The IPS-MHA Forum on Non-Violent Ethnic Hostilities, held on July 1, brought together some 200 thought leaders, policymakers, and community representatives to discuss the spectrum of non-violent ethnic hostilities, specifically in the Asia Pacific region. Organised by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), the forum is part of the IPS Programme on Race, Religion and Intergroup Cohesion (IPS RRIC). The event featured a series of keynote speeches, two panel discussions, and a dialogue aimed at understanding and addressing the subtler forms of ethnic tensions that can undermine social harmony, and was attended by Mr K Shanmugam, Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law.
Opening Remarks by Dr Mathew Mathews
The forum began with opening remarks from Dr Mathew Mathews, Principal Research Fellow and Head of the Social Lab at IPS. Dr Mathew expanded on the importance of the forum, noting that while physical violence was widely condemned, non-violent hostilities along ethnic lines could be equally detrimental to social cohesion.
Dr Mathew emphasised the need to recognise and address these subtler forms of conflict, such as discrimination, social exclusion, and hate speech, which have profound ramifications on society, even if they did not cause physical harm. He underscored the relevance of the issue of non-violent hostilities in the Singaporean context, where maintaining social harmony in a multi-ethnic and multi-religious society was of paramount importance. He also touched upon the impact of microaggressions and the importance of practical strategies to secure and sustain social peace and harmony.
Speech by Minister K Shanmugam
Following Dr Mathew’s opening remarks, Mr K Shanmugam, Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law, delivered a speech covering three broad areas: the experiences of other countries with ethnic hostilities, how their experiences compare with Singapore's, and the future challenges to social cohesion that Singapore may face.
Minister Shanmugam provided a sobering account of extreme ethnic violence in countries like Sudan and Myanmar, illustrating the dire consequences of unchecked ethnic tensions. He next described the deteriorating ethnic relations and incidents in developed countries such as the US and UK, which tended to adopt a laissez-faire approach to ethnic relations. In contrast, Singapore's two-pronged approach of a near-zero tolerance for hate speech and offensive actions supported by stringent laws, and socio-economic policies and programmes that support social cohesion, has been instrumental in producing the relative peace and harmony that we enjoy here.
He acknowledged that while Singapore’s approach had been successful, it was still a work in progress. He identified two future challenges: the impact of technology and social media, and differing reactions to external conflicts. He expressed concern about the rapid spread of hate speech online, and disinformation through hostile information campaigns, which could exacerbate ethnic tensions. He also noted that external conflicts, such as the Russia-Ukraine and the Israel-Hamas conflicts, could influence local ethnic groups differently, pulling society in different directions and making it more difficult to hold society together.
Panel 1: A Comparative Analysis of Non-Violent Ethnic Hostilities in Asia Pacific
The first panel, moderated by Professor Barry Desker, Distinguished Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies and Nanyang Professor of Practice at Nanyang Technological University, focused on a comparative analysis of non-violent ethnic hostilities in the Asia Pacific region.
Professor Joseph Liow, Tan Kah Kee Chair in Comparative and International Politics, and Dean of the College of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences at Nanyang Technological University, opened the session by presenting an overview of non-violent ethnic hostilities in Southeast Asia. He explained the historical and political contexts that shape ethnic relations in the region, particularly for Malaysia and Indonesia. He illustrated how ethnic tensions can manifest in non-violent forms such as discriminatory policies, social exclusion, and economic disparities, and how both countries avoided severe ethnic conflicts through constitutional, institutional, procedural and security instruments. Professor Liow cautioned that there remained deep undercurrents of racial tensions which need to be managed carefully.
Professor Yuko Kawai from the College of Intercultural Communication, Graduate School of Intercultural Communication at Rikkyo University, followed with a presentation on the nature of racism in Japan. She discussed the subtle forms of racism and nationalism that persisted despite Japan's homogenous appearance. Using examples from her research, Professor Kawai demonstrated how non-violent ethnic hostilities manifested in everyday interactions and institutional practices through ethno-nationalism (minzoku-shugi) rather than race (jinshu-shugi). In closing, she shared about issues of racism against mixed-race Japanese citizens who are often subjected to a racial hierarchy. Her sharing highlighted the importance of transforming dominant ideas of Japaneseness to foster a more inclusive society.
Following Professor Kawai, Dr Jehonathan Ben, Senior Researcher at the Institute for Migration Studies (IUEM) at Comillas Pontifical University, gave a presentation on the experiences of ethnic minorities in Australia. He provided an in-depth analysis of how racism could manifest in subtle and hidden manners which affect social belonging and integration among immigrant communities. Dr Ben outlined how racism in Australia could be entrenched in institutionalised policies, affecting various immigrant and indigenous groups. He went on to discuss the anti-racism interventions undertaken at state, municipal, and community levels and how research had shaped them. Finally, Dr Ben pointed out that challenges against anti-racism efforts remained, and new avenues for racism through technology needed to be addressed.
Panel 1: Q&A Session
During the Q&A session, questions were posed about the invisibility of ethnic problems in Australia, similar to homogeneous societies like Japan. Dr Ben shared about the challenges in data collection and reporting in countries like Australia. A question was also posed about the impact of social media on reinforcing ethnic identities and increasing non-violent ethnic hostilities. Professor Kawai answered that while anti-hate speech law was introduced in Japan in 2016, it was not sufficient to regulate both offline and online hate speech due to the lack of sufficient penalties.
Panel 2: Mitigating Non-Violent Ethnic Hostilities in Asia Pacific
The second panel, moderated by Dr Mathew Mathews, focused on mitigating non-violent ethnic hostilities in the Asia Pacific region.
Dr Taufiq Tanasaldy, Senior Lecturer in Asian and Indonesian Studies at the University of Tasmania, began the session by discussing ethnic tensions in Indonesia. He traced the historical roots of these hostilities and the ongoing challenges in addressing them. Dr Tanasaldy dissected the progression of constitutional changes, policy changes, and local initiatives that has helped to reduce inequality for ethnic Chinese in Indonesia. Outlining the challenges to current momentum in reducing racism, Dr Tanasaldy shared that grassroot-level reactions towards changes in ethnic-related policies were still negative.
Mr Tan Chin-Leong, former Race Discrimination Commissioner at the Australian Human Rights Commission, discussed the concept of multiculturalism — "the idea that every group is entitled to equal rights in society without being expected to relinquish their diversity on the provision of an expectation of conformity to a certain set of key common and shared values”. He pointed out that multiculturalism required the recognition of a group’s identity, and the equality of opportunity and outcome for all. He proposed that multiculturalism thrived best when underpinned by democratic values. Concluding, he urged participants to consider that the recognition of cultural diversity as a human endeavour for individuals and collectives alike.
Mr Christopher Gordon, Secretary of OnePeople.sg (OPSG), shared about how community organisations, such as OPSG, could promote racial harmony in Singapore. He suggested that while government policies and interventions were able to maintain a culture of tolerance, they could not change mindsets and behaviours. He discussed various community-based initiatives that had been effective in fostering dialogue and understanding among different ethnic groups. Mr Gordon highlighted the role of youth engagement and education in building advocates and changemakers. He also shared that, rather than adopting an adversarial “me vs you” approach, communities should adopt the path of compassion, understanding, and building consensus across differences.
Panel 2: Q&A Session
The Q&A session for Panel 2 explored practical solutions for fostering safe spaces for conversations on race and religion. Mr Gordon echoed the importance of facilitating these conversations and to actively bring them to the communities and workplaces. In response to a question on the measures to be taken to ensure harmony in online discussions, Mr Tan shared about how Australia’s e-safety commissioner did not believe in monitoring and controlling social media unless it reached such a level that it created safety issues which legitimately endangered vulnerable groups.
Dialogue with Professor Tariq Modood
The event concluded with a dialogue with Professor Tariq Modood, Professor of Sociology, Politics, and Public Policy, and Founding Director of the Centre for the Study of Ethnicity and Citizenship at the University of Bristol. Moderated by Dr Teo Kay Key, Research Fellow at IPS Social Lab, Professor Modood shared about his research into the understanding of the multifaceted nature of racism and moving beyond Euro-American centric perspectives.
He began by emphasising the importance of understanding that there were different forms of racism, such as colour racism, anti-Semitism, and cultural racism, which involved identifying individuals based on cultural or community affiliations rather than genetics. He highlighted that racism should not be confined to the “black-white” binary, and provided examples of cultural racism against Arabs and Islamophobia, as well as other instances from global contexts like the Uyghurs in China and Christians in Pakistan.
Professor Modood discussed the concept of racialisation, explaining its key features such as descent, othering, and negative evaluation of the group, and argued that racism was not always tied to biological determinism. He also tackled the controversial notion of a “hierarchy” of racism, asserting that while there was no essential or inherent ranking of racisms, prioritisation should be based on the scale and urgency of the issues at hand; further, not prioritising issues may be naïve or a sign of racism itself.
In addressing decolonisation, Professor Modood outlined two crucial steps: acknowledging the historical dominance of the North over the South, and understanding South-South relations without the North's influence. This would help one understand racism, ethnic hierarchy and conflicts beyond the dominant Western black-white perspective.
Q&A Session
In the Q&A session following Professor Modood’s keynote, various questions were raised, covering a range of topics related to policy, multiculturalism, and racism. Professor Modood distinguished between tolerance and respect, noting that while tolerance was a starting point, respect was crucial for a truly inclusive society. When discussing how to talk about race without being racist, he highlighted the importance of context and dialogue, and outlined criteria to differentiate between racism and reasonable criticism.
Professor Modood also discussed the potential for social media to foster respectful discourse, and acknowledged both its risks and benefits. While social media could be help with the exchange of ideas, it could also be toxic due to the proliferation of hate speech online. He also suggested that one should subscribe to platforms and outlets with views outside of their own, in order not to be stuck in “the bubbles that social media holds us in”.
On the question of the rise of far-right parties in multiple countries, he explained that the concepts of identity politics and multiculturalism were defined by those who were against the ideas, and were used politically.
Click here to watch the video of the forum.