In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

313 Sailing a Steady Ship: Goh ChokTong’s Multiculturalism NORMAN VASU During his tenure as prime minister, Goh Chok Tong’s approach to the management of Singapore’s multicultural composition was precisely charted in the speech he delivered at his swearing-in ceremony on 28 November 1990. At the event, Goh asserted that while he had no intention of making significant alterations to the status quo, he was nonetheless determined to pursue his own strategy in order to maintain it. He emphasised, “[M]y stress is on continuity, not a break with the past … I do not intend to wear his [former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew] shoes. I shall wear my own, and choose my own stride. I intend to be myself, and set my own style”.1 This speech was also revealing for another reason—it captured the intrinsic tension within Singapore’s policy on multiculturalism. This tension exists between the seemingly antagonistic goals of, on the one hand, trying to create a common unifying Singaporean identity while, on the other, persistently emphasising the racial and the ancillary cultural differences between Singaporeans. In his swearing-in speech, Goh made it clear that he did not deem the two goals incompatible. For Goh, “[e]very Singaporean, whatever his race, language or religion, should feel:‘Singapore is my home. I have a place here. This is where I belong. This is where I will live and die’”. In addition, the different racial groups in Singapore were seen by Goh as having to preserve their culture so as to“not become over-Westernised and deculturalised”. This essay argues that although Goh was keen to continue the particular type of multicultural policy he inherited, the inherent tension within it may have eventually compelled him to implement some form of change, albeit a moderate one. During his tenure, Goh made two attempts at releasing this tension by trying to articulate a deeper sense of commonality between Singaporeans. The first attempt was aimed at binding all Singaporeans with a shared sense of “Asian values”, while the second saw the introduction of the conception of a shared “common space”where Singaporeans could interact with each 27 314 NORMAN VASU other bonded by a fledging Singaporean“tribal” identity. Of note within these attempts to alter Singapore’s policy of multiculturalism is that both endeavours opted for a piecemeal alteration to the policy rather than a radical overhaul beginning with a re-conceptualisation of the manner in which Singapore’s multicultural complexion is understood. In order to illustrate the changes during the Goh years, this essay is divided into three parts. The first establishes the definitional and conceptual landscape of the discussion by defining the terms“multicultural” and“multiculturalism” while also presenting a continuum of different approaches to multiculturalism. Following from this, the second part locates Singapore’s policy on multiculturalism as inherited by Goh. The inbuilt tension within Goh’s inherited policy on multiculturalism is elaborated further here. The final part of the essay contains a detailed discussion of Goh’s amendments to the adopted policy. This section also highlights how Goh’s amendments resisted a radical revision but instead opted for parcelled change. Defining and Positioning Multiculturalisms From the long-term perspective, most societies, whether acknowledged or not, are multicultural .“Multicultural”is used here as an adjective and describes the social demographic of polities where different cultural communities live together and attempt to build a common life while preserving their “original” identity.2 The multicultural nature of a specific polity is not unchanging because perceived differences may alter with time. For example, in discussions on a multicultural Singapore,the focus is often on the management of relations between the categories of the three main racial groups (Chinese, Malay and Indian) as well as“Others” who do not fall into any of the three main categories. Interestingly, during such discussions, the significant intra-group differences within each of these four categories are often disregarded. The point here is that debate concerning differences within a polity may shift over time, thus resulting in the same polity possessing a different multicultural demographic over different periods. The notion of “multiculturalism” used here is substantive and is employed in reference to the different policies adopted by various polities to manage their multicultural constitutionshoweverunderstood.Inthiscontextof multiculturalism,“language,historyor religion—any combination of which are sometimes referred to as‘ethnicity’—are frequent markers of distinct culture” which require some form of management within a polity...

Share