Race relations in Malaysia and Singapore
The issue of race occupies a significant position in the political developments of Malaysia and Singapore. Both countries experienced British rule and shared similar historical experiences that determined the trajectories of race relations in their polities, but each had its own way of coming to grips with the issue of race in the years following independence.
Colonial labor policies divided employment along ethnic lines. The British classified a whole range of ethnicities under three rough racial groupings - “Malay”, “Chinese” and “Indian” - and assigned them to jobs based on imperialist assumptions of the suitability of each race for specific kinds of work.
This solidified and hardened the divisions between races (King, 2008). The indigenous Malays were conceived of as most suitable for agricultural work while Chinese and Indian immigrants were sent to work in tin mines, rubber plantations and ports, all in the interest of exploiting the territories’ resources to fill colonial coffers.
The rural Malays locked in the non-lucrative farming sector did not accumulate as much wealth as the Chinese and Indians, many of whom entered the urban sector and achieved upward mobility through education, commerce and professional work (King, 2008). The relative economic backwardness of the Malays that germinated during the colonial days would become a major factor in the management of race in post-colonial Malaysia and Singapore.
After independence, the economic disparity between Chinese and Malays became a source of ethnic tensions. The Malaysian government opted to manage the situation by legalizing the provision of special rights for its Malay majority in the areas of land reservation, and through quotas in the public sector as well as in education and business (Lee, 2004).
Singapore dealt with inter-ethnic tensions and wealth disparities by guaranteeing through law, the equal treatment of all races, and by implementing a merit-based system, which rewarded people based on their achievements rather than their race or culture.
Hence, to preserve multiracial harmony, Malaysia politicized ethnicity and made it a divisive element in race relations, while Singapore depoliticized ethnicity and removed it from the frontline of politics in order to prevent divisiveness (Chi, 2003; Chua, 1995). These divergent approaches have produced different outcomes in the political journeys of both nations.
First, the governments’ management of race has hindered the crystallization of a national identity that transcends ethnic differences.
In Malaysia, special rights for the Malays, and the organization of political parties along racial lines has led to Malay supremacy. The special position of one race over others is anathema to a shared national consciousness and there are signs that many influential Malays are not willing to relinquish that supremacy.
For example, while former Prime Minister Najib Razak supported the 1Malaysia campaign, which called for national unity, UMNO’s upper echelons were not in favor of it because of its potential to erode Malay special rights, also known as, Bumiputera rights. During the 2013 elections, some UMNO leaders undermined the 1Malaysia campaign by warning the Malay electorate that if the opposition, Pakatan Rakyat (PR), won, Bumiputera rights might be revoked (Liow, 2013).
Even in Singapore, where racial divisions are less pronounced, a national identity has not materialized. The presence of state-supported, ethnic-based, self-help groups, which contribute to ethnic polarization, the widely publicized “Speak Mandarin” campaigns (George, 2000) and the existence of the elite Special Assistance Plan (SAP) schools, which emphasize instilling Chinese culture, and which accept only top-scoring PSLE students of Chinese descent (Moore, 2000), show that some citizens are intent on preserving their distinct heritage beyond the pursuit of national identity.
Second, the governments’ management of race has led to different outcomes in terms of national economic wellbeing.
The introduction of the New Economic Policy (NEP) in Malaysia in 1971, which aimed to increase Bumiputera ownership of capital and to increase their stature in jobs and in education, reduced the overall incidence of poverty, and Bumiputera poverty drastically (Lee, 2005). However, NEP benefitted mainly the Malays who were better off, thus contributing to intra-ethnic inequality (Lee 2005). Although inter-ethnic inequality has decreased since 1971, there are signs of growing interclass inequality within all the ethnic groups (Haque, 2003). The government’s race-based approach to addressing inequality has blinkered it to other triggers of inequality, such as socio-economic characteristics and job type that explain 90 percent of the inequality in Malaysia (Stewart, 2013). Barisan Nasional’s winning of a smaller majority in the 2013 elections indicated that if the government did not adopt a needs-based approach to policymaking, Malaysia’s economic woes would worsen, leading to the party’s continued lackluster performance in subsequent elections (Stewart, 2013).
In Singapore, the political containment of race has meant that the state is free to define the nation’s socio-political culture as one that is focused on economic growth (King, 2008). The state’s management of race relations through laws such as the Sedition Act and the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act has helped in maintaining stable political and financial institutions, free from the pull of ethnic loyalties and the destabilizing effect of uprisings. This stability has attracted foreign investment and spurred growth.
Third, the governments’ handling of race relations has impacted citizens’ trust in the public sector.
In Malaysia, preferential treatment of Malays in the public sector has resulted in capable non-Malays venturing overseas for better opportunities. This “brain drain” coupled with the complacency of some within the Malay community who refuse to work hard because of guaranteed privileges, contribute to public sector inefficiency (Haque, 2003). Citizens’ loss of faith in public institutions will motivate them to vote for a change of government in future elections (Stewart, 2013).
Lastly, state management of race issues influences the extent to which student activists are willing to organize themselves to challenge government policies. One outcome from the race-based administration of Malaysia is the growth of powerful student movements that seek to address the mismatch between high personal aspirations and reduced opportunities for individual accomplishment (Darling, 1974). Dissatisfied with the administrative stagnancy, corruption and cronyism that reduces the global competitiveness of society, hundreds of students of all races joined PR rallies calling for free and fair elections after the May 5th polls (Su-Lyn, 2013), a sign that student activism may be catalytic in eradicating race-based politics in Malaysia.
Richard Philip - 8 August 2013
REFERENCES
Boo, S-L. (2013, May 18). Student activist arrested under sedition act. The Malaysian Insider. Retrieved from http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/student-activist-arrested-under-sedition-act/
Chi, J. K.G. (2003). National-ethnic identity negotiation in Malaysia and Singapore: A state-society interaction perspective. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 47, 49-75. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41035581
Chua, B. C. (1995). Communitarian Ideology and Democracy in Singapore. London: Routledge.
George, C. (2000). Singapore: The Air-Conditioned Nation. Singapore: Landmark Books.
Haque, M. S. (2003). The role of the state un managing ethnic tensions in Malaysia: A critical discourse. American Behavioral Scientist, 47, 240-266.
King, V. T. (2008). The Sociology of Southeast Asia. Thailand: NIAS Press.
Lee, R. L. M. (2004). The transformation of race relations in Malaysia: From ethnic discourse to national imagery, 1993-2003. African and Asian Studies, 3, 120-143.
Lee, H. G. (2005). Affirmative Action in Malaysia. Southeast Asian Affairs, 211-228.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/27913284
Liow, J. C. (2013, May 8). Najib could face rocky road ahead. The Straits Times.
Moore, R. Q. (2000). Multiculturalism and meritocracy: Singapore’s approach to race and inequality. Review of Social Economy, 58, 339-360. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/29770069
Stewart, P. (2013, April 27). “1Malaysia”: Race politics and representation. Al Jazeera. Retrieved from http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/04/201342615249176311.html