremely remorseful” for what he has done.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Sanjiv Vaswani said the prosecution will provide written submissions.
He is seeking a three-month sentence as a “starting point”, saying there are no extenuating factors to depart from this.
District Judge Mathew Joseph adjourned the matter to May 16 for mitigation and sentencing.
The maximum penalty for the offence is five years’ jail and a fine.
Most famously, Amos Yee was convicted under this law for being religiously offensive in a widely-viewed YouTube video (Amos Yee jailed 4 weeks for wounding religious feelings, uploading obscene image), though it is notable that what seems to have done him in more was insulting the late “Founding Father” Lee Kuan Yew.
However, this law is arguably applied unevenly (Call on AGC to Abolish the Section 298 and Sedition Act Laws and #FreeAmosYee). Another case which comes to mind is that of Justin Wee in 2012, who was captured making racist jokes in a video while drunk (‘Awesome’ racist jokes lands SIM student in trouble). Nothing seems to have happened to him (possibly because he was drunk and he was joking rather than actively malicious).
Ultimately, it is unlikely that one-off racial slurs said to one’s face would result in criminal prosecution – simply because there are so many such cases (one hears of so many examples) and they have such little impact. It seems that that the main factor affecting your being prosecuted is how widely your words are spread.
So if you’re going to hurl racist slurs at someone in Singapore, make sure no one takes a video and uploads it to YouTube.
The race issue: How far has Singapore come?
NOV 8, 2015, 5:00 AM SGT
From violent race riots to being lauded for ethnic tolerance, that’s how far it has come. But there is no room for complacency
The date is July 21, 1964 – barely a year since Singapore became part of the Federation of Malaysia.
A procession is held to mark Prophet Muhammad’s birthday, starting at the Padang and ending in Geylang.
But the festive occasion will soon turn sour. A scuffle breaks out between Malays in the procession and Chinese bystanders, escalating into nationwide violence.
By the time a 13-day curfew was lifted, 23 people died and 454 people were injured. Singapore would later learn it was an orchestrated attempt to stir up racial tensions.
Two months later, another riot breaks out after rumours spread that a Malay trishaw rider was killed by a group of Chinese men, with 13 dead and 106 injured.
ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER
We have sound principles in place but practice and realisation is the real challenge in some domains more than others.
SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGIST LAI AH ENG of the National University of Singapore.
Fast forward to today and modern, independent Singapore is celebrating 50 years of prosperity and relative peace. Now, July 21 is notable as Racial Harmony Day, when young generations of Singaporeans go to school decked in racial garb and are taught the virtues of respecting diversity.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said last month that no matter the progress over the last 50 years, it would be “complacent and dangerous” to be lulled into a false sense of safety that race and religion matters are no more the divisive issues they once were.
The Constitution of a newly independent Singapore had set the tone of what was to come. Article 152 says it is the responsibility of the Government “constantly to care for the interests of the racial and religious minorities in Singapore”.
It also recognises the “special position of the Malays, who are the indigenous people of Singapore”.
Founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew had, in 1965, promised to build a multiracial nation. He said on Aug 9 that year: “This is not a Malay nation; this is not a Chinese nation; this is not an Indian nation. Everyone will have his place, equal: language, culture, religion.”
He also rebuffed language agitators who were lobbying for a constitutional guarantee of the status of the Chinese language in spite of assurances that all four major languages are official and equal.
But developments in neighbouring countries continued to have some effect in the early years. When severe rioting between Malays and Chinese broke out in Kuala Lumpur on May 13, 1969, tensions spilled over, but the authorities acted quickly to contain the disturbance.
POLICIES BEAR FRUIT
Various policies implemented over the years have enabled the peaceful co-existence that Singapore has come to be known for today – the Republic emerged top out of 142 countries in the annual Legatum Prosperity Index, released last week, for tolerance of ethnic minorities.
A bilingual policy was started in 1966, with English becoming the lingua franca. And in 1970, the Presidential Council for Minority Rights was established to scrutinise laws, so as to ensure there is no discrimination against any ethnic minority groups.
To ensure adequate minority representation in Parliament, the Group Representation Constituency (GRC) system has been in place since 1988. It requires political parties to field at least one minority candidate in each GRC team.
The Housing Board in 1989 also introduced the Ethnic Integration Policy that mandates a quota for minorities in HDB estates, so as to prevent racial enclaves from forming.
Although economic growth had benefited Singaporeans from all communities, by the 1980s, Malay community leaders were concerned that theirs was lagging behind in education. This led to the formation of self-help group Mendaki to help lift the community.
In the 1990s, other ethnic-based self-help groups were set up – the Singapore Indian Development Association (Sinda), the Chinese Development Assistance Council (CDAC) and the Eurasian Association. There have been questions over the need for such self-help groups, but the Government has said it would not be a good idea for them to merge or operate under one umbrella. This is because certain community problems can be dealt with only by leaders from those communities.
It is still a work in progress – there are concerns that while the Malay community has made many strides, they still lag behind in areas like education and employability. To its credit, Mendaki has made much progress in helping the community through programmes catering to lower-income groups.
The ethnic-centric focus of the four self-help groups, however, has not stopped them from joining forces to help the wider community. They recently said they will set up a joint venture to run 30 school-based student care centres to better support the holistic development of children, especially those from less-advantaged backgrounds, by tapping the resources of all the groups.
This, in a sense, is a microcosm of Singapore, which pledges to be colour-blind in its meritocracy and economic growth by providing opportunities for all. And for the most part, Singaporeans have been happy to share the fruits of the Government’s economic growth policies and not rock the boat.
A study on race by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) and OnePeople.Sg in 2013 found that more than 90 per cent of the 2,000-plus Chinese respondents said they were comfortable with Indians and Malays as neighbours and employees – and about 85 per cent as close friends.
PUSHBACK BY MINORITIES
Yet as the country becomes more affluent and the racial wounds of decades past are increasingly forgotten, some are voicing dissatisfaction at other racial groups, and their views are amplified by social media.
This has also generated a pushback, notably from minorities. Independent scholar and activist Sangeetha Thanapal has used the term “Chinese privilege” to refer to behaviour of Singaporean Chinese, which she says is akin to “White privilege” in Western countries – not being able to see things from the viewpoint of others who are not in the majority.
Sociologist Mathew Mathews of the IPS also observes in a recent commentary that some minority Singaporeans are not comfortable in their own skin. He says: “They are more likely to be sensitive to the fact that they have physical attributes and cultural practices which differ from those of the majority. Minorities often consider how those of the majority view them.”
And time and again, cracks have appeared. At least 16 people have been investigated, either under the Sedition Act or the Penal Code, for race or religion-related offences in the last 10 years.
This, after the section of the Sedition Act making it an offence “to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population” had been dormant from its inception in 1948 until 2005.
In 2012, former National Trades Union Congress employee Amy Cheong was sacked for her online diatribe against Malay weddings in void decks, and she fled to Australia after the resulting furore.
Some criticised the authorities’ reaction in these cases as heavy-handed, but officials have always been mindful that isolated incidents can easily get out of control.
And two years ago, they did: the death of a foreign worker run over by a bus in Little India sparked a riot by about 300 people. In the process, 54 officers and eight civilians were hurt, 23 emergency vehicles were damaged, including five that were torched. It was contained within a few hours, and while the riot was not linked to race, some of the ensuing online rhetoric vilified the South Asian rioters on account of their race.
Just last week, a Facebook post that was critical about the Malay language drew a stern rebuke from Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC MP Zainal Sapari, who wrote: “In today’s age, racism is beyond basic comprehension and should not be allowed to take root in our society.”
That these sentiments are hidden under the surface of a seemingly cohesive society is a sign that Singapore, despite the progress made, is “nowhere near being a race-blind society”, says law don Eugene Tan, who has done research on ethnic relations here.
“Bubbling beneath our civil veneer, there are prejudices and stereotypes which occasionally surface to trigger bouts of soul-searching,” adds ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute sociologist Terence Chong.
Starkly, the 2013 study also made headlines for the finding that more than one in two Singaporeans did not have a close friend of another race.
“We have sound principles in place but practice and realisation is the real challenge in some domains more than others,” says social anthropologist Lai Ah Eng of the National University of Singapore.
“Some people and groups are downright ignorant and biased, others merely tolerate, but others are proactive in understanding and being appreciative.”
As Singapore moves forward, it should seek to reduce the number of those in the first category and expand on those in the last.
Regardless of race
NOV 8, 2015, 5:00 AM SGT
How far has Singapore come on the issue of race in the 50 years since the National Pledge vowed the creation of one united people?
To young Singaporeans brought up in an environment of racial harmony and social cohesion, the two race riots of 1964 that left more than 30 dead must be unimaginable.
But achieving today’s multiracial society has not been an easy road, and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong last month stressed that it is still a work in progress.
At a forum held by OnePeople.sg, which is a national body focused on promoting racial and religious harmony, he told community and religious leaders: “For the younger ones who are lucky, who have never seen such racial strife before, we have to constantly remind them how precious this harmony is, how unusual and rare it is.”
Indeed, even after 50 years of independence in which the pioneer leaders’ vision of a multiracial society, where everyone is equal, has long been part of the Singapore identity, cracks still appear.
That vision was enshrined in the National Pledge: “One united people regardless of race, language, or religion.” But, just last week, a comment on Facebook about the Malay language drew widespread ire – including from at least one People’s Action Party MP, Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC’s Mr Zainal Sapari, who gave it a stern rebuke.
Yet another sign of room for improvement in racial awareness is how Eurasian Singaporeans have been mistaken for foreigners because of their features and Western-sounding surnames. Netizens were quick to label Singaporean swimmer Joseph Schooling an “ang moh”, prompting his father to tell The Straits Times last year in Malay that he is a “true son of Singapore”.
The latest census data for this year shows the Chinese comprise 74.3 per cent of the resident population. Malays constitute 13.3 per cent, while Indians form 9.1 per cent. The “Others” comprises 3.3 per cent.
Last month, Singapore inked a United Nations pact to eliminate discrimination on the basis of race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin. It expects to ratify the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in 2017.
The move “further entrenches our commitment to this end, to unequivocally show that racial discrimination has no place in Singapore”, said Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Grace Fu.
Racially charged incidents which make headlines, such as racial profiling, are virtually unheard of here today. But is Singapore’s brand of “racial harmony” merely one of peaceful coexistence? How far has the Republic come in eradicating racial discontent? Insight finds out.
THE RACE ISSUE: HOW FAR HAS SINGAPORE COME?
The date is July 21, 1964 – barely a year since Singapore became part of the Federation of Malaysia.
A procession is held to mark Prophet Muhammad’s birthday, starting at the Padang and ending in Geylang.
But the festive occasion will soon turn sour. A scuffle breaks out between Malays in the procession and Chinese bystanders, escalating into nationwide violence.
WHAT COULD BE TWEAKED?
Of all the race-based policies implemented here, the group representation constituency (GRC) scheme is, by far, the most controversial.
Under it, political parties must field at least one minority candidate in each GRC team they put up for contest.
The intent of the policy, which began at the 1988 polls, was to ensure adequate minority representation in Parliament.
RACE CATEGORISATION TOO RIGID FOR INCREASINGLY DIVERSE S’PORE?
For some, it is an annoying part of form-filling, though for most others it comes as no big deal. That is the part of Singapore forms that asks you to categorise yourself as either Chinese, Malay, Indian or Others.
The classification, commonly known by its acronym CMIO, is one where the Government categorises people – be it citizen, permanent resident or work permit holder – into one of these four racial groups.
Residents have been classified by race ever since the first census in 1824.
What could be tweaked?
NOV 8, 2015, 5:00 AM SGT
Of all the race-based policies implemented here, the group representation constituency (GRC) scheme is, by far, the most controversial.
Under it, political parties must field at least one minority candidate in each GRC team they put up for contest.
The intent of the policy, which began at the 1988 polls, was to ensure adequate minority representation in Parliament.
But in every election year – including at the recent general election – critics have complained that the system is unfair, saying that it allows some candidates to ride on the coat-tails of their more prominent or established running mates.
As such, they claim it gives the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) an edge over opposition parties.
FOSTER BETTER TIES
Giving minorities the option to learn Mandarin, and for Chinese to take up Malay or Tamil, will enhance racial integration as people can start understanding, through language, the different cultures.
CHUA CHU KANG GRC MP ZAQY MOHAMAD
Observers acknowledge the merits of a GRC system, but say it will “breed cynicism” if not managed properly and if there is no constant public education.
Institute of Policy Studies sociologist Mathew Mathews says the GRC system is an important safeguard which preserves the rights of minorities and ensures their representation in legislation.
This is something that cannot be taken lightly, Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam said in an interview with The Straits Times in August: “There’s always a risk that race can be exploited or become relevant during a campaign, and minority candidates getting squeezed out or finding that their representation is substantially reduced. And, if that happens, is that good for Singapore?”
Chua Chu Kang GRC MP Zaqy Mohamad tells Insight that it tends to be more challenging for a first-term Malay candidate to connect with non-Malay residents.
But he adds: “There are many permutations – the system could be tweaked or enhanced. Today, there has been a move towards making GRC sizes smaller.”
The average size of GRCs at the 2015 General Election was 4.75, down from five in the 2011 polls.
Social anthropologist Lai Ah Eng of the National University of Singaporewould like the maximum number of members for each GRC capped at three, as in 1988, and also be reviewed at each general election, if not scrapped.
She also calls for a review of the quotas imposed under the Housing Board’s Ethnic Integration Policy.
She thinks its roll-out has been inconsistent: “Should it still apply for rental cases when there is a disproportionate number of Malays and Indians in the rental population and queue? Or the minority quota is already filled for sale flats?
“If we are really worried about integration, why not have ethnic quotas for all Singapore residential areas? The rich are too exclusive and excluded from having to integrate.”
Iseas-Yusof Ishak Institute sociologist Terence Chong adds that “prescriptive policies” such as the bilingual policy should be looked at.
This broadly requires Chinese students entering school to learn Mandarin as their second language, Malay students to study Malay, and Indian students to take Tamil or another Indian language.
“Prescriptive policies often have an ideal ethnic culture in mind and seek to maintain this ideal through rules and regulation,” Dr Chong says. As for the bilingual policy, it could be problematic because it “assigns culture and language to the colour of your skin”.
Mr Zaqy says integration can be better fostered if Singaporeans are encouraged to pick up a third official language – beyond English and their mother tongue.
“Giving minorities the option to learn Mandarin, and for Chinese to take up Malay or Tamil, will enhance racial integration as people can start understanding, through language, the different cultures.”
Then there are constitutional bodies such as the Presidential Council for Minority Rights (PCMR), which comprises 18 members of the racial and religious mix of Singapore. It scrutinises laws to ensure there is no discrimination against any ethnic minority group.
The current council is led by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, and includes former Cabinet ministers Othman Wok and S. Dhanabalan, as well as Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
Dr Lai notes that the council has not done or said anything about perceived discrimination here. She calls for a more diverse group of representatives on the council, hailing from more varied backgrounds and all walks of life.
But law don Eugene Tan, a former Nominated MP, says, while the PCMR has not issued any negative report in its 45 years since its founding in 1970, “imagine the disquiet it would cause to the minorities if the PCMR is abolished”.
The PCMR, as well as other laws, such as Article 152 of the Constitution that protects minority rights, should be seen as “sentinels to maintain and enhance the quality of multiracialism in Singapore”, he adds.
This can be likened to a “symbolic but powerful shield, rather than a sword, that the minorities can assert collectively against the Government of the day if it fails to care adequately for them”.
INTEGRATION AN ONGOING EFFORT
Mr Baey Yam Keng, Parliamentary Secretary for Culture, Community and Youth, tells Insight that the Government recognises the need to continually review and adjust its policies, in consultation with the community, if changes are warranted.
But the backdrop is that racial and religious integration is an ongoing effort by everyone. “While we have various platforms such as the Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circles, the harmony we have today is the result of efforts from all to build trust among our different ethnic and religious groups,” he says.
“In Singapore, we accept our ethnic differences and celebrate our ethnic and cultural diversity.
“The broad theme of the Singapore Government’s policy on matters of ethnicity, in the context of our multiracial society, has consistently been to expand common spaces and to minimise divides while preserving our cultural heritage,” he adds.
Race categorisation too rigid for increasingly diverse S’pore?
NOV 8, 2015, 5:00 AM SGT
For some, it is an annoying part of form-filling, though for most others it comes as no big deal. That is the part of Singapore forms that asks you to categorise yourself as either Chinese, Malay, Indian or Others.
The classification, commonly known by its acronym CMIO, is one where the Government categorises people – be it citizen, permanent resident or work permit holder – into one of these four racial groups.
Residents have been classified by race ever since the first census in 1824.
One bugbear has been that the rigid model glosses over the increasing diversity of a Singapore with more mixed marriages and immigrants.
It ignores the cultural differences between Singaporean Chinese and mainland Chinese, for example.
There have also been concerns that it is dehumanising to be lumped under the broad “Others” category, which ignores the rich heritage and diversity of those who do not squarely fit into the Chinese, Malay or Indian groups.
National University of Singapore social anthropologist Lai Ah Eng points out that some local Chinese find they have hardly anything in common with newer Chinese immigrants. She and other observers also feel that Singaporeans of various races often find they have more in common among themselves than with more recent immigrants from similar ethnic backgrounds.
There have also been concerns that it is dehumanising to be lumped under the broad “Others” category, which ignores the rich heritage and diversity of those who do not squarely fit into the Chinese, Malay or Indian groups.
Sociologists tell Insight that the CMIO model is potentially constraining as it pigeonholes people and, to a certain extent, perpetuates racial stereotypes.
Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) sociologist Mathew Mathews adds that the model creates expectations of how to fulfil one’s identity as a person who is “supposed to be a member of one of the racial groups”.
RELIC OF COLONIAL PAST
The CMIO model is a relic of Singapore’s colonial past when British rulers dealt with diversity by assigning residential districts to respective ethnic groups, and generally splitting labour along ethnic lines.
Some argue the CMIO model is now irrelevant in an increasingly diverse Singapore, even as it was modified in 2011 to allow double-barrelling for Singaporeans of mixed parentage.
Inter-racial marriages have been rising. Last year, they comprised 20.4 per cent of 28,400 marriages, compared to 13.1 per cent a decade earlier. Singapore also takes in between 15,000 and 25,000 new citizens yearly.
As Singapore becomes more cosmopolitan, the proportion of “Others” is also increasing and brings with it its own challenges, as members of different groups seek to be identified on their own merits rather than labelled as one of the three main ethnic groups, let alone “Others”.
However, experts caution against discarding the framework entirely, defending the model as necessary to give tacit recognition to minority communities of their distinct cultures, religions and languages.
Associate Professor Eugene Tan of Singapore Management University’s law school, who has done research on ethnic relations, points out: “Due recognition is, ultimately, a vital human need and an important political and legal measure; it’s not just a courtesy owed to the racial groups.”
But Dr Nazry Bahrawi, a humanities lecturer at the Singapore University of Technology and Design, disagrees, and argues that the CMIO model should be banished, saying its drawbacks outweigh any potential advantages.
Removing it does not necessarily mean that race is no longer important, nor make minority groups anxious, he stresses. That is, if Singapore is “serious about preserving diversity in all its manifestations and uphold the importance of equal cultures”.
Then again, thought leader Ho Kwon Ping, who was the first IPS S R Nathan Fellow, said in an April lecture that the CMIO’s rigid racial categories should be “consciously blurred or even abolished”, as they reinforced stereotypes.
But Mr Ho rescinded his opinion that the CMIO model should be abolished at a panel last month held by sociopolitical website Inconvenient Questions.
This came as several of his minority friends told him that, were the CMIO model abolished, they were worried about a situation where “the Government says, we are all one happy people, let’s not talk about the need to send a signal that there is a Malay minority and an Indian minority”.
Immigration has exacerbated these issues.
While the Government has been conscious about maintaining a relatively stable ethnic balance, there are concerns among some in the Malay community, aired at grassroots dialogues, that their proportion of the population is slipping.
Latest data for the resident population – which comprises Singapore citizens and permanent residents – show they make up 13.3 per cent of the population this year, down from 13.9 per cent in 2005.
Comparatively, the proportion of Indians rose from 8.4 per cent to 9.1 per cent, and those in the “Others” group went from 2 per cent to 3.2 per cent.
However, the mix of citizens has remained relatively stable – 76.2 per cent Chinese, 15 per cent Malay, 7.4 per cent Indian and 1.4 per cent Others.
A MORE NUANCED APPROACH?
But regardless of whether CMIO stays or goes, experts who spoke to Insight agree a more nuanced approach is needed, as opposed to the “uncritical” collection of data based on ethnicity.
Prof Tan, a former Nominated MP, notes that collecting ethnic-based data can provide a pulse of how the different groups are faring. But he questions the release of annual data of how different ethnic groups perform at national examinations, which he says can lead to unintended consequences like the reinforcement of racial stereotypes.
He says: “Would a Chinese professional household face the same educational issues as a Chinese household on public assistance? Probably not. The latter household is more likely to have more in common (with) a non-Chinese household on public assistance.” .
And Dr Nazry says: “A number of such surveys have positioned Malays as the most problem-riddled group – high divorce rates, weakest academic performance and most susceptible to obesity.”
Such issues, he adds, are better gauged using metrics such as socioeconomic status and household incomes, rather than ethnicity.
Chua Chu Kang GRC MP Zaqy Mohamad says removing references to race will not make any difference, especially as ethnic minorities will still be identified by names or skin colour.
“You can’t run away from your background,” he says, pointing out that while the United States has its first black President, it still sees heightened unrest due to race in areas such as Ferguson, after an unarmed black teenager was shot dead by a white policeman.
“It shows the divide is still there, no matter how hard you try to hide the race aspect.”
Observers say above all, the retention of the CMIO model should never impede the building of a strong, shared Singaporean identity.
“Instead of pulling out the old chestnut of CMIO, let’s see how we can further strengthen our civic identity and loyalty as Singaporeans,” says Prof Tan.
Mr Ong Ye Kung, now Acting Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills), also wrote in a commentary in April that people should look beyond labels, be it “Singaporean” or “CMIO”.
But this does not mean “CMIO” is no longer relevant, he added.
“The truth is no label can adequately capture the complex essence of a person, nor is it meant to,” he wrote. “My label as a Singaporean is inadequate in describing who I am as a person. Likewise, being CMIO cannot be an adequate description for a stronger national identity, but that does not mean it should be de-emphasised or discarded.”
He added: “We are better off if we respect and appreciate each other for all our rich diversity, treating everyone as equal, striving for a common destiny. As members of our respective community, we are also citizens of Singapore, with a lifetime of common experiences, creating an identity as one united people.”
‘No Indians No PRCs’: Singapore’s rental discrimination problem
-
1 May 2014
- From the sectionAsia
Image copyrightAFPWhen Sunil first moved to Singapore, he had trouble finding an apartment.
“I called up several landlords who had listed rooms for rent,” Sunil, a Sri Lankan who spent eight years living in the UK, said.
“Things would start out OK, maybe because of my [Western] accent – but the moment they heard my name, they’d blank out. Many said ‘sorry, we don’t rent to these people’, or ‘sorry, no room for Indians’.”
Sunil, a civil engineer who arrived in 2012, said he was rejected by at least four landlords.
“I told them that Sri Lanka was not India, that I wouldn’t eat or cook in the apartment, and that I would be outside all day. But still, they wouldn’t offer me a room,” he said.
“At that point, I got fed up and decided to only try Indian landlords. I was invited to viewings right away.”
‘Cleanliness and culture’
Sunil is not alone. A quick glance at online rental listings shows many that include the words: “no Indians, no PRCs [People’s Republic of China]”, sometimes followed by the word “sorry”.
Image copyrightNONEA count on 24 April found that there were more than 160 housing adverts on the website PropertyGuru that clearly stated that the landlord did not wish to rent to Indians and/or mainland Chinese.
The issue appears more common with less expensive properties and on sites where content is posted directly by users, such as Gumtree.
It is not clear how many foreign workers have been affected. However, several expatriates have described experiencing varying levels of discrimination.
One Indian expat said his agent told him that many landlords would refuse to rent to him because “Indians always cook smelly curries”. Another Briton of South Asian descent did not experience any direct discrimination, but was warned by his agent that some landlords could be difficult.
What does the law say?
Article 12 of Singapore’s constitution says:
(1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.
(2) Except as expressly authorised by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens of Singapore on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law or in the appointment to any office or employment under a public authority or in the administration of any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.
Experts say the article can be used by a citizen against the state, but cannot be relied upon to seek legal redress against another individual or legal entity.
The UN has noted that article 12(2) does not extend its protection to non-citizens of Singapore.
It was something I experienced too, albeit indirectly. When I searched for a flat, my housing agent received a phone call from one landlord who was worried that I was from mainland China, presumably after they learned about my Chinese ethnicity.
I listened to them discussing my background for what felt like an agonisingly long time. After she hung up, I asked her if it would reassure the landlord if they knew I was British.
“It doesn’t matter,” she said. “They may still think you’re a PRC who obtained a British passport.”
Mathew Mathews, a senior research fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies, says: “There are stereotypes that people have about different immigrant groups and how responsible they are in terms of the upkeep of a rented apartment.
“There are notions of which groups take care of their homes better, and what cooking supposedly leaves permanent smells in the house. People have notions about what would devalue the property.”
Image copyrightAPCharlene, an estate agent, said it was common for landlords to prefer not to rent to tenants from India or mainland China because such tenants “are not people who are house proud”.
“Many don’t clean weekly, and they do heavy cooking, so dust and oil collect over the months. They may use a lot of spices that release smells people don’t like.”
There are also fears that those tenants will illegally sublet to others, she said, adding: “Cleanliness and culture is a very strong factor.”
Another estate agent made similar points, saying that landlords were less willing to rent to Indian and mainland Chinese tenants as they believed they would not maintain the property well.
‘Private spheres’
Singapore is an ethnically diverse nation, consisting of 74% Chinese, 13% Malay, 9% Indian and 3% from other groups. However, as 90% of Singaporean households own their homes, a significant portion of renters are foreigners.
Immigration has also become a sensitive issue, amid concern over living costs and rising housing prices, which many locals blame on foreigners.
Cook a pot of curry
Image copyrightWILD RICE PRODUCTIONSWhile many landlords appear to be concerned about heavy cooking in their kitchens, tens of thousands of Singaporeans launched an online campaign to “cook a pot of curry” in August 2011.
The campaign was prompted by media reports of a disagreement between a Singaporean Indian family and an immigrant family from China, over the smell of curry from the Indian family’s home. Following mediation, the Indian family agreed to cook curry only when the Chinese family were not home.
“At that point in time, there was a sense among people that there was some kind of injustice committed,” says Alfian Sa’at, a local playwright who wrote the play Cook a Pot of Curry (pictured) following the incident.
“People felt it seemed as if it was OK for [the foreigners] to somehow reject curry, which a lot of Singaporeans believe is part of Singapore’s society, no matter what ethnic background you’re from. There was a sense that the government had favouritism towards new immigrants at the expense of native, Singapore-born residents.”
However despite the support expressed for the Singaporean Indian family, it appears that both race and nationality remain important to many landlords. “It is likely that people tend to want to rent out only to people of the same race,” Mr Sa’at says. “This is a tricky issue, because obviously a lot of landlords are [Singaporean] Chinese.”
Eugene Tan, Associate Professor of Law at Singapore Management University, says: “In the current state of ambivalence towards immigration in Singapore, my sense is that race and country of origin have taken on a stronger accent with regards to how landlords may view Indian/PRC tenants.”
Singapore’s government places a strong emphasis on racial harmony. Studiessuggest that there is relatively little racial discrimination in the public sphere, but things can be different in private.
“The Singaporean state has considerably influenced Singaporeans’ willingness to work and be alongside those who are racially different,” Dr Mathews says. “Singaporeans have learned to accept the realities of living in a multi-racial and multi-religious society. The private sphere, however, is one which the state has not tried to influence.”
A landlord’s choice of tenants “would probably fall within people’s private spheres in terms of who they would choose to come into their home space”.
Attitudes to race came to the fore in December, when hundreds of foreign workers from India and South Asia rioted after an Indian national was killed in a bus accident. The incident sparked a strong response on social media – many made comments denouncing foreign workers, although many others also spoke out against racism.
Legal gap?
Of course, rental discrimination exists in many countries. A BBC study in October found that several estate agencies in London would refuse to rent to African-Caribbean people at the landlord’s request.
However, while the UK has legislation banning discrimination on ethnic or nationality grounds, covering situations including “buying or renting property”, Singapore offers fewer legal protections.
“There is no specific anti-discrimination law that can be used by non-citizens,” says Prof Tan.
“Even if there is an anti-discrimination law, there is the challenge of proving discrimination… Indication of tenant preferences in rental advertisements may not amount to discrimination.”
In a statement, PropertyGuru said discrimination on the basis of ethnicity or nationality was “absolutely not” allowed under its guidelines.
“There is a whistle-blowing feature for viewers… to report [content] that may be objectionable or derogatory,” it said, and objectionable statements would be removed.
Around 1% of listings on its site contained objectionable content, it added.
The Council for Estate Agencies (CEA), a government body that regulates the real estate agency industry, has guidelines stating that agents should “advise their clients against placing advertisements that are discriminatory, offensive or stereotyped in nature against any particular race, religion or group in society”.
In a statement, the CEA and the Ministry of National Development said: “We do not condone racial discrimination. There are advertising guidelines in place.
“Some landlords have explained that they face practical considerations renting out their properties, leading to certain requirements in rental transactions.”
The statement added: “The Government will continue educational efforts on the importance of mutual respect to preserve ethnic harmony.”
Prof Tan believes that the discrimination will reduce over time.
“With more apartments coming on stream in the next few years, landlords cannot afford to be so choosey,” he says.
Sunil also believes that views may change over the decades.
“All the landlords who rejected me were from older generations, but I find I’m not treated differently at work, where the people are younger. I think attitudes are changing, it will just take some time.”
Some names have been changed
Helier Cheung’s report can also be heard on From Our Own Correspondent
Racism still an issue in Singapore today, say most polled
SINGAPORE — Racism still persists in Singapore, going by a survey on race relations commissioned by Channel NewsAsia and the Institute of Policy Studies, where almost half of the 2,000 respondents felt it is still an important problem today.
Results from the survey showed that 46 per cent disagreed with the statement that racism was a problem of the past and not an important one in the present time.
More than half of the respondents also agreed that being part of the majority race is an advantage in Singapore, but 67 per cent disagreed that the needs of the majority race should be looked after first, before the needs of the minority races.
Almost three quarters (74 per cent) of respondents perceived themselves as hardly racist or not at all, but were more likely to notice racism in others.
Almost 40 per cent of respondents reported that their close friends were at least mildly racist. More Chinese respondents (42 per cent) reported feeling this way, compared to Malay (34 per cent) and Indian respondents (22 per cent).
They were also more likely to judge others as more racist than their close circle of family and friends. In general, 56 and 53 per cent of respondents perceived most Chinese and Malay Singaporeans to be at least mildly racist respectively. However, 49 per cent of respondents felt the same way about most Indian Singaporeans.
Six in 10 respondents said they had heard racist comments, mostly from workplace colleagues and friends. On how they responded to such comments, 63 per cent said they would ignore them while only 29 per cent indicating they argued with the person about the truth of the statement.
On what constitutes racism, about 65 per cent considered not sitting beside someone of a different race as racist. Outright discrimination — such as not hiring someone based on one’s race or religion, or making generalisations about people of a particular race as being “dirty, lazy or too money-minded” — was considered racist and never acceptable by 70 per cent of respondents.
In comparison, less than half deemed it racist for a person to not have friends of a different race.
Source: IPS Graphic: Adolfo Arranz
Racial minorities also reported to perceive more instances of differential treatment, with over half of them agreeing they had had people act as if they were better than them in the last two years. Two-thirds of Malay and Indian respondents also thought that they were treated differently because of their race.
Over 40 per cent of Malay respondents indicated they were also treated differently on the basis of religion and income or education. Six in 10 Indian respondents felt they were treated differently because of their skin colour.
When asked about how they responded to these experiences, more than half ignored the remarks, but 49 per cent of Malay and 37 per cent of Indian respondents said they worked harder to prove the detractors wrong.
Even though respondents from minority races attributed negative experiences they had encountered to race, comparatively fewer said they had been racially discriminated against.
Almost half of the Malay and Indian respondents said they had heard someone talk about racial discrimination or prejudice, but only a third of them had felt racially discriminated against.
Singapore signs UN convention on eliminating racial discrimination
SINGAPORE signed the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) on Oct 19 in New York and is expected to ratify the convention in 2017, the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) said in a press release on Tuesday.
This United Nations (UN) convention “condemns racial discrimination based on race, colour, descent, nationality or ethnic origin, and calls upon states to pursue a policy of eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms”, MCCY noted.
The ministry added that it would work with stakeholders, including consulting the public, to fulfil its obligations.
Grace Fu, the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth, said in a statement: “”Over the last 50 years, we have built a Singapore where every citizen matters, regardless of race, language or religion. This has been our fundamental approach to nation-building and will continue to guide us into the future. Signing the ICERD further entrenches our commitment to this end, to unequivocally show that racial discrimination has no place in Singapore.”