At the dialogue, one participant asked why the majority race in Singapore should not be given the right to decide on the direction to take in issues like education and language use, like in other countries. Another had lamented that minority groups were given more and more concessions, but the Chinese were still accused of always having their way.
Noting that these are not mainstream views, Mr Shanmugam added that they were dangerous and could lead Singapore down a slippery slope. He added that he was sad at the tone and substance of these questions.
It was the rejection of majoritarianism that led Singapore to separate from Malaysia in 1965. Right from the start, Singapore's founding leaders had worked to stamp out any kind of chauvinism, whether Chinese, Malay or Indian, to pursue the equality in Singapore that very few societies have tried to achieve, he added.
"I will tell the majority that if we move away from that, the minorities suffer, but the country will suffer, and the Chinese will suffer too. So, let's have a care," he said.
During the dialogue, the minister was also asked about a WhatsApp message, purportedly written by a former Malaysian living in Singapore, who said Singaporean Chinese were naive for allowing Indians to "dominate almost all Singapore's national institutions", such as the Judiciary and the Cabinet.
Describing the message as "nasty, dangerous", Mr Shanmugam said it was worse than the racist sentiments uttered by a Ngee Ann Polytechnic lecturer who had scolded an Indian man for "preying on Chinese women".
"That was crude and unacceptable, but this is poison, and it's dripping poison," said the minister.
He noted that if Singapore moves away from its current principles towards majoritarianism, statements like those in the WhatsApp message will start to gain traction.
He noted that politically it was easier to appeal to the Chinese ground to win votes, but said he hoped Singapore would never go down that route.
"Singapore will be destroyed, demolished, and the Chinese will suffer as well in the long run, because the racial fault lines will be deeper, you will have a permanent underclass based on race, and that means that the country as a whole will not prosper," he said.
Mr Shanmugam also said that antagonism and extremism has crept into discussions on race here, and warned against this tit-for-tat approach.
One participant at the dialogue, for instance, had suggested that if Special Assistance Plan schools, accused of lacking a multiracial mix, are to be closed, then madrasahs should similarly not be allowed.
Saying he was sad the questions had taken such a tone, Mr Shanmugam added: "Have a care in making these points, because it may come across as pushing very hard. And when the Chinese community pushes hard, it's a scary thing for the minorities."
Another topic that emerged was the issue of "Chinese privilege", or the applying of the idea of "white privilege" to Singapore. The latter refers to differences in institutional treatment of whites and African-Americans in the United States that continue to persist.
The minister noted: "If you tell a significant number of Chinese Singaporeans that they enjoy Chinese privilege, they will be perplexed and they will be upset. Because for them, they gave up their university, they gave up Chinese schools, they gave up what is common in every other society when one race is 75 per cent - that (their) language dominates."
Noting that in every society, being part of the majority brings certain advantages, he added: "But that is not, in my view, the same as privilege. Privilege and structural racism are different from the natural advantages that come from being part of the majority, and some of the disadvantages that come from being part of a minority."
Singapore has worked because the Chinese community had been very mindful when discussing such issues all along, he said, adding that has helped the country safeguard its racial harmony.
https://www.straitstimes.com/singap...sible-because-majority-knew-what-was-at-stake
Noting that these are not mainstream views, Mr Shanmugam added that they were dangerous and could lead Singapore down a slippery slope. He added that he was sad at the tone and substance of these questions.
It was the rejection of majoritarianism that led Singapore to separate from Malaysia in 1965. Right from the start, Singapore's founding leaders had worked to stamp out any kind of chauvinism, whether Chinese, Malay or Indian, to pursue the equality in Singapore that very few societies have tried to achieve, he added.
"I will tell the majority that if we move away from that, the minorities suffer, but the country will suffer, and the Chinese will suffer too. So, let's have a care," he said.
During the dialogue, the minister was also asked about a WhatsApp message, purportedly written by a former Malaysian living in Singapore, who said Singaporean Chinese were naive for allowing Indians to "dominate almost all Singapore's national institutions", such as the Judiciary and the Cabinet.
Describing the message as "nasty, dangerous", Mr Shanmugam said it was worse than the racist sentiments uttered by a Ngee Ann Polytechnic lecturer who had scolded an Indian man for "preying on Chinese women".
"That was crude and unacceptable, but this is poison, and it's dripping poison," said the minister.
He noted that if Singapore moves away from its current principles towards majoritarianism, statements like those in the WhatsApp message will start to gain traction.
He noted that politically it was easier to appeal to the Chinese ground to win votes, but said he hoped Singapore would never go down that route.
"Singapore will be destroyed, demolished, and the Chinese will suffer as well in the long run, because the racial fault lines will be deeper, you will have a permanent underclass based on race, and that means that the country as a whole will not prosper," he said.
Mr Shanmugam also said that antagonism and extremism has crept into discussions on race here, and warned against this tit-for-tat approach.
One participant at the dialogue, for instance, had suggested that if Special Assistance Plan schools, accused of lacking a multiracial mix, are to be closed, then madrasahs should similarly not be allowed.
Saying he was sad the questions had taken such a tone, Mr Shanmugam added: "Have a care in making these points, because it may come across as pushing very hard. And when the Chinese community pushes hard, it's a scary thing for the minorities."
Another topic that emerged was the issue of "Chinese privilege", or the applying of the idea of "white privilege" to Singapore. The latter refers to differences in institutional treatment of whites and African-Americans in the United States that continue to persist.
The minister noted: "If you tell a significant number of Chinese Singaporeans that they enjoy Chinese privilege, they will be perplexed and they will be upset. Because for them, they gave up their university, they gave up Chinese schools, they gave up what is common in every other society when one race is 75 per cent - that (their) language dominates."
Noting that in every society, being part of the majority brings certain advantages, he added: "But that is not, in my view, the same as privilege. Privilege and structural racism are different from the natural advantages that come from being part of the majority, and some of the disadvantages that come from being part of a minority."
Singapore has worked because the Chinese community had been very mindful when discussing such issues all along, he said, adding that has helped the country safeguard its racial harmony.
https://www.straitstimes.com/singap...sible-because-majority-knew-what-was-at-stake
Last edited:
