The recent riots in the UK, marked by a surge of white
nationalist violence and targeted
attacks on minority communities,
are a stark warning of how
quickly societal fault lines can
fracture into chaos.
While Singapore may seem
worlds apart from these tensions,
the underlying forces that fuelled
these riots – racism, extremism,
populism and deep-seated
xenophobia – are universal
dangers that we cannot afford to
ignore.
For a country known to have
one of the most welcoming
attitudes towards immigration in
Europe, the recent events in the
UK serve as a cautionary tale for
multicultural Singapore that
prides itself on social harmony.
The Roots of the Riots
Disinformation about a stabbing
attack on July 29 that left three
children dead – amplified by
influencers and even some UK
politicians on social media –
engendered the initial protests.
The ensuing violence is deeply
rooted in the UK’s long and
complex history with
immigration, marked by recurring
tensions and divisive rhetoric.
Post-war immigration from
Commonwealth countries brought
significant demographic changes,
but also sparked racial conflicts,
such as the 1958 Notting Hill riots.
A decade later, the Conservative
British politician Enoch Powell’s
“Rivers of Blood” speech further
inflamed anxieties about
immigration. This was followed
by the rise of far-right movements
in the 1970s and 1980s with
further polarisation of public
opinion.
More recently, the 2016 Brexit
referendum, driven in part by
fears of uncontrolled
immigration, once again exposed
deep societal divisions.
Tensions were exacerbated
during the Covid-19 pandemic,
leading to a resurgence in
anti-immigrant and racist
sentiments and hate crimes.
These events, fuelled by
populist rhetoric, have created a
volatile environment simmering
with ill-will, racism and
longstanding anxieties about
immigration.
This reflects Britain’s ongoing
struggle with its multicultural
identity.
Populism, Xenophobia and their Echoes in Singapore
Singapore’s context differs
significantly from that of the UK. The city-state’s independence was
largely grounded on its desire to
forge a path distinct from its
colonial legacies, and on its
rejection of identity or race-based
politics.
Unlike the UK’s pluralistic and
adversarial political system which
often allows populist and far-right
rhetoric to gain traction,
Singapore’s dominant-party
system has maintained a strong
hold on governance since 1965.
Singapore’s demographics are
also carefully managed with
strategic immigration and
integration policies, in contrast
with the more organic shifts seen
in the UK.
These factors have thus far
allowed the Government to
proactively shape public
discourse and swiftly address
divisive rhetoric before it takes
root.
But there are concerning signs
that similar forces of populism
and xenophobia could take root
here if left unchecked.
While the political landscape
here is more controlled and less
susceptible to the dramatic shifts
seen in more liberal democracies,
there have been a number of
instances where such populist
rhetoric has crept into public
discourse.
Since the 2011 General Election,
there has been a noticeable
increase in anti-immigrant
sentiment, driven by concerns
over the number of foreign
workers and the perceived strain
on public services and
infrastructure.
Some political parties and
candidates that tapped into these
anxieties, promising to prioritise
“Singaporeans first”, gained
significant traction, reflecting a
growing undercurrent of
nativism.
In 2021, a political party was
called out for “race-baiting” over
its stance on the Comprehensive
Economic Cooperation
Agreement, or Ceca, between
Singapore and India. The party
firmly rejected this accusation,
asserting that its concerns were
focused solely on the economic
and employment impacts of the
agreement.
More recently, another local
politician’s remarks about the
nationality of a young girl
featured on a National Day
banner were followed by a
barrage of online vitriol from
netizens.
Xenophobia in Singapore, meanwhile, manifests itself in
more subtle but pervasive ways,
affecting the daily interactions
and perceptions of foreigners
within the community.
This latent prejudice becomes
most apparent during contentious
incidents or online, particularly
on forums and social media.
It might come as a surprise, but
in Singapore, concerns regarding
immigration appear more
pronounced compared with the
UK.
According to the latest World
Values Survey, a global study
exploring the values and beliefs
of citizens across more than 80
countries, only 41.2 per cent of
Singapore residents felt that the
impact of immigrants on the
country’s development was “quite
good” or “very good”, compared
with 56 per cent in the UK.
Moreover, while 71.1 per cent of
UK residents agreed that
immigration strengthened
cultural diversity, only 48.1 per
cent of Singapore residents
shared this view. Additionally,
43.2 per cent of residents here
believed that immigration
increases unemployment, a stark
contrast to 20.8 per cent of their
UK counterparts.
A separate Institute of Policy
Studies (IPS) report on national
identity in 2021 also found that
53.3 per cent of about 2,000
Singapore residents felt that the
Government spends too much
money assisting immigrants.
Tinderboxes of Racism and Extremism
Racism and extremism are potent
forces that have the potential to
unravel the fabric of any society,
as seen in the recent events in the
UK.
For decades, Singapore has
been proactive in preventing the
formation of racial enclaves
through policies like the Ethnic
Integration Policy in public
housing and efforts to promote
multiracialism in schools.
Such measures have been
instrumental in fostering a sense
of shared identity among
Singaporeans, regardless of their
ethnic background. However, the
mere presence of such policies is
not enough to eradicate deeply
ingrained prejudices.
A 2022 IPS report on race
relations, which surveyed
2,000-odd Singapore residents,
found that about one-fifth of
minority-race respondents
reported experiencing unfair
treatment at work due to their
race.
Racism in Singapore may also
often manifest itself in subtler
forms, such as microaggressions
or exclusionary practices, which
can contribute to a climate of
alienation and distrust.
Online platforms, in particular,
have become breeding grounds
for racially charged rhetoric, where bigoted views are
amplified and normalised.
Furthermore, discussions
around nationality and
citizenship here are all too often
conflated with race, particularly
in the context of Chinese
nationals from mainland China or
Indian nationals from India.
This conflation feeds
xenophobic sentiments that blur
the lines between legitimate
concerns over immigration and
outright racism.
For instance, criticism directed
at immigrants or migrant workers
can quickly morph into racially
charged rhetoric, with specific
ethnic groups being unfairly
targeted. This creates a toxic
environment where both foreign
nationals and local citizens of
similar ethnic backgrounds feel
alienated and marginalised.
Moreover, Singapore is not
immune to the threat of
extremism. While the overall level
of such threats remains low, there
is a persistent undercurrent that
cannot be ignored.
The Internal Security
Department has periodically
issued press releases detailing the
detention of individuals who were
radicalised and preparing to act
violently. These cases serve as a
stark reminder that the seeds of
extremism can take root even in a
society as carefully regulated as
Singapore’s.
The Government’s vigilance in
monitoring and addressing these
threats is crucial, but so too is the
need for community resilience
and proactive measures to
prevent such ideologies from
gaining a foothold.
The Way Forward
At the heart of the UK’s turmoil is
its failure to address the
socio-economic issues that have
bred resentment and division.
In Singapore, similar concerns
about immigration often stem
from anxieties related to the cost
of living, employment
opportunities and infrastructural
strain. If these underlying issues
are not proactively managed, they
can easily become fertile ground
for xenophobic sentiments.
The Government must remain
vigilant, ensuring that policies
related to housing and
employment are robust and
inclusive, addressing the
pressures that often lead to
feelings of being “crowded out”. By doing so, we can prevent
xenophobic and populist rhetoric
from gaining traction in the
mainstream.
Legislative muscle also plays a
role in discouraging nefarious
actors from sowing discord;
Singapore’s strict laws regulating
public gatherings and free speech
have been instrumental in
maintaining social order.
For instance, the Public Order
Act requires permits for public
assemblies, while the Protection
from Online Falsehoods and
Manipulation Act and the
proposed Maintenance of Racial
Harmony Bill would allow the
swift correction of
misinformation that could incite
unrest.
This discerning approach to
freedom of expression and
assembly will seem restrictive to
some, but it serves as a strategic
check against the kind of
inflammatory rhetoric that has
stoked tensions elsewhere.
However, as prevailing research
suggests, regulation alone is
insufficient.
There is also a pressing need for
public education to promote
media literacy, empower citizens
to critically evaluate the content
they consume, and guard against
the dangers of disinformation.
Additionally, to sustain the
peace, it is crucial to cultivate
spaces where differing
perspectives can be shared in a
constructive manner.
One approach is through
supporting structured in-person
platforms for open dialogue, such
as the IPS workshops on Race, Religion and Intergroup Cohesion
emphasising awareness and
competence in discussing
sensitive issues.
These will not only allow
citizens to air their views but also
encourage discernment and
responsibility, ensuring that
conversations remain
constructive while avoiding the
divisive rhetoric seen in other
contexts.
Such efforts shift the narrative
from division to empathy and
understanding.
Singapore’s future depends on
its ability to navigate these
complex dynamics with wisdom
and foresight.
By addressing the root causes of
social tensions, promoting
constructive dialogue and
empowering citizens to think
critically, we can safeguard our
nation’s harmony and ensure that
it remains resilient in the face of
global challenges.
The stakes are high, the
challenges are real, and the time
to act is now.
The article was first published on
The Straits Times on 15 August 2024.