A large part of the PAP’s racism is due to the beliefs of its leaders.
As pointed out earlier (Read here), the senior civil service and Chinese military officers had a deep distrust of the Malays. This distrust is transmitted through the years such that it has been ingrained in the psyche of the PAP government. A major proponent of such racism is Lee Kuan Yew, the first Prime Minister and largely regarded as the primary architect of the modern Singapore authoritarian state.
Lee Kuan Yew believed that genes accounts for 80% of a child’s intelligence with nurture the remaining 20%[3]. In order to maximise the intelligence potential of the nation, he introduced programs that encourage the potential of the successful “while the reproduction of the unsuccessful is restricted”[4]. In 1969, he created the Eugenics Board “to restrict the birth rate of two children per family in order to reverse the tendency of the poor to have more children than the rich…”[5]. In the 1980s, the government offered “$10,000 to couples with low education and low incomes who agreed to be sterilized after having one or two children”[6].
In 1980, 64.1% of Malays as compared to 41.8% of Chinese males earned less than $400 per month[7]. Because the Chinese were the richest community in Singapore, the sterilization policy[8] is recognised as not targeting the Chinese. Rather, these policies targeted the minority communities. However, the PAP’s failed at its attempt to indirectly increase the Chinese population through sterilization of the minorities. Even though the PAP encouraged educated Chinese women to reproduce, they found both the educated and working-class Chinese women lowering their reproduction while the Malay and Indians kept reproducing. The Malay reproductive capacity was seen as a threat to Chinese dominance and “the legitimacy of a Chinese state in a Malay region”[9].
Unexpectedly, Lee Kuan Yew and the PAP did not simply admit to the racist policies. They were armed with excuses based on socio-economic imperatives. Lee Kuan Yew argued that if graduate Chinese women did not reproduce more, then the quality of the people in Singapore will degrade overtime[10]. This need, for more Chinese in Singapore to ensure good quality citizenry that would be economically productive was used as the excuse for the PAP government to import 100,000 Hong Kong Chinese to Singapore in the 1990s. For Lee Kuan Yew, not maintaining Chinese dominance would lead to “a shift in the economy, both the economic performance and the political backdrop which makes that economic performance possible”[11]. For Lee Kuan Yew, a Malay who is successful in business is one that has become more Chinese [12].
Former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong[13] had in 1977, argued that Malays cannot achieve the economic success of the Chinese because Malays do not view the accumulation of wealth as positively as the Chinese. Tania Li countered that Goh’s assessment of the Chinese pursuit of wealth is not consistent with evidence since 40 percent of the Chinese male population in 1980 had a salary below $400 per month[14].
And yet, while there is substantial evidence to contradict the PAP’s racist narratives, they are seldom given any scrutiny. We find the PAP making racist and extremely discriminatory policies while claiming these policies to be beneficial for the nation. Take the euphemistically named Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP) as an example. Since 1989, the PAP government has mandated a quota for each ethnicity in every housing estate and block. Every sale and purchase of public housing (in which almost 90% of Singaporeans live) are bound by these quotas.
It is claimed that the EIP aims to integrate the different communities in support of nation building. The quota provides for some allowance for each community. So even though the percentage for Chinese, Malays and Indians/ Others[15] are 76%, 15.1% and 8.9%, the quotas at block level are set at a maximum of 87%, 25% and 13% respectively.
The PAP government argued that the quotas are necessary to ensure there are no “racial enclaves” in Singapore. And that is a curious argument to make. Because what it seeks is not to ensure there are no ethnic enclaves but no non-Chinese enclaves.
Given that the Chinese are allowed 87% of the population in a block of flats, every block and estate will be dominated by the Chinese. And yet, a block of flats with 26% Malays or 14% Indians are considered enclaves and are disallowed. Schiffman posited that the government fears if Malays and Indians band together, they will rise up and commit violence[16].
I do not believe there is a real concern of violence. While the riot in 1964 has been used to justify racist policies, it is no longer a real concern. The concern is that the minority ethnicities will rise up politically.
Of the three main races, around a quarter Chinese and Indians reported being affected by the EIP policy while for the Malays, 37.5% reported the same[17]. That the Malays are most affected is not surprising since the policy seems targeted to the community despite the government’s claims. The main discussion in the crafting of the policy was of the Bedok New Town that had more than 30% Malay population. The PAP government was worried that with the growth of the Malay population in Bedok and other similar towns, they may be able to develop a voting block to vote for candidates who would represent Malay interests[18].
Tremewan argued that the drive to break up the Malay community under the guise of prohibiting “racial enclaves” is due to the Malay community consistently voting against the PAP[19]. The problem was exacerbated when Malays who lived in villages and broken up through the forced relocation of public housing began to move and concentrate anti-PAP votes again.
At around the same time as the EIP, the PAP introduced the Group Representation Constituency (GRC), ostensibly to offset the effects of the EIP on Malays and Indians’ ability to vote for candidates that would represent them in parliament. The GRC set between 3 to 5 electoral constituencies into groups with each group to include at least a minority candidate. The outcome of the GRC is that minority candidates tended to be junior members on the electoral slate with every grouped constituency heavily Chinese dominated. Indian, Malay and Eurasian candidates are now seen as unable to win seats on their own, needing the Chinese politicians to get them elected. Rahim and Barr referred to the GRC as political football in the way the PAP treats minority ethnicities and the racialism they exhibit[20].
To discuss the various discrimination of the Malays and to a lesser extent, the Indians in Singapore will require a whole book series of its own. What it does show however, is that these formal and informal racism are not tied to individual policies. Instead, the policies are mere symptoms of systemic racism. Racism within the government sector is so inherent in its values and norms that it is normalised. Singaporeans accept it without recognising its problems. They tend to explain that Malays are not as hardworking as the Chinese, that the Malays cannot be trusted or that Chinese are superior without noticing the problems with such views.
This systemic racism does not merely influence the Chinese within the state elites. What is more concerning is that it has been internalised by the Malays themselves. Part of the problem relates to the claim of meritocracy. Even as the system discriminates against the Malays, the government claims it is meritocratic. To speak against racism then, is to be equated with seeking privileges for the minority ethnicities. Worse, because the PAP couch their policies as being beneficial for the economy and nation building, they claim moral legitimacy in such policies.
To argue against these policies then is to be a threat to the nation. Individuals, NGOs or opposition politicians who speak against the PAP’s racism are castigated for bringing up sensitive topics and often are branded as being racists. Even when they speak in support of a different race. The only ones who have the right to discuss race relations and policies are the PAP politicians.
Because every non-PAP politician are silenced and these policies tend to be unannounced or justified with other concerns, it becomes almost impossible to challenge. Singaporeans accept its existence as natural.
The biggest problem however, is that Malay elites have internalised the racism and accepted their community’s inferiority. Malay elites have latched onto the idea that the “backwardness” of the Malay community is attributable to Malay culture. Because these elites are successful and they argue that Singapore is meritocratic, the problem is credited to the unsuccessful Malays and their culture[21]. So while Lee Kuan Yew and the Chinese elites may blame the Malay genetic and cultural inferiority, Malay elites assign the blame to their culture[22].
The only way for Malays to be successful in PAP’s Singapore is to be less Malay. Barr and Low assert that the Malay MP's major function is to facilitate the Malay community's assimilation into the Chinese community. In his interview with Syed Haroon Aljunied, the Secretary of MUIS, Barr asked whether the MUIS official agreed with the assimilationist policies and whether assimilating the Malays into the Chinese community would lead to greater Malay representation in the civil service. Syed Haroon replied “Yeah that’s right. Then they don’t see any difference.”[23].
The more Chinese, the less Malay they are, the better it will be for the Malays.
References
[1] Refer to works on Historical Institutionalism and path dependence.
[2] Florini, A (1996) p. 378
[3] Heng, G and Devan, J. (1995). p.3
[4] Li, Tania (1989) p. 114.
[5] Li Tania (1989) pp.114-115
[6] Li, Tania (1989) p. 115
[7] Li, Tania (1989) p. 118
[8] Which apart from offering cash for sterilisation also included punitive actions against couples who have more than 2 children.
[9] Tremewan, C (1995) pp. 125-126
[10] Heng, G and Devan, J. (1995) p. 3
[11] Heng, G and Devan, J. (1995) fn. 22
[12] Barr, M (2021) p.8
[13] Goh succeeded Lee Kuan Yew in 1990
[14] Li, Tania (1989) p. 180
[15] Indians are categorised in an expanded category of non Chinese and Malays.
[16] Schiffman (2003) p. 114-115
[17] Sin (2002) p. 1358
[18] Sin (2003) pp. 536-537
[19] Tremewan, C (1995) p. 65
[20] Rahim and Barr (2019) pp.11-12
[21] Li, Tania (1989) p. 178
[22] Tremewan, C (1995) p. 97
[23] Cited in Barr, M and Low, J (2005) p. 172