Recent calls by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his ministers for new citizens to play a part in assimilating into Singapore society are not new. Neither are the often-repeated suggestions for Singaporeans to strengthen their Singaporean identity before their ethnicity.
However, the two calls are mutually contradictory, as being Singaporean comes with a caveat — one must belong to a “race”. Inevitably, this has largely encouraged citizens to view themselves according to their ethnic identities first.
Expectations for new citizens to easily assimilate into Singapore society are unrealistic if ethnic identity already commonly precedes a Singaporean one, and where stark differences among ethnic groups are maintained.
Both government and society should move beyond identifying Singaporeans according to their ethnic group first, if a more substantial Singaporean identity is to be forged.
This now becomes increasingly pertinent, considering the diversity of new citizens domiciled in Singapore, in fostering nation building and, ultimately, the resilience of society in times of need.
IS ASSIMILATION OF NEWCOMERS POSSIBLE?
Assimilation requires new additions to a society to adopt and conform to a central common identity in a homogenous society.
This differs from integration, in which boundaries among various ethnic groups are preserved in the attempt to bring them together. Although the terms “assimilation” and “integration” may be used interchangeably by the Government, we should note the nuances in them.
Singapore’s multicultural policies primarily encourage integration of the “races”, but it nonetheless recognises the need for new citizens to assimilate into a common Singaporean identity to foster nationalism.
In this regard, there lies an impediment in assimilating new citizens into Singapore society if being Singaporean necessitates the categorisation into a racial group in the first place.
The Republic is not homogenous; multiculturalism organises the citizenry along the CMIO (Chinese-Malay-Indian-Others) model, which maintains the differences and boundaries among ethnic groups.
Naturally, this indemnifies the ethnic identity before the Singaporean identity through lived experiences with the state’s conception of multiculturalism. This is the first major issue in assimilation — there is a lack of a suitable setting that cultivates the Singaporean identity before the ethnic one.
The problem here also lies in the Government’s continued concept that ethnicity is immutable and must be separate to ensure managed stability through policies.
New citizens would also be categorised into one of the four broad ethnic categories. This is imposed on them — they, too, must belong to a structurally defined “race” to be entitled to the benefits Singaporeans have.
Such rigidity provides them with a compartmentalised view of Singapore society from the onset and does not encourage the cultivation of a comprehensive Singaporean identity overall.
This is especially significant to new citizens who do not belong to the Chinese, Malay or Indian groups (note that even in these categories, the diversity in dialects, and now between local and foreign-born residents, is supposedly abridged).
The Others category is expanding, but the term simplifies and flattens the diversity of these new citizens. This is perplexing — the category, originally used to refer primarily to Eurasians, now conveniently includes new citizens, who may not even be culturally defined together.
If the same logic of ethnic immutability can be applied, then Singapore cannot discount that they may maintain their ethnic practices within society. This may lead to many smaller pockets of culturally similar groups, which would not be healthy for nation building and developing an overall Singaporean identity and societal resilience in the future.
Therefore, “race” distorts any organic development to being and living as a Singaporean despite ethnic difference or diversity. Assimilation into a comprehensive Singaporean identity may not be impossible, but it is difficult because of the priority placed on one’s “race”.
Unless multiculturalism in Singapore expects new citizens to assimilate into the respective CMIO groups, it would be difficult for them to assimilate into Singapore society with such exclusivity.
What we have here are contradictory objectives being forwarded. Multiculturalism’s maintenance of the boundaries of ethnic groups hinders effective assimilation of new citizens into a Singaporean identity and society.
BEYOND MERE RESPECT AND TOLERANCE
The overlap of the four circles representing CMIO — an analogy by then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong in a 1999 speech in Parliament to signify these groups’ interaction to produce a common Singaporean identity, culture or opportunities in common spaces — is not potent enough, compared with the affiliations each would have to its respective “race”.
Most particularly, it is unreasonable to expect new citizens to easily assimilate when each ethnic group’s atomistic perception of its place in society already creates difficulty in integration.
This can be observed in issues such as the wearing of the tudung (headscarf) in certain public service positions, practices during the seventh month of the Chinese calendar or insensitive remarks against certain ethnic groups on social media.
To integrate effectively suggests the acceptance of each ethnic group’s culture and practices. How do we expect to achieve a comprehensive Singaporean identity — which new citizens should assimilate into — when it may still be difficult to accept one another’s differences?
Local-born Singaporeans may feel wary of the influx of new people, who bring their set of cultural differences in addition to competition for jobs. This may affect how they accept new citizens — or permanent residents and other immigrants for that matter.
In this regard, there is a fundamental and pertinent need to rigorously foster the Singaporean identity among all Singaporeans, especially with growing diversity.
This moves beyond respecting and tolerating the differences of each ethnic group to respecting each member as a Singaporean.
We cannot expect new citizens to lose their prior affiliations fully, but we should further encourage the Singaporean identity to flower, especially if they have chosen Singapore as their home.
However, the Government’s demands are too high if it is difficult to establish what the Singaporean identity is beyond our “race”. It should not be left arbitrary; this would ultimately ensure the whole society grows as a nation in the long term.
For Singapore to effectually assimilate new citizens, the process has to start now — before the problems of assimilation and integration become entrenched.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Nur Diyanah Anwar is a research analyst with the Centre of Excellence for National Security at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University. This commentary first appeared in RSIS Commentaries.