SINGAPORE: Identity politics is in the news again, raising once more the enduring question of what the limits are when it comes to political behaviour and discourse in a society as ethnically, religiously, linguistically and culturally diverse as Singapore.
Recent debates over representation, community-based concerns and the boundaries of public discourse remind us that identity continues to shape our politics and social life.
In a ministerial statement on race and religion earlier this month, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs K Shanmugam cited “troubling incidents” during Singapore’s general election in May. He pointed out how identity politics has fractured societies elsewhere and cautioned against allowing similar divisions to take root in Singapore.
In many respects, Singapore-style multiculturalism has been a remarkable success. While identity-based mobilisation has become a source of deep division in many countries, Singapore has largely succeeded in balancing democratic life with social cohesion. This is not accidental.
From the outset, Singapore’s founding generation anchored its nationhood in an intentionally multicultural framework with strong laws to set out the outer limits of acceptable behaviour and discourse when it relates to race and religion.
Yet, in an age of global interconnectedness, Singapore is not insulated from the social divisions, ethnic hostilities and religious conflicts that unsettle other societies. These external tensions may find resonance within our borders, influencing the tone and content of our own public life. Vigilance, therefore, remains both necessary and prudent.
Identity politics is in fact a broad phenomenon. It can include political action, support for a political party, voting for a political candidate, or even support or opposition for a policy position based on one’s identity.
As our identities are intertwined with our social and political choices and cannot always be neatly separated from them, many kinds of political action could be described as “identity politics”.
In fact, some forms of identity politics can be socially beneficial. A person may be drawn to charitable causes because of their religious convictions or engage in volunteer work rooted in shared sympathies with a community.
Indeed, in a diverse society like Singapore’s, not all conduct and choices arising from one’s identity are problematic and nor should they be.
Singapore’s diversity is part of what makes its society so dynamic and vibrant. The ways in which our identities inform our actions can enrich civic life and strengthen community bonds. It is therefore important to be clear about where the dividing line lies between appropriate identity politics and inappropriate identity politics.
First, our identities inevitably shape how we view policy issues; this should not per se be problematic. Citizens should not be expected to check their identities at the door when entering the public square. Views informed by our own experience as part of certain communities should not be pre-emptively disqualified in democratic discourse.
A secular public sphere, for instance, is not an a-religious or even anti-religious public sphere. It is merely a public sphere that does not give pre-emptive priority to any particular religious or racial viewpoint. Our identity as part of certain racial, religious and cultural communities should not disqualify us from advocating for or against certain policies.
Second, having discussions about race and religion is not by itself identity politics, even if it takes place in a public space and involves political elements. Rather than shy away from difficult questions about difference, we should encourage respectful curiosity and hold space to ask questions about each other’s cultures, beliefs and traditions, without fear that such curiosity will immediately be labelled as offensive. Ignorance breeds suspicion, and suspicion breeds fear and contempt.
A line may have to be drawn when advocacy turns into pressure and even coercion, where disagreement is framed as betrayal rather than difference. Thus, identity should not become a tool to disparage others, including those within one’s community, for holding a different view.
A Christian, for instance, may hold the view that late-term abortion is a moral sin and may advocate accordingly, but still remain respectful of others who disagree, including fellow Christians. This form of identity politics becomes problematic when one seeks to prevent others from exercising their own judgment by pressuring and even silencing them on the basis of shared identity. The line between persuasion and coercion is, granted, not an easy one to make, but we should still try.
A clear red line is drawn in Singapore when one invokes identity to pressure or even coerce others into making certain political choices, specifically on how to vote. This form of politicisation of identity is particularly problematic because it distorts political choice and undermines democratic integrity. One can therefore agree with the Minister for Home Affairs’ insistence on calling out those who seek to use race or religion to advocate voting for one or another political party. This is not a partisan issue; it is a Singapore issue.
The racial riots of 1964 may seem somewhat abstract for those of us who did not live through them, but the dynamics that fuelled them can all too easily be reignited. Peace and social harmony cannot be taken for granted. They depend on our collective willingness to act with restraint and responsibility.
Drawing the line on identity politics is not about preventing individuals from making choices that draw upon, and give expression to, their convictions as members of their communities. It is about clarifying when such actions cross the line, when identity becomes a tool for coercion or exclusion.
It is necessary to be vigilant of attempts to draw sharper boundaries between “us” and “them”. We may not agree on everything, but the lines we draw today will determine whether our diversity remains our strength or becomes our undoing.
Dr Jaclyn L Neo is Associate Professor at the National University of Singapore Faculty of Law and Director of the Centre for Asian Legal Studies. Her work on constitutional law, pluralism and religion has been published in leading journals, including the Oxford Journal of Law and Religion.
Continue reading...
Recent debates over representation, community-based concerns and the boundaries of public discourse remind us that identity continues to shape our politics and social life.
In a ministerial statement on race and religion earlier this month, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs K Shanmugam cited “troubling incidents” during Singapore’s general election in May. He pointed out how identity politics has fractured societies elsewhere and cautioned against allowing similar divisions to take root in Singapore.
In many respects, Singapore-style multiculturalism has been a remarkable success. While identity-based mobilisation has become a source of deep division in many countries, Singapore has largely succeeded in balancing democratic life with social cohesion. This is not accidental.
From the outset, Singapore’s founding generation anchored its nationhood in an intentionally multicultural framework with strong laws to set out the outer limits of acceptable behaviour and discourse when it relates to race and religion.
Yet, in an age of global interconnectedness, Singapore is not insulated from the social divisions, ethnic hostilities and religious conflicts that unsettle other societies. These external tensions may find resonance within our borders, influencing the tone and content of our own public life. Vigilance, therefore, remains both necessary and prudent.
SOME FORMS OF IDENTITY POLITICS CAN BE SOCIALLY BENEFICIAL
Identity politics is in fact a broad phenomenon. It can include political action, support for a political party, voting for a political candidate, or even support or opposition for a policy position based on one’s identity.
As our identities are intertwined with our social and political choices and cannot always be neatly separated from them, many kinds of political action could be described as “identity politics”.
In fact, some forms of identity politics can be socially beneficial. A person may be drawn to charitable causes because of their religious convictions or engage in volunteer work rooted in shared sympathies with a community.
Indeed, in a diverse society like Singapore’s, not all conduct and choices arising from one’s identity are problematic and nor should they be.
Singapore’s diversity is part of what makes its society so dynamic and vibrant. The ways in which our identities inform our actions can enrich civic life and strengthen community bonds. It is therefore important to be clear about where the dividing line lies between appropriate identity politics and inappropriate identity politics.
First, our identities inevitably shape how we view policy issues; this should not per se be problematic. Citizens should not be expected to check their identities at the door when entering the public square. Views informed by our own experience as part of certain communities should not be pre-emptively disqualified in democratic discourse.
A secular public sphere, for instance, is not an a-religious or even anti-religious public sphere. It is merely a public sphere that does not give pre-emptive priority to any particular religious or racial viewpoint. Our identity as part of certain racial, religious and cultural communities should not disqualify us from advocating for or against certain policies.
Second, having discussions about race and religion is not by itself identity politics, even if it takes place in a public space and involves political elements. Rather than shy away from difficult questions about difference, we should encourage respectful curiosity and hold space to ask questions about each other’s cultures, beliefs and traditions, without fear that such curiosity will immediately be labelled as offensive. Ignorance breeds suspicion, and suspicion breeds fear and contempt.
Related:
CLEAR RED LINE
A line may have to be drawn when advocacy turns into pressure and even coercion, where disagreement is framed as betrayal rather than difference. Thus, identity should not become a tool to disparage others, including those within one’s community, for holding a different view.
A Christian, for instance, may hold the view that late-term abortion is a moral sin and may advocate accordingly, but still remain respectful of others who disagree, including fellow Christians. This form of identity politics becomes problematic when one seeks to prevent others from exercising their own judgment by pressuring and even silencing them on the basis of shared identity. The line between persuasion and coercion is, granted, not an easy one to make, but we should still try.
A clear red line is drawn in Singapore when one invokes identity to pressure or even coerce others into making certain political choices, specifically on how to vote. This form of politicisation of identity is particularly problematic because it distorts political choice and undermines democratic integrity. One can therefore agree with the Minister for Home Affairs’ insistence on calling out those who seek to use race or religion to advocate voting for one or another political party. This is not a partisan issue; it is a Singapore issue.
The racial riots of 1964 may seem somewhat abstract for those of us who did not live through them, but the dynamics that fuelled them can all too easily be reignited. Peace and social harmony cannot be taken for granted. They depend on our collective willingness to act with restraint and responsibility.
Drawing the line on identity politics is not about preventing individuals from making choices that draw upon, and give expression to, their convictions as members of their communities. It is about clarifying when such actions cross the line, when identity becomes a tool for coercion or exclusion.
It is necessary to be vigilant of attempts to draw sharper boundaries between “us” and “them”. We may not agree on everything, but the lines we draw today will determine whether our diversity remains our strength or becomes our undoing.
Dr Jaclyn L Neo is Associate Professor at the National University of Singapore Faculty of Law and Director of the Centre for Asian Legal Studies. Her work on constitutional law, pluralism and religion has been published in leading journals, including the Oxford Journal of Law and Religion.
Related:
Continue reading...