The ruling People's Action Party's (PAP's) views on matters racial and religious are no secret. These, to them, are sensitive, perhaps ultra-sensitive, issues which are best left alone.
The PAP's stance is that Singaporeans should trust it to be rational and fair, and to have faith that it knows how members of each race and religion feel, and that it will act in their best interests.
In the past, perhaps Singaporeans, who were pre-occupied with making a living and in any case had no avenues to voice their unhappiness or frustrations, went along with whatever the governmentdecided. But this didn't mean the issues — along with the unhappy sentiments about them — had vaporised into thin air.
Instead, because such matters cut right to the heart of one's very identity as a citizen and indeed as a human being, the feelings never left. They never could have.
With new media coming to the fore, Singaporeans now have a channel to speak their minds — even and especially on these once-taboo subjects.
2011 will perhaps be remembered as the year the matters of race and religion were given a much-needed airing. The sentiments which had simmered underneath finally rose to prominence. And while debates and disagreements abound in each case or incident of racism or perceived racism which arose this year, the government now has an opportunity to relook the way it has handled these matters.
Where to start
And the place to start is the heart of government — the Cabinet.
When we speak of the nucleus of government, inevitably we will conclude that there is one person whose views hold sway, and has for 50 years, by the sheer force of this person's personality. We are, of course, talking about former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew.
A pragmatic realist, some call him, and not inaccurately. Having emerged as leader of Singaporesociety from the ashes of racial riots in our early days, Lee's views on life — and in particular, the matters of race and religion — are shaped by personal experiences. If there is one person who would be more acutely aware and deeply wary of the potentially catastrophic consequences of racial and religious sentiments run amok, it would be Lee.
Yet, it could also be said that it is precisely of the profound impact past experiences had on him that his policies, when he assumed prime ministership, were crafted with fear of extreme circumstances in mind.
In short, while wanting to prevent similar altercations between the races and religions from breaking out, it instead resulted in policies of distrust, particularly affecting the minority groups among us. And with the government wielding the heavy hand of various legal and state instruments to keep the citizenry in check, unhappiness was forced underground and left to simmer, waiting for an outlet.
As long as Singapore continues to live up to its potential of being an "Asian tiger economy", with its citizens enjoying materialistic trappings, things will be fine. Or so the belief goes.
But all it will take to collapse this superficial house of cards is the chilling echoes of suppressed emotions.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong chose to ostensibly break from the past after the General Election in May when he reconstituted his Cabinet, which saw the senior Lee stepping down. An "epochal" change, PM Lee said. And indeed it is — indeed it could be.
Questions to consider
While much disgust and impassioned criticisms were expressed towards those who had infringed and trespassed onto the out-of-bounds spheres of race and religion in recent times, these incidents have also opened up an opportunity for the government — and indeed all of society — to take a long hard look at itself and consider some questions:
- What are the areas which discriminate against the non-Chinese races?
- Have our policies of distrust served us and even if they have, should they not be dismantled?
- Have we allowed the non-Chinese races to have avenues to speak their minds freely and openly, so that we could all understand what they face and address these collectively? Or have we left them to their own devices?
- Have we heard them but dismissed their concerns?
- Have we treated them right — that is, as equal fellow Singaporeans, in all aspects and in all respects?
There are many more questions, of course, but I will leave them to perhaps another time.
On the government's part, there needs to be some intense and in-depth soul-searching among its ranks, especially in Cabinet. It should start with two areas:
- Are the Cabinet's views on race and religion based on wrong assumptions, false suspicions, and fear of the extreme, even if these are predicated on pragmatic and realist considerations or rationalities?
- A relook at a slew of policies and practices which are discriminatory or seen to be so, to the minority races.
The former can be done within the Cabinet itself, in earnest. The latter should be discussed openly with those most affected by these discriminatory policies. The government should realise that sometimes while policies may make sense intellectually or theoretically, they may not convince emotionally or morally, which are just as important, especially in the arena of race and religion.
In other words, policies may look right, but they may not be right. And this is where perhaps the most intense feelings are directed at — that viscerally and intuitively — Singaporeans, especially those who feel discriminated against, feel these policies and practices are morally wrong.
50 years on, a new generation of Singaporeans has emerged and is ready to look the tiger in the eye, so to speak. They are looking for a new paradigm in how racial and religious matters are handled. Give them a chance. If we are to learn anything from this latest outcry, it is that the time has come to speak honestly, to shine a light on our darkest corners, to see what it shows us and to address these accordingly and honestly.
Let us not be paralysed by our fear and experiences of the past so much so that we would rather bury our heads in the sand, even as the ground under our feet has moved.
Andrew helms publichouse.sg as Editor-in-Chief. His writings have been reproduced in other publications, including the Australian Housing Journal in 2010. He was nominated by Yahoo! Singapore as one of Singapore's most influential media persons in 2011. 
135 comments