Professor Pang Eng Fong, Director, Wee Kim Wee Centre

 Ladies and gentlemen

Good Morning

The opportunity to better promote cross-cultural understanding is readily available in Singapore.

Or we can seize the opportunity, broaden our comfort zones, strengthen our understanding of others, and live our daily lives in ways that emphasize our connections with one another and our mutual respect and active efforts to achieve harmony. If we all do so, we will become a much stronger, productive, creative and confident society, and a more vibrant nation. We will also be more admired as world citizens, because we would have, over time, acquired a sense of ease with which we move into and connect with people who are different from us, sincerely, easily and readily.

Thirty-eight years ago, Singaporeans embraced, together with the ideas of meritocracy and incorruptibility, the notion of diversity as a fundamental principle of our existence as a nation.

In the early days of our independence, we preached the idea of multiracialism as a key tenet. Underlying this idea is the recognition of common rights and destinies of different groups of people who share the same homeland. Our six-year olds started declaring with the help of their teachers, that we are one united people, regardless of race, language or religion. Everyone, regardless of colour or creed, was given access to basic facilities such as housing, education, health care and other opportunities that would help people to grow and become useful members of society.

Each community was given space to protect its identity but it was encouraged to understand other communities better. Symbols of multiracialism like the four interlinked forearms representing the combined strength of major racial groups here became prominent icons at a time when we struggled to sustain our existence. Signs in four languages were visible almost everywhere – from outpatient clinics to second hand motor parts shops. Hence the idea was simple; signal to each group that you belong here, and at the same tell each group that there are others who are equal partners. Our understanding of each other was encouraged through a variety of programmes. So cultural shows staged in open areas had Chinese items, Malay items, Indian items and combined items. A common national identity and destiny was emphasized. No clear model emerged even though the notion of a melting pot was hovering clearly in some minds. Cross-cultural understanding developed in this manner right up to the 1970s. Coincidentally, too we had multiracial icons in our national football team in the mould of Eric Paine, Dollah Kassim, Quah Kim Song and S Rajagopal. We always wanted them to beat a certain team led by Arumugam, Soh Chin Aun, Santokh Singh and Mokhtar Dahari.

In the 1980s, the efforts continued albeit on a slightly different path. Each community then was encouraged to preserve its own identity. The experiment at multiracialism ala the melting pot approach was deemed to be not viable. Policy makers argued that every community wanted to preserve and draw the most from its own identity and that the state should not stand in the way. In fact, they reasoned that the state should help in this process. We mooted the bilingualism policy. And the Speak Mandarin Campaign was launched – first to unite the various dialect groups and later to encourage the English-educated to use the language as a way of connecting to East Asian traditions and philosophies. We eventually started a Malay Language Month and then a Tamil Language Week, to ensure and assure the different communities that they could preserve their "original" languages. At the same time each community was encouraged to understand and even appreciate the differences between the various communities. Singaporeans were told that there is no harm in being different as long as we all share a common aspiration in Singapore as our homeland.

In the 1990s, the mosaic or the salad bowl theory was used to describe this process. This model was deemed to be the model for our national identity. Essentially this model accepts the fact that there are different groups in Singapore and that they co-exist harmoniously. The glue or the paste that binds the salad or the rojak is the things that we all share in common. Underlying this model is not the insistence of a melting pot approach but the so-called common ground approach. To give this latter approach visual representation the idea of four overlapping rings was presented. Those who are predisposed to spatial visualisations will see that there will be one area, which is common to all four rings. This is the common ground. Those non-overlapping areas are called the private spaces. In other words each community is at liberty to preserve what it deems to be its identity and heritage and at the same time build a common heritage and shared experiences across all groups. In its public manifestations, groups are encouraged to stay side-by-side in the same locations, send their children to public schools, and use common facilities such as community centres and clubs so that they will interact with each other. Over time this will help to build and strengthen the common ground without in anyway compromising their private spaces.

More recently the notion of common ground has given way to the idea of a common space. This space is not to be filled with cultural artifacts that all can relate. But instead it is the space for ideas, values and vision that all Singaporeans identify as their own. Hence we promote the ideas of tolerance and harmony among the different groups. In this model the classic example is the picture of four friends eating their preferred foods but all sitting at the same table. There is diversity in unity in this approach. Hence tolerance and understanding get played out in the common space in everyday pursuits. Hence the glue that holds this model together is respect and tolerance for one another.

The above brief description of the efforts by Singapore to manage diversity reflects the evolutionary nature of the process. Furthermore this process also takes into account the different levels of development in society.

In the early days of nation-building clear signals to the groups were needed in order to ensure the survival of the nation. Trust and confidence in each other and in the government were vital ingredients in forging a nation. But as society developed and as more Singaporeans grew up together and underwent common socialisation experiences, a different societal make up emerged.

People felt more comfortable eating each other’s food. Chinatown, Geylang Serai and Little India are now thronged by all communities in search of the best bargains and buys. Demarcations of groups by food and other common outward cultural appearances become increasingly less useful.

The model used these days is that of a multicultural society. At face value, this notion is deemed to be no different from that of a multiracial society. It is argued that in a multicultural society various cultural groups exist and that respect should be accorded to each group and an understanding of each group should be promoted. This definition is certainly apt given the fact that as society becomes more diverse the right of each group to exist is a necessary pre-condition for stability and harmony.

But multiculturalism is also understood as a description of the types of individuals in that society. In other words, no one can claim to belong to a separate and distinct group or race. One can appreciate and understand much of one’s own heritage. But within every individual there also exist elements and traits reflecting the larger society. When a Malay colleague of mine invited me to his home to have a steamboat dinner, my understanding of what it means to be Malay in Singapore had to be updated. When I visit Komala Vilas with my family and tuck into the vegetarian food, the crowd there is truly varied and Singaporean. While this food example may appear trivial it reflects what multiculturalism means in Singapore.

We have evolved, not by design, but by choice, a certain ease by which we adopt and modify cultural traits and values from each other. At the same time through the years of nation-building and shared experiences we begin to adopt orientations, aspirations and values that are shared by all Singaporeans. Hence all Singaporeans, irrespective of race or creed, would demand efficient government services and would cringe at inefficiencies that we come across elsewhere. We have become both a melting pot and a mosaic.

 Any effort at promoting understanding across different groups must take into account the existing social dynamics. These dynamics are by no means static nor a historical. A historical reading of the facts and a grasp of the events that have taken place are necessary in our efforts at promoting understanding. Similarly any attempt to comprehend a particular community should also consider the historical experience of that community in the context of the wider community.

History, for example, may provide important clues about how the different communities view efforts at cross-cultural understanding and view each other. In Singapore’s particular case, the colonial experience provides an important point of reference. The colonial mindset viewed the natives within a framework borne out of notions of its own superiority. To simplify ruling those cultures that they did not adequately understand, the masters separated, classified the subjects and treated them differently. But should we be carrying the same mindset now? If we carry preconceived notions of others as being inferior in one way or another, it becomes an impediment to relations and genuine understanding will not take place. But if we understand why and how different communities had evolved and developed, then our understanding and appreciation will be more objective. Hence a historical understanding of each community is important. Perceptions and prejudices militate against genuine understanding and appreciation.

Events—whether local or global—also have the ability to shape, colour or re-shape our views of not only the world but of the people around us. In 1915, when Indian soldiers of the 5^th Light Infantry left their barracks and fired at their British superiors, the Indian community here came under scrutiny and had to declare their allegiance to the King. In the early years of independence, when the communists threatened to destabilise Singapore, the Chinese students came under the spotlight. In a similar vein, following the September 2001 attacks in New York and Washington and the arrest of the Jemaah Islamiah members in Singapore, the Malay community in Singapore experienced a certain attention that it did not want nor was warranted.

 But, we may want to ask, after more than 30 years of nation-building, why were doubts cast on the Malays? Clearly, we had not established sufficient inter-cultural understanding. But it need not be that way. This experience should be a learning point for all Singaporeans. We must continue to reach out and understand each other better, at all times. The pace at which we evolve as a nation cannot be forced. It has to be nurtured with understanding and care. Clearly what all this demonstrates is that promoting cross-cultural understanding remains a work in progress.

On a broader scale, beyond building cross-cultural understanding, we have to see how we can promote better understanding across other facets – age, social status, disability, and gender. So that we understand and appreciate others for their strengths and even the mere comfort they offer through their presence. Doing so will only make us better humans, leading richer lives.

I began my speech this morning with the view that there is ample opportunity for us here in Singapore to promote and deepen cross-cultural understanding. The fundamental question is whether as a society we value diversity; not as an interesting item for tourists visiting Singapore, but as a characteristic that defines our existence as Singaporeans. Pluralistic societies are a key feature of the 21^st century. Singapore on the other hand has been so for a very long time. It would be pity if after building a nation of different communities for nearly four decades, we have not developed an appreciation for, and acceptance of, the diversity of our nation. We may have begun the process of nation-building by trying to ensure that no group felt left out. But it is in our collective interest to move the process and be involved in the process of making diversity the centre-piece of our existence. What this means is that we view differences or variations not as sources of conflict but as resources for greater understanding, maturity and growth. Diversity thus becomes a positive force for development.

Thank you.