The Perennial Problems of Racial and Religious Conflicts

For thousands of years racial and religious conflicts had been very much a part of human history. Over the centuries, their intensity and ferocity had escalated as mankind’s civilisation progressed and their fear, intolerance and prejudices towards others of  different ethnicity and religion manifested itself in diverse ways which brought out the ugliest side of human nature. Man’s inhumanity inflicted on his fellow man had resulted in countless wars, various forms of atrocities as well as social, economic and political discriminations against others around the globe and this has continued unabated into the present time.

This is despite the fact that all major religions, be it Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity and Islam, without exception, preach love, compassion, charity and harmony in human relations. Unfortunately, some of their misguided  religious teachers and followers had, time and again, exploited or misinterpreted their own religion’s sacred tenet for their own ulterior motives or to justify their otherwise indefensible actions against their fellow human beings. Also guilty are unscrupulous politicians who would play up the race and religion card, as it were, to further their own political ambitions.

Two examples of their most inhuman deeds may bring home the point. The most chilling of them all was the cold blooded murders of some six million Jews in Europe during World War II by the infamous Hitler and his Nazi henchmen because of the dictator’s abnormal hatred for the Jewish people whom he unjustly blamed for the economic and other woes of Germany. He also regarded the Jews as inferior human beings and therefore felt no guilt in getting rid of them. These horrendous mass killings of the Jews are unprecedented in the history of mankind. My recent visit to Auschwitz, a sprawling German concentration camp in Poland, where more than one million innocent Jewish men, women and children were either gassed or tortured to death is a poignant reminder that such a barbaric and senseless act must never be allowed to happen again anywhere in the world. In the same war at the other end of the globe, hundreds of thousands of civilian Chinese in Nanjing, including women and children, were mercilessly massacred by the victorious Japanese Imperial Army because they too regarded the Chinese as inferior human beings. Some of their soldiers were encouraged to shoot the victims for target practices.

Even at this moment in time and in the recent past, racial and religious conflicts have been flaring up in different regions of the world with no end in sight. The deeply-entrenched decades long enmity between the Israelis and the Arabs have ramifications and serious spill over effects elsewhere, especially in the Western world. The two opposing sides had already fought several wars in which numerous lives on both sides had been lost.  In the Bosnian civil war in central Europe tens of thousands of civilian Muslims were brutally slaughtered by their own Serb Christian countrymen. The war was abruptly ended before more ethnic mayhem occurred through the belated armed intervention of the United Nations forces. Closer to Singapore, the  civil war in Sri Lanka between the Sinhalese majority and  the Tamil minority ended only in May this year after 26 year of warfare and at the cost of tens of thousands of lives and untold sufferings inflicted on the public. In the civil war in Rwanda in the heartland of Africa, both the government and rival political forces resorted to ethnic cleansing which resulted in hundreds of thousands of people of different ethnic groups and foreign residents being butchered.

In many Western countries, racial and religious conflicts have become a growing problem and racial riots had, periodically, erupted arising from the strained relationships between the majority and the minority groups there. Take the United States as an example. More than 140 years had elapsed since the freeing of the black American slaves by President Lincoln after a devastating civil war, African-Americans are still being racially discriminated by the white Americans and  continue to suffer many social and economic disadvantages. It is widely believed that the election of President Obama, albeit a commendable historical milestone, is unlikely to improve significantly the social standing of the lot of his fellow African-Americans in the foreseeable future. In other countries including the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands, Germany , Spain and  Australia, where there are sizable non white populations,  racial and religious disharmony is becoming more worrying and needs to be remedied before it gets worse . In Africa, ethnic conflicts continue unabated  in this poverty and disease stricken continent. In South Africa, until recent years, the undemocratic white minority government had ruled the black majority country for decades with the odious apartheid policy which denied the black South Africans an opportunity for self advancement. In the Asian region, multi-racial and multi-religious nations like China, India, Myanmar, Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia also have their fair share of similar conflicts which are of great concern to their respective national leaderships. Needless to say, all the above countries will have to handle these racial and religious problems with utmost care and formulate forward looking policies and strategies before they reach a point which will have irreversible adverse consequences on the country’s continuing stability. Even a homogeneous society like Japan, citizens and permanent residents of Korean descent still face perennial racial discriminations and many were compelled to conceal their true identity in order to survive in an otherwise hostile social environment. Those who refused to do so had, perforce, to pay dearly for their ethnic pride.

In my own native Singapore, whose citizens comprise of Malays, Chinese, Indians, Eurasians and a host of others, both the Government and the people have learned a valuable lesson from past local racial disturbances and the racial and religious clashes in other countries as to how best to preserve racial and religious harmony for the benefit of the entire community. To begin with, religious freedom is enshrined in the country’s constitution. The Government enacted the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, under which it is an offence for anyone to engage in religious rabble-rousing under pains of fine or imprisonment, or both. In addition, Singapore law further prohibits incitement of racial hatred in the public interest. Of equal importance, the Government’s public housing policy aims at integrating its different racial groups in high rise apartments with communal facilities and amenities which will facilitate greater social interaction among the residents. To top it all, the Government has wisely and successfully promoted equal opportunity in education and employment for all, based solely on merit. Since then, Singaporeans have lived and worked peacefully and harmoniously alongside others of different racial and religious backgrounds without serious problems arising, with give and take attitudes on all sides. Inter-racial marriages have become more common here, compared with a generation ago, and this is beneficial to the successful creation of a multi-racial society.

Most overseas visitors, including foreign political and community leaders, coming to Singapore are invariably favourably impressed by the racial and religious harmony that obviously prevails in Singapore for all to see.  This is not always the case in other multi-racial and multi-religious communities elsewhere. Some countries have even used Singapore as a role model to promote better ethnic relations in their own multi-racial societies. The latest to endorse the Singapore success in this regard is a well-known American academic, Professor Tom Davenport, Chair of Information Technology and Management at Babson College, who recently wrote an article “Not perfect, but still a role model”, which was published in the prestigious Harvard Business Review, in which he spoke glowingly of Singapore’s  multi-racial society. He believed that its Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act could inspire other countries to enact a version of it to suit their own needs.

Despite foreign admiration and envy of Singapore’s success in creating a harmonious plural society with diverse religions, Singapore’s political and community leaders, to their credit, are not basking in their laurels and are constantly reminding the citizenry not to take this success for granted because once complacency sets in and one community tries to impose their way of life on the other groups, then the danger of racial and religious frictions can easily arise and this will destroy the decades of nurturing the different communities to live happily together as one big united family and Singapore will be ruined.

To guard against such a situation arising, the court, in two recent cases, had deemed it necessary to impose custodial sentences for offences under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. In one case a misguided young man, who had personal grudges against Muslims, posted in his blog statements which were highly hurtful to those of Islamic faith. In the other case an over-zealous Christian couple publicly distributed Christian tracts which were offensive to those of different faiths and also to Catholics.  The court hoped that these sentences would deter others from committing similar wrongful acts in future.

The vital need to preserve racial and religious harmony in Singapore can be seen from the Prime Minister’s 2009 National Day Rally address to the nation, which is the equivalent to the US President’s annual State of the Union speech, when he devoted a good part of his more than two hours speech in Malay, Chinese and English on this subject. Once again, he reiterated  that this is crucial to its long-term survival and prosperity. He disclosed that he and his ministers had discussed the political fault lines facing the country – between the rich and the poor, between citizens and new immigrants – but the consensus was that the most visceral and dangerous fault line is definitely race and religion. The main points of the Prime Minister’s address on this issue are as follows:

  1. All Singaporeans must continue to live peacefully and harmoniously together as one united community. To do so, we need good sense and tolerance on all sides, and a willingness to give and take.
  2. We have made a lot of progress over the past 40 years in building and maintaining our harmony and cohesion. We have integrated our people, we have enabled all communities to move ahead, and we have built a stronger sense of Singaporean identity.
  3. All religious groups have contributed a great deal to the above progress. Their leaders have guided their flocks wisely. They have helped to set a wholesome and moral tone to our society. They do a lot of good works, not just for their own followers, but for all groups. They have accommodated one another, made practical compromises so that all can live harmoniously together in a uniquely Singaporean way.
  4. He noted that all over the world there has been a trend of rising religiosity, and Singapore is part of this trend.  Groups have become more organised, more active. The followers are now more fervent in their faiths. This is true of all faiths, all over the world. However, stronger religious fervours can have side effects which have to be managed carefully, especially in a multi-racial and multi-religious society. What are some of the risks? He cited aggressive preaching – proselytisation, intolerance and exclusiveness, which can provoke others and bring about serious social consequences.
  5. He emphasised that Singaporeans must never take their racial and religious harmony for granted because all have been well. To safeguard this, we must observe some basic principles to keep it the way it is. First, all groups must exercise tolerance and restraint in their interface with one another. Secondly, we have to keep religion separate from politics. Religion in Singapore cannot be the same in America, or religion in an Islamic country. Thirdly, the Government has to remain secular. Its authority comes from the people, not from a sacred book. Finally, for all Singaporeans to live peacefully together, we must maintain our common space that all Singaporeans share. It has to be neutral and secular because that’s the only way all of us can feel at home in Singapore and at ease.
  6. The Prime Minister assures Singaporeans that if we stay cohesive, then we can overcome our economic challenges and continue to grow. This is how we together have transformed Singapore over the last half century– solving problems together, growing together and improving our lives.

After listening to the Prime Minister’s National Day Rally address, my confidence in Singapore’s future well-being, especially in the light of continuing racial and religious conflicts that have been going on relentlessly and fearfully in many of the developed and developing countries with no solution in sight yet, has been further boosted.

The Prime Minister’s inspiring speech reminds me of an article I wrote eight years ago, also on the subject of promoting racial and religious harmony in Singapore, which was published in the Bilingual Commentary Column of Singapore’s national Chinese language daily, Lianhe ZaoBao, and I would like to share it with my readers. It is reproduced immediately after this posting.

Lam Pin Foo
18.9.2009

Racial Harmony Through the Arts and Culture

The following article first appeared in the Singapore Chinese daily, Lianhe ZaoBao’s Bilingual Commentary Column, on 6 January 2001. Chinese translation by Lianhe ZaoBao.

As the world is moving towards the Global Village era, with freer movements of people and instant communications between countries, more of the hitherto homogeneous societies are becoming plural ones. The consequential adjustments by the natives and newcomers are often traumatic.

Viewed from both the historical and current standpoints, racism is demonstrably still one of the greatest dangers facing mankind today, and will continue to exercise the minds of rational-thinking people for a long time to come. In our own time racial conflicts, and religious bigotry, have polarised or torn apart countries and communities, and inflicted untold miseries on their people and retarding their national development.

We in Singapore are most fortunate to have racial harmony and religious freedom, thanks to the farsightedness of our ever vigilant leaders and the strict laws against anyone stirring up racial or religious animosities. This is augmented by the firm desire of the overwhelming majority of Singaporeans to keep it that way. While we enjoy an enviable reputation for good racial relations, there is, unfortunately, not much spontaneous social interaction among the races outside of the work environment, despite that more public avenues now exist for them to do so.

It is, of course, human nature everywhere for people to feel more comfortable in the company of their own kind. But for any multi-racial society with multi-culturalism to flourish, it is essential that its ethnic components must strive to understand and appreciate each other’s way of life. This would help to remove any in-built prejudices and misconceptions due to sheer ignorance, unfounded apprehensions or apathy and bring the different races closer.

In view of our colonial past and racial mix, English has been the dominant language of administration, business and education, and the vehicle of communication among the various races here. Without it, Singaporeans of different extractions will cease to communicate. The pervasive soft power of the English language is such that many Singaporeans, understandably, are more attracted to the Western culture and influences than to their own ethnic roots. Consequently, they tend to have lesser interest in the cultural heritage of their forebears and those of their fellow citizens.

In light of the factors mentioned earlier, these are formidable obstacles to promoting greater social interaction among Singaporeans. Unfamiliarity and lack of genuine interest in each other’s culture and way of life are, in my view, two major impediments that need to be overcome. As a positive first step, we should begin to take a more active interest in the arts and culture of the other racial groups. Knowing rudiments of each other’s language and traditions would certainly make this a more meaningful and pleasurable experience. But it is a difficult task, especially for the older Singaporeans.

The answer probably lies with the younger people. Parents and our educational institutions have a vital role to play in inculcating the right attitudes in our young during their formative years. With concerted and sustained efforts by all concerned Singaporeans, racial harmony should attain a new dimension when the next generation of citizens take their rightful place in society.

Lam Pin Foo
18.9.2009

通过艺术和文化增进种族和谐

环球化的趋势,使到人们能够在世界各地更自由流动,国与国之间的沟通也更为迅速和直接。越来越多的单一种族社会逐渐变得多元化。

土生土长的人们和外来人口之间,所需要作出的相互调整和适应,往往是令人感到非常不愉快的经验。

不论是从历史或现代的眼光来看,种族主义仍然是人类面对的最大危险之一。有识之士需要时刻保持警惕。

在我们这个时代,种族冲突和宗教偏见,在很多地方使国家和族群对立或分裂。不仅人民饱受其害,国家发展也因此停滞不前。

在新加坡,我们很幸运的能够享有种族和谐和宗教自由。这得感谢我们高瞻远瞩的领袖,以及对付企图挑起种族或宗教敌意人士的严刑峻法。此外,国人都强烈的希望保持现有的情况。

虽然我们拥有令人羡慕的种族和睦关系,可惜,除了在工作地点以外,不同族群的人,较少在公共场所自然交往。

当然,和来自同一族群的人在一起,总会让人感到比较轻松自在。但是,如果要我们的多元种族社会,进一步发扬光大,个别族群就有必要学习了解和欣赏彼此的生活方式。

这可以帮助消除因为无知、毫无根据的疑惧或者冷漠,所造成的偏见和误解,进一步缩短各族的距离。

因为我们的殖民地背景和多元种族社会,英语长期以来都是官方、经商和教育的主要语言,也是各族赖以沟通的语言。如果没有了英语,来自不同族群的人,将难以交谈。

英语和它所带来的影响,使人们更容易被西方文化吸引,而忽略了自己的根,这是可以理解的。因此,他们一般上对先人的文化遗产不感兴趣。

这样看来,要促使新加坡人多多沟通,须要克服许多困难。我认为,对它族文化和生活方式感到陌生和缺乏了解的兴趣,是两大障碍。

我们可以开始做的,是培养对它族艺术和文化的兴趣。如果我们对它族的语言和传统,有一些基本的认识,这肯定会是一个很有意义和愉快的经验。但是,知易行难,对老一辈的新加坡人来说,更是如此。

不过,我们可以把希望寄托在年轻一代的新加坡人身上。在年轻人的成长过程中,家长和教育机构在灌输他们正确的态度上,扮演着关键性的角色。

只要我们同心协力和持之以恒,种族和谐的关系必定能在将来更上一层楼。

蓝秉湖
(作者是一名退休律师·叶琦保译)

A Leadership Crisis?

An article by guest writer Ng Seng Leong. Refer to “About the Writer” at the end of the post.


This year 2009, Singapore celebrates half a century of self-government. In 1959, other than foreign affairs, defence and internal security, Singaporeans can truly be said to rule its own destiny with a fully elected legislative assembly and its own prime minister.

Singapore has come a long way since to transform itself from a perilous island colony state then, to a First World global city today. The achievements and accolades it receives are well known and documented.

The government that has made this possible has been the PAP, which has ruled since 1959 when it won 37 of the 51 seats in the election. It has not lost any national election since. Born just after the war, I have personally observed Singapore’s growth and transformation with pride. As the son of a Chinese migrant I have often remarked how fortunate I have been that my father had decided to come to Singapore and not elsewhere to eke out a living. Without a doubt, most of us owe our well being today to this continuous good government of the last fifty years. Though not flawless, it has ruled remarkably well, thanks to its leadership and selfless policies by and large.

Not every policy it dished out is well accepted or effectively implemented. It has, however, managed to persuade the people of its benefits and necessity or made changes to smooth out the rough edges over time. Most importantly they have been meted out for the well being of most people and the state generally.

There is, however, one bug bear that has refused to go away even though the policy has been implemented many years though not without much debate and contention. The policy of the excessively high ministers’ pay is today no longer an issue on the surface as people have gone quite tired and fed up as they have seemingly fallen on deaf ears! Yet surprisingly each time it was mentioned it immediately stirred up lots of outpouring and slurs that have been quite consistent ever since. For once, the government’s arguments seem wanting and self-serving. My regret is that it is not a bad policy but it has been overdone. Perhaps, too, the top leaders who believe so passionately about this policy should have denied themselves the benefits. This would have convinced the people of its sincerity and its good intention. Is the policy already cast in stone? I hope not as ironically, the adverse consequence now is that it makes the respect and worth of the ministers less than what they deserved! Even in a materialistic society, there is still a belief in honour and respect, this much more so when it comes to our national leaders. To believe that today our leaders will only serve and lead if they are enriched sufficiently, albeit above board, is a castigation on their dedicated public service and respect. In fact, for this reason a well meaning candidate may even shy away for fear that the public will perceive them wrongly. Finally, if we send the signal that only money talks at the highest level of our government this expectation will invariably cascade downwards to all levels of the society. Can we become a more caring society without money as an incentive?

The government deserves better respect for all that it has done but this blemish will not go away. In the midst of this economic downturn, one regrettably hears too often such unkind remarks like “where are our million dollar ministers when so many of our people are now out of jobs!” or when a minister makes a big boo boo “do you think he deserves the million that he is getting?” One could go on but enough is said and needs no belabouring. I am proud to be a Singaporean and I appreciate the good government we have got up to now. I will like to see an even better  group of leaders in the future for the sake of Singapore and our future generations. The sacrifices of our old guards, meaning the first generation stalwarts, would be in vain if their efforts with little rewards in return, go down the drain in the future because this policy actually attracts the wrong kind of people to the government whether it is the PAP in power or not! It would be an irony indeed if the results run contrary to the arguments put forth by the government that the policy is intended to attract people of the right calibre. Should we not ponder for a moment as we celebrate with gusto the success of the last fifty years? Some moderation would go a long way to make this policy more palatable and acceptable, perhaps?

About the Writer

The writer is a retired business executive.