(Un)leashing the One-Eyed Dragon: An Analysis of Xenophobic Discourse in Multicultural Singapore

(Un)leashing the One-Eyed Dragon: An Analysis of Xenophobic Discourse in

Multicultural Singapore

Justin Daniel Pereira

SC3203 Race & Ethnic Relations

Term Paper

Tutor: A/P Lian Kwen Fee

(Un)leashing the One-Eyed Dragon 2

(Un)leashing the One-Eyed Dragon: An Analysis of Xenophobic Discourse in Multicultural

Singapore

“We cannot afford to be one-eyed dragons” (Lee, 2012), highlighted Prime Minister

Lee Hsien Loong in the 2012 National Day Rally Speech. The remark, notably dedicated to

how Singaporeans in recent years are increasingly focusing on the “negatives” (Chan, 2012)

towards foreigners in the nation raises important questions to why this occurs and how the

sentiment becomes embodied within at least a portion of Singaporean society. Some opinion

pieces note that the xenophobic discourse “stresses that migrants pose a challenge to not only

economic but also social and cultural rights” (Mathews, 2012). It is a sentiment that I agree

with, and one with deeper theories underpinning the case for xenophobia. Evidently, the issue

of xenophobia in Singapore is larger than just negative emotions felt by locals. It is instead an

engagement towards underlying structural issues that Singaporeans feel strongly for as they

constantly (re)negotiate their boundaries into what it means to be a Singaporean.

The xenophobic response while superficially a reaction towards other nationalities

and their alluded races is instead a matter of identity politics, inequality and an infringement

of familiar multiculturalism in a citizenship that Singaporeans hold dear. Therefore, the thesis

for this paper is that Singaporeans are increasingly xenophobic in this globalized century

because multiculturalism has advanced beyond identity formation that lags behind, further

divided with underlying perceived and experienced inequality. Multiculturalism, while an

embracement of other cultures is also the protection of existing cultural rights. Though not

necessarily dichotomous, the situation presented in Singapore carves out a tension between

tolerance of others and protecting the unique Singapore culture. Multiculturalism becomes a

double-edged sword, further accentuated with social inequality – making integration difficult

from the onset because of the superficial understanding of others.


This paper contributes to the existing scholarship on multiculturalism and migration

tension in Singapore. Its key takeaway is useful for deeper understanding of the case of

xenophobia from a multicultural ideological perspective, and provides an important lens

towards how social identity policies can be viewed and corrected. In this paper, I will firstly

outline what multiculturalism in Singapore is. Subsequently, the paper develops into arguing

why Singaporeans create a supposed tension towards Foreigners, where that tension becomes

termed as Xenophobia. Before concluding, I will also highlight the point of perceived and

experienced inequalities held by Singaporeans as a whole towards foreigners, and its

implications to what is means to live in a multicultural society.


Multiculturalism and Governmentality in Singapore

Multiculturalism in Singapore is a unique identity that constitutes what it means to be

Singaporean. Singapore, a culturally diverse state with its major races of Chinese, Malay,

Indian and Others (CMIO) place strong emphasis towards racial and cultural harmony. As the

Singapore government notes, “We are . . . extremely conscious that racial and religious fault

lines could be exploited and passions inflamed” (Goh, 2010), hence the needed emphasis on

“secularity”, and “multiculturalism” where understanding and the protection of each culture

is dominant. In other words, because of historical fault lines and the practical situation of a

heterogeneous society, embracing and enforcing multiculturalism is the way forward. As an

institutionalised component within state policy and action, multiculturalism in Singapore

became “one of the founding myths” (Hill & Lian, 1995, p. 95) despite its political

beginnings.

Thus, for Singaporeans then, multiculturalism becomes part of their everyday lives.

Although one can question the agency of self within the policy set by the state, one cannot

ignore the immersive power that it brings. Foucault highlights the notion of governmentality

where states try to achieve specific ends with prior knowledge, through the means of complex

bureaucracies and institutions (Burchell, Gordon, & Miller, 1991). In this light, while the

Singapore state plays an active role in institutionalizing multiculturalism from the onset, the

people eventually govern themselves, conducting themselves in the conduct the government

so wishes. This experience comes from institutions such as schools and families, events such

as the commemoration of Racial Harmony Day and even cultural festivals such as the

Chingay. As part of the daily lives of Singaporeans, multiculturalism becomes a lived

experience. That agency of self, immersed in the ideological belief is eminent when

Singaporeans play up to the beliefs of multiculturalism independently. On the 21st August


2011, Singaporeans through the online media, declared the day as ‘Cook A Pot of Curry Day’

as a response towards a Chinese national family who derided the aromatics of curry cooked

by their Singaporean Indian neighbours (Leong & Soon, 2011). The autonomous action by

Singaporeans to conduct themselves into solidarity because of an unacceptable cultural shock

on their part was reflective of the ingrained deepness of multiculturalism as concomitant to

understanding the Singapore identity. For Singaporeans, there was an implicit assumption

held that for anyone to live in Singapore society, one has to live the way of Singaporeans and

accept Singapore’s diversity for what it is. In this sense, there was a distinct requirement of

acculturation for foreigners. The regard locals have towards racial and cultural tolerance in

Singapore highlights the effectiveness of state policy into a point of personal self-

rationalization.

Therefore, multiculturalism is a strongly immersive component of what it means to be

Singaporean. While the state regard multiculturalism as the basis for social and religious

harmony, its thorough implementation into policies and institutions make the ideological

concept acceptable and eventually, espoused, by the people. This specific art of governance,

termed by some scholars as “an instrument of social control” (Chua, 2003) leads people to

demarcate boundaries into what it means to be uniquely Singaporean. For its construction of

nationhood and national identity, multiculturalism becomes an important facet in the building

of an “imagined community” (Anderson, 1983, p. 50) bound by a “deep, horizontal

comradeship”. In other words, Singaporeans of all races identify themselves as Singaporean

because of the common overarching ideological concept of multiculturalism. The question

next asked, what happens when a large influx of foreigners with their own cultural

belongings becomes part of the community? A supposed irony if conflict occurs, especially


when multiculturalism in its broad sense is the acceptance, or at least tolerance, of other

cultures – a definition that Singaporeans ought to be well familiar.


Relearning Multiculturalism and Negotiating the Singapore Identity

Identity politics is an important factor in building up an imagined community, and

common cultural historical undertones such as multiculturalism help in the process. The irony

of the concept is that while the term generally advocates for the acceptance of other cultures,

it is not explicitly seen when xenophobia becomes rampant. Instead, multiculturalism

becomes the tool to base xenophobic discourse on, rather than something to broadly

accommodate foreigners. Singaporean Yap Yien Li (2011) wrote to The Straits Times on

how “a candid shot of three individuals of Indian descent” received over “90 comments” that

were mostly “xenophobic or racist” in nature. In a similar line on the theme itself, an informal

poll conducted by Yahoo! News noted that over 80% of respondents “agreed that

Singaporeans are turning xenophobic” (Teo, 2012a). Although the nature of sentiments

highlighted might be a temporal consequence, the remarks reflected one understanding of

multiculturalism – that xenophobia and multiculturalism are two axioms potentially separate

from each other. It is a curious reaction as although the society is heterogeneous in nature, the

responses reveal a demarcation between Singaporeans and Foreigners – this, even in the

situation where multiculturalism is still strongly a part of Singapore society.

Hence, as an ideological concept strongly embedded within Singapore,

multiculturalism takes on a finer stance in the discourse of citizenship and the reaction to the

state in its pro-business policies to welcome foreigners. Although multiculturalism in

Singapore expresses a strong regard for other cultures and the protection of one’s own

cultural rights, the state’s dependence on foreigners to drive the economy creates a

dichotomous scenario where the lack of acculturalization on both the parts of Singaporeans

and Foreigners create a tension that sharply pronounces a challenge against the existing order.

Hall (1996, p. 344) argues how “we have now to reconceptualise identity as a process of


identification. . .something that happens over time, that is never absolutely stable”. It is an

argument that realises identity is dynamic and not static. As Singaporeans try to make sense

of life in a global polity, the rise of unfamiliarity leads one to recede to a fear of change. The

existing literature argues that this “expression of social fears (towards foreigners)” can be

“counteracted by an active citizenship” (Delanty, 2003). In this sense from Delanty’s

argument, with multiculturalism now ideally and conceptually expanded beyond CMIO, there

is also a need to take Foreigners into the concept and accept it as part of the learning process

of a culturally created citizenship. In this sense, citizenship and the Singapore identity is more

than just a top down given, but a bottom up construction through negotiation of existing

norms in an evolving society.


Managing Xenophobia

Tension is created when the definition of ideal multiculturalism evolves, but what is

identifiable for Singaporeans based on the older precept of multiculturalism, remains or lags

behind. Thus, this implies that for tension to overcome, one has to shift their identity and the

associated cultural baggage along. In other words, the Singaporean has to relearn his

Singaporean identity, what it means to live in a multicultural society now that a global

community is increasingly present in the nation. This aspect of relearning Singaporean

identity is evident in some responses of Singaporeans regarding the case of xenophobia.

Singaporean Koh Boon Hock (2012) notes in his letter to The Straits Times that

“Singaporeans welcome foreigners”, and “we may have firm views. . .but we are not

xenophobic”. Koh’s sentiments are reflective of the accommodating process he takes in

identity negotiation into what it means to be multicultural at an individual level and the

realities of an even more diverse society. While it is notable that the sentiments do not reveal

the socioeconomic background of Koh, it shows that a certain degree of adaptation and

acceptance to foreigners has taken place.

Arguably, for an individual to constantly upkeep the learning process on what it

means to experience multiculturalism underlies the warrant that other structural factors allow

him to do so. For Singaporeans encapsulated with inequality, the relearning process of

multiculturalism and identity renegotiation stalls and one then retreats into the discourse of

xenophobia. Hence, while Koh is able to provide a rational and moderate response to the

intrusion of foreigners, he provides only part of the story. In the case of the Chinese National

Ma Chi who drove his speeding Ferrari into a local taxi spurring online vitriol, one of the

reactionary anonymous responses online include:


Because we decided to go in bed with cheap labour and foreign money, we

committed adultery against the progressed social fabric that we, as the true

blooded natives, have built together as a nation. We are not ready for mass

influx of these people, and consequently suffered major destruction of social

values, regressed our reputation as gracious and civilized citizens. We could

absorb a smaller portion, as it is well to impart our values to the unlearned, but

not when they come in droves like the locusts. (The Temasek Times, 2012)

The distinctly different view provided by this anonymous commenter on the socio-political

website The Temasek Times is contrary to the position established by Koh. For this person,

foreigners are considered derogatory. The assumption of a moral high ground by the

commenter is a reflection of what identity the individual has regarded himself with,

stereotyped against all other Chinese Nationals. Although, the influx of foreigners in

Singapore is a reality, the commenter’s refusal to evolve his identity in tandem with the

growing conceptual space of practical multiculturalism leads to a revelation of what

multiculturalism means to him. Although the xenophobic tendencies are expressed against a

Chinese person, it also reveals that the target as a foreigner is suitably different from

Singaporean Chinese in the country. A distinction has thus taken place between the two

categories, intensifying the case for xenophobia that foreigners are very different, and in the

process of doing so strengthening the personal identity of a Singaporean. Therefore, while

multiculturalism appears to have failed, it is instead a case that two separate understandings

exist – a nationalistic versus an ideal version.

Multiculturalism in Singapore then takes on a new level with the introduction of a

foreign element. For Singaporeans, the ideological hegemony of pure multiculturalism in this

instance fades from view, highlighting instead the discourse of multicultural citizenship and


identity in a globalized yet local environment of Singapore society. In other words,

multiculturalism takes a finer stance with the concept of identity, evolving from the

traditional understanding of CMIO to one that now involves the global citizenry, and a

constant negotiation of identity politics. In the event the negotiation fails because of structural

reasons that impede it, xenophobic elements materialize, reifying the expression of fear that

causes one unable to accept foreigners as part of the multicultural storyline.


Xenophobia’s Career Roots and its Relation to Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism gives a perceived stage of fairness in Singapore, one that is not

consistent with the arrival of foreigners. Foreigners, seen in an advantageous position further

distances away from a local’s understanding. This becomes highly detrimental to existing

tensions as multiculturalism, with its association to meritocracy, denies the cultural logic that

Singaporeans were supposed to live up. Meritocracy was the method to “reconcile the

recognition of the status of ethnic communities with a universalistic doctrine of equal

opportunities and equal rights” (Hill & Lian, 1995, p. 101). The argument underlies the

assumption that because of the existence of a heterogeneous society, there was a need to

establish a commonality and perceived fairness amongst all ethnic groups such that the

system was not explicitly in the favour of the Chinese. However, while the system of

meritocracy has worked, it did not strictly cater for the arrival of foreigners who appear to

bypass the system. In the competition for jobs, higher ranking positions and cost savings, the

policy seemed to favour foreigners – arguments posited by those disenchanted by the system.

One online commenter noted that:

. . .we are all descendents of immigrants. We have struggled through nation

building, the education system and national service. We have tolerated our

government’s policies like the ERPs and overpaid government officials for

years. Despite our sacrifices, what have we gotten in return? I am not afraid of

competition but how can we compete with the rich FTs in their Ferrari and the

poor FT who will take any pay just to be here. (Teo, 2012b)

The commentary, filled with an emphasis on the hardships a regular Singaporean must go

through is contrasted with an emotionally bold appearance that one is “not afraid of the

competition” of “rich FTs (Foreign Talents)” and “poor FT”. This argument builds on the

point that Foreigners, already distinct in their own way, become further separate with an


unfair advantage in the overall social system. It is an example of the perceived and probably

experienced inequality felt by the Singaporean in question, and because fairness is equated to

meritocracy, the system is thus identified as not benefiting the citizen. It then raises questions

at a layman’s level what is uniquely Singaporean, the identity the citizen has, and whether the

government is favouring economy over the interests of locals. The generalization then makes

it tough for one to accept the evolving discourse of ideal multiculturalism that includes

foreigners. The ideal multiculturalism is then no longer associated with fairness.

However, as multiculturalism remains a central belief of Singaporean society, the

experienced ideology is instead one that is consistent to the localized CMIO understanding

instead of one that is cosmopolitan with a global community in the nation. As such,

xenophobic discourse takes place as segments of society becomes engaged in an inability to

build bridges between the two understandings of multiculturalism concomitant with the need

to assert the Singapore identity in their own manner. Multiculturalism in its ideal form has

advanced beyond the pace of identity formation, establishing a tension, further accentuated

with the perceived and experienced inequality derived from an assumedly unfair competition

in the job market between foreigners and locals. The tenets of multiculturalism, meritocracy,

and the Singapore identity become exposed to change because of globalization, with some

parties unable to adapt accordingly.


Conclusion

Xenophobia in Singapore is increasingly apparent. Not necessarily of a rise in foreign

hate sentiment, but potentially because of the advent of the new media which allow a veil of

anonymity for voices to operate. Nonetheless, the prevalence of xenophobia especially in a

heterogeneous society that treats multiculturalism as a foundational myth is ironic that

multiculturalism as experienced by the people does not necessarily extend to foreigners.

I argue that Singaporeans are increasingly xenophobic in this globalized century

because multiculturalism has advanced beyond identity formation that lags behind, further

divided with underlying perceived and experienced inequality. The argument is that as the

conceptual understanding of multiculturalism evolves to include the cultures and presence of

foreigners, Singaporeans in their own accord fail or refuse to keep up in the changing process

as they negotiate with their Singapore identity in their own understanding of multiculturalism.

As localized multiculturalism is internalized, it becomes tough to then immediately

accept globalized multiculturalism. This leads to further tension created because of perceived

and experienced inequality that give Singaporeans no purpose to come to terms with the

evolving definition. In a sense, the large influx of foreigners who bypass the traditional

system of progress in Singapore society questions the foundational tenets of multiculturalism,

its association to meritocracy and the fairness it purports. Foreigners, although different

because of their nationality, potentially constitute a distinct ethnic group of their own and

Singaporeans expect an accordance of similar treatment.

The failure contributes to emotional sentiments that build the discourse of xenophobia

that goes beyond the social and cultural, to even the economic. Essentially, the tension of


xenophobia is an issue of identity politics mired in the setting of multiculturalism for

Singapore and is strongly associated with the rights of citizenship.

As a point for further research, this paper addresses xenophobia in a broad setting in

relation to the context of multiculturalism. However, the thesis for the paper assumes

generally that xenophobic discourse is prevalent consistently throughout a heterogeneous

society. More research is needed to discover how xenophobia is expressed in different races?

As not all societies are equal, would it be fair to assume then that a heterogeneous society

with multiculturalism as an overarching belief, becomes more like a homogenous society

with a singular identity? Or would racial politics become part of the discourse? Questions

aplenty, but for another paper altogether.


Bibliography:

Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of

Nationalism The Origins of Nationalism.

Burchell, G., Gordon, C., & Miller, P. (1991). The Foucault Effect: Studies in

Governmentality: University of Chicago Press.

Chan, R. (2012, 27 August). Asian Dragons at 'critical juncture', The Straits Times.

Chua, B. H. (2003). Multiculturalism in Singapore: an instrument of social control. Race &

Class, 44(3), 58-77.

Delanty, G. (2003). Citizenship as a learning process: disciplinary citizenship versus cultural

citizenship. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 22(6), 597-605. doi:

10.1080/0260137032000138158

Goh, C. T. (2010). Speech by MR Goh Chok Tong at MUIS International Conference.

Hall, S. (1996). Ethnicity: Identity and Difference. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hill, M., & Lian, K. F. (1995). Multiracialism and the structuring of ethnic relations The

Politics of Nation Building and Citizenship in Singapore (pp. 91-112).

Koh, B. H. (2012, 24 May). Xenophobia online? Not quite... The Straits Times.

National Day Rally 2012 (2012).

Leong, C. H., & Soon, D. (2011). A Dish of our Own. Lee Kuan Yew School of Public

Policy.

Mathews, M. (2012, 5 September). Seeing xenophobia in context, The Straits Times.

Teo, D. (2012a, 23 May). 80 per cent say Singaporeans are becoming anti-foreigner_ Y! poll,

Yahoo! News.

Teo, D. (2012b, 15 May). Are Singaporeans becoming anti-foreigner, Yahoo! News.

The Temasek Times. (2012). Ma Chi’s wife posts apology on Weibo_ We are sorry and we

will be responsible to the victims’ families Retrieved 11 November, 2012


Yap, Y. L. (2011, 1 June). Beware of Feeding Xenophoboia, The Straits Times.

(Un)leashing the One-Eyed Dragon: An Analysis of Xenophobic Discourse in Multicultural Singapore

Documents

Transcript of (Un)leashing the One-Eyed Dragon: An Analysis of Xenophobic Discourse in Multicultural Singapore