Singapore’s history has been a history of immigration and colonialism. Colonized by the British, the surrounding geopolitical powerhouses and its native population caught Singapore between influences and competing interests. The native people, known as the Malay, are indigenous to Malaysia, Singapore, and its surrounding areas. During the expansion and local globalism caused by British and Dutch involvement in China, Singapore, and India, Singapore became crucial for the trade network, in which it served as a feeding port into the Suez Canal. Like most trade posts, it quickly became populated by non-indigenous people, mostly Chinese, who make up 75% of their population today. A conflict began due to constant international influence, the presence of many different religions and races, and racial unrest in its neighbors within South Asia. Once Singapore gained its independence from Britain in 1955, tensions were already on the rise. Many died in the anti-establishment Hock Lee Bus Riots of 1955, in which students joined members of the Hock Lee Bus Company to revolt for higher wages.
It is historically naive to believe that Singaporian anti-racist programs were born solely out of a response to the devastating and deadly race riots of 1964 that took place just one year before Singapore’s governmental re-independence from Malaysia. Instead, the policy was a delayed reaction to the growing problem of civil unrest.
Singapore’s anti-racist policy attempts to achieve equity and equality in law, governmental representation, and housing. The law aims to equalize every citizen through the constitution and its regulations regarding equal representation and protection. Within the founding document, Article 16 of the constitution states, “there shall be no discrimination against any citizen of Singapore on the grounds only of religion, race, descent or place of birth.” Similarly, there is a clause that founds the Group Representation Constituency (GRC). The clause creates the regulation that within each GRC, a group of 4-6 people running for parliament together under the same party, at least one MP or Member of Parliament must be Malaysian, Indian, or of some other minority group. This change serves to ensure that Singapore’s entire governing body is not decided by the tyranny of the majority of Chinese voters. These two instances serve as examples of the government law that is intended to keep racial peace, offering acknowledgment within the highest law of the land to the fears of Malay Advocacy Groups with the explicit protection of Malays and their representation.
While successful at creating the intended stable society, Singapore is proof that starting societal change is challenging to achieve unless it is demanded. I want to recognize that other policies such as the GRC program fail to adequately represent the people’s will and exist for a PR stunt more than racial representation. Additionally, to this day, standing against the Singaporean government on virtually any issue is impossible. Thus creating a huge problem with sanctioning, free speech, and future change. Despite all my criticism, many countries worldwide, including the US, could be more like Singapore. We need to recognize our global problems with inequality, face them with policy, and work to compromise and achieve a society that does not rely on the tyranny of the majority with a system of political consolation prizes, but one that strives to fix problems and work for all of its people.
