An Analysis of Policies Implemented in Singapore to Promote Social Cohesion Amongst Races-libre

8/10/2019 An Analysis of Policies Implemented in Singapore to Promote Social Cohesion Amongst Races-libre

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/an-analysis-of-policies-implemented-in-singapore-to-promote-social-cohesion 1/21

Soon Ling Wei, Nathaniel 1

Humanities Research Paper 2012

An Analysis of Policies

Implemented in Singapore to

Promote Social Cohesionamongst Races

Subject Slant: SociologyTotal Word Count1: 6592

Soon Ling Wei, Nathaniel

Declaration

I declare that this assignment is my own work and does not involve plagiarism or collusion. The sources of

other people’s work have been appropriately referenced, failing which I am willing to accept the necessarydisciplinary action(s) to be taken against me.

Students’ Signature: ____________ Date of Submission: ___________

Acknowledgements

The author would like to express his gratitude to the following individuals, without whom the completion ofthe paper would not have been possible:

Dr. Mathew Mathews (External Mentor) for his expert guidance and constructive feedback given

Mr. Esteban Juan Karplus (Teacher Mentor) for his continual help rendered during the entire researchprocess and ideas provided as well

Family Members and Friends for the support and help given throughout the entire research process, and inmaking this journey an absolutely meaningful one

“Singapore is a multi-racial, multi-religious society. More importantly, it is a society which upholds multi-racialism as a fundamental principle. We set out to create a Singapore where each person is treated fairly

and equally. Where nobody is either privileged or disadvantaged because of his skin colour. Where theminority communities have the space to maintain their own cultures and ways of life, and are neither

pressured nor hemmed in by the majority community. Where the different communities live harmoniouslytogether. And where all the communities benefit from the nation's progress .”

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong

1 Excluding appendixes, headings and citations




Table of Contents

Research Portion Page

Acknowledgements

Chapter 1 – Introduction

1.1 – General Background1.2 – Rationale

1.3 – Research Questions

1.4 – Thesis Statement

1.5 – Methodology

1.6 – Scope & Delimitations

1.7 – Significance of Research

Chapter 2 – Literature Review

2.1 – Introduction & Broad Literature Survey

2.2 – The Effectiveness of the Multiracialism Ideology in Singapore

2.3 – The Ineffectiveness of the Multiracialism Ideology in Singapore

2.4 – Justifying the Differences in OpinionsChapter 3 – Research Findings: Policies Implemented in Singapore

3.1 – Public Housing in Singapore

3.1.1 – An Introduction

3.1.2 – Common Spaces & Precinct Concept

3.1.3 – Ethnic Integration Policy

3.1.4 – Conclusion

3.2 – Education in Singapore

3.2.1 – An Introduction

3.2.2 – Ethnic Self-Help Groups

3.2.3 – Bilingual Education Policy

3.2.4 – National Education3.2.5 – Conclusion

3.3 – Laws in Singapore

3.3.1 – An Introduction & The Constitution of Singapore

3.3.2 – Sedition Act

3.3.3 – Conclusion

Chapter 4 – Discussion: Analysis of Effectiveness of Policies

4.1 – The Effectiveness of Housing Policies on Social Cohesion Amongst Races

4.2 – The Effectiveness of Education Policies on Social Cohesion Amongst Races

4.3 – The Effectiveness of Laws on Social Cohesion Amongst Races

Chapter 5 – Conclusion

5.1 – Conclusion5.2 – Limitations of Research

Bibliography

Research Log

Research Reflection




Chapter One: Introduction

1.1 General Background

Racism and social inequality has always been a big issue in society (Rutherford, 2010).

Although this societal problem has not been fully eradicated, there has been government efforts in

terms of policies used to integrate the society, so as to slowly alleviate this problem. Figure 1.0 shows

the ethnic demographics of past to present-day Singapore:

(Figure 1.1: Ethnic Composition of Resident Population of Singapore from the 1970s – Present;

adapted from Wikipedia 2012)

The demographics of the different races have shown a constant division between the four main

groups – Chinese, Malays, Indians and Others (CMIOs). This could be traced back to Singapore’s

history. Previously, when Singapore was colonized by the British, they placed upon her a social

stratification matrix (Leong, 2009) in order to ease administrative purposes. The British government

divided the people into four broad ethnic communities – CMIO, which up till today is still present.

After Singapore’s separation with Malaysia, it became the first nation to declare itself at its founding

as a “multiracial” nation in 1965. Then Prime Minister Mr. Lee Kuan Yew proclaimed to the world

that Singapore was to be an independent nation which will neither be “a Chinese Singapore, a Malay

Singapore, nor an Indian Singapore”, emphasizing the need for social cohesion and national identity

(Palay, 2010). As mentioned by Mr. Lee, it was and it’s still crucial for Singapore to embrace

multiracialism due to several factors (Chua, 2007 & Chua, 2005). The most important was that

Singapore, although having a predominant Chinese population, still had many other ethnic groups who

had migrated from countries like China and British India previously. This led to a diverse population

which included people of the different races thereafter. Despite being “multiracial”, Singapore still

recognized itself as a country with members of distinct ethnic groups, and the CMIO scheme or matrix

stuck (Chua, 2007).Having a history of racial violence when Singapore was merged with Malaya then, the

government imposed the multiracialism and multiculturalism ideologies in Singapore in order to

alleviate any racial tensions and disparities previously present. The main purpose of the policies is to

ensure equality amongst the people in Singapore as well as to diffuse any unhappiness between

different ethnic groups (Lim, 2008 & Chua, 2005). Hence, this research paper aims to analyse these

policies and their effectiveness. Finally, when targeting the issue of “social cohesion”, it refers to the




full integration of citizens of various races where they are able to coexist with little to no conflict and

establish mutual understanding and peace amongst themselves.

1.2 Rationale

The rationale behind this paper is that such an in-depth analysis has not really been done

before. The author aims to shed light on the area of societal inequality and government efforts to cope

with this problem in Singapore. The author also aims to show the pros and cons of these policies

through an in-depth analysis, which will also present factors that affect the success of these policies

and perhaps generate better ways of targeting the ethnic integration of a society. Also, the fact that

racial biasness and prejudices were and are still prevalent in the society, such a research paper will

allow readers to appreciate Singapore’s multiethnic and multicultural status better.

1.3 Research Questions

1. What was Singapore like and is now in terms of ethnic integration and social cohesion

amongst races?

2.

What social policies have been implemented through the multiracialism ideology in Singaporepreviously with the aim of promoting social cohesion amongst races?

3. How have such policies succeeded or failed in achieving its ultimate goal of promoting social

cohesion amongst races?

1.4 Thesis Statement

Through the multiracialism ideology imposed in Singapore in the past, the social policies

crafted out targeting areas like housing, law and education have improved social cohesion amongst

races in Singapore but have yet to achieve it fully.

1.5 Methodology

In this research paper, the author takes a three-pronged approach to analysing social cohesion

in Singapore. The research paper uses qualitative analysis in order to make analyse the conditions in

Singapore as well as social policies implemented. Firstly, the author would look at some quantitative

data previously gathered which presents the ethnic demographics of Singapore in order to show what

the conditions of the nation is like. Next, the author would analyse qualitative data like articles,

research papers, journals and even oral accounts to show what Singapore’s government has done to

combat social inequality and promote cohesion among the people. This will be done through different

categories for substantial analysis, which includes laws instilled, educational opportunities as well as

public housing. Also, the author will present the pros and cons of these policies and show their

implications on the society as well as how they have developed to achieve their objective of promotingsocial cohesion amongst races. Overall, this paper would adopt an “analysis-synthesis” approach

when looking at data.

1.6 Scope and Delimitations of Research




The scope of this paper will be limited to focusing on social cohesion and policies

implemented in Singapore only. The policies looked at fall in the time frame of the 1980s to present,

since the PAP government only viewed social integration amongst races as priority then.

1.7 Significance of Research

Previously, little research has been done to analyse in-depth some social policies implemented

in Singapore to cope with social inequality, thus there might be lacking information in some aspects.

Thus, this research paper attempts to present clearly Singapore’s conditions in terms of social

integration and government efforts in combating racism and promoting social cohesion amongst races.

The study of these policies will perhaps shed light on how they have succeeded or failed and might

generate new ideas of integrating the different races better.

Chapter Two: Literature Review

2.1 Introduction & Broad Literature Survey

As stated in Chapter 1, the birth of the multiracialism ideology in Singapore dates back to the

time when Singapore first gained independence. Existing literature have shown a clear division in

opinions when discussing the issue and effectiveness of multiracialism in Singapore. A certain group

of scholars have praised Singapore’s multiracialism policy, claiming that it has indeed resulted in

social cohesion amongst races; while on the other hand, some has criticized the reality of the situation

as well as the genuine effectiveness of this policy.

2.2 The Effectiveness of the Multiracialism Ideology in Singapore

Moore (2000), together with other academics have claimed that the multiracialism policy has

been quite successful, with a slight room for improvement. They have praised Singapore’smultiracialism and say that it can act as a valuable example when comparing multiracialism in other

countries. The implementation of the multiracialism policy is a public good as it also shows that the

government prioritizes the issue of race (Chua, 2007). Chang (1968) further elaborates that other

countries look to Singapore as a model for instilling multiracialism. He mentions that Singapore had

successfully crafted a society that is multiracial and multireligious. As mentioned by two authors

(Chang, 1968 & Moore, 2000), social scientists tend to look at Singapore as a success in

multiracialism when comparing other countries with her. This no doubt shows that Singapore has

indeed crafted a society which contains people of different races, hence its status “multiracial”. Quah

(2000) further elaborates that tolerance and acceptance of the different ethnic groups has been

achieved in Singapore. Similarly, Benjamin (1976) has little doubt that Singapore will continue well

into the future, as the multiracialism policy has managed to integrate the different races and Singapore

has progressed towards social cohesion. The success of multiracialism is attributed mainly to

Singapore’s leaders who have “race- blind vision”, in other words, are not bias towards any race.

Perhaps, these scholars have witnessed different races in Singapore working with one another and

hence attributed the multiracialism ideology as successful, but whether social cohesion amongst races

has truly been achieved or remains an aspiration only, one has to consider the presence of racial

prejudice in Singapore.




2.3 The Ineffectiveness of the Multiracialism Ideology

On the flipside, some authors have expressed their opinions that Singapore’s multiracialism

policy has not met its targets or has failed. Even though Singaporeans’ sense of shared identity as well

as social cohesion has strengthened over the last ten years (Lee, 2011), Gomez (2010) argues that the

multiracialism policy has failed in minor aspects, but still reflect a flaw in social cohesion amongstSingaporeans. He mentions that ethnic minorities like Malays and Indians are still being discriminated

on the basis of their race. For example, their views are not often aired on local mainstream media and

there is a restriction of freedom placed upon them. In present day, there have been news reports of

racist behaviour in Singapore as well, which clearly reflects the lack of sensitivity amongst

Singaporean citizens as well as a flaw in ethnic integration and social cohesion – which also brings in

the point of the multiracialism and multiculturalism policies failing. Some cases include MP Seng Han

Thong’s comment on a Channel NewsAsia’s programme, Blog TV.SG, where he claimed that MRT

staffs who are Malays and Indians can’t converse in English well. Whether it was a slip of tongue or a

deliberate spike, it shows that he had a prejudice against the Malays and Indians. Another case was

three Singaporean youths were arrested for allegedly posting racist comments on Facebook. Eventhough Singapore has established a level of cohesion among its citizens, cases of racial prejudice are

still prevalent in our society.

Palay (2010) highlights that even though multiracialism has been established in Singapore,

there is apprehension amongst the people on whether the concept is only an aspiration and not a goal

Singaporeans should consciously aim towards. This highlights the presence of worry amongst the

people as they are not assured about Singapore’s multiracial status, which is probably because they

have not really witnessed multiracialism in action or any visible progress being made.

2.4 Justifying the Differences in Opinions

The differences in opinions lie in the fact that the multiracialism and multiculturalism policies

are looked at by scholars of different backgrounds. Some authors like Dixon (2005) have written

papers regarding Singapore’s multiracialism and praised it as successful, but this is taken from an

outsider’s perspective about Singapore. Many tourists and people from other countries hail

Singapore’s multiracialism policy as successful, but whether it really is, that’s questionable. Perhaps

these outsiders fail to see possible flaws in Singapore’s society and they praise Singapore’s

multiracialism policy again, only because Singapore has people of different races, and not because we

have really achieved social cohesion. Therefore, it takes a Singaporean to be able to give a reliable

account of how successful Singapore’s multiracialism policy really is. Former Prime Minister Mr. Lee

Kuan Yew (2011) wrote in his book, Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going, that although Singapore

has progressed nicely and social cohesion has somewhat been achieved, Singaporeans cannot integrate

with the Muslim community. Though he did not want to offend anyone, his comment really points outan invisible barrier that separates Singaporeans from this particular community. Mr. Lee claims that

this is because the Muslim community is distinct and unique. Although Singapore’s multiracialism and

multiculturalism policies have been hailed as a success story by some, the challenge of integrating

everyone in Singapore and achieving social cohesion is still in progress has not fully been

accomplished yet. Thus, Prime Minister Mr. Lee Hsien Loong (2011) mentions in his speech that

Singapore is “slowly but surely…integrating as one people”.




Through the “multiracialism” and “multiculturalism” ideologies established in Singapore as

mentioned in the Literature Review, Singapore’s government has implemented specific policies

targeting areas like housing and education which will be further analysed in Chapter 3.

Chapter Three: Research Findings – Policies Implemented in

Singapore

3.1 Public Housing in Singapore

3.1.1 An Introduction

In 1918, the British colonial government in Singapore set up a housing commission in order to

look after the living conditions in the central area of Singapore. The Singapore Improvement Trust

(SIT) was set up with the recruitment of Captain Edwin Richards as Deputy Chairman to look at the

acute housing shortage problem then. The SIT was not given the authority to build houses for the

people, only until 1932 where it was allowed to undertake building projects (Chew, 2009). In spite ofthe formation of the SIT, the poor economic conditions of migrants and the British administration’s

policy of racial division (the Raffles Town Plan) still posed as a major problem in the society then. In

the 1960s, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) was set-up to replace the SIT. It aimed at

providing low-cost public housing to all Singaporeans, as well as integrate all races by preventing the

formation of racial enclaves, which was predominantly brought about by the British colonial

government (Yap, 2007; Sim, Yu & Han, 2002 & Leong, 2009).

The problem of racial segregation can be traced back to the Raffles Town Plan:

(Figure 3.1: Raffles Town Plan)As shown by Field (1999), the Raffles Town Plan divided the population of Singapore during

the British rule by their ethnicity. Although Raffles wanted the communes of Indian and Chinese

immigrants to be integrated (Tan, 2002), there was still a clear division, which prevented social

integration of the races then (Ooi, 1994). For example, the Chinese were situated at the south of the

Singapore River, the Indians at the west of it and the Europeans and Arabs far up north.

The ethnic enclaves can be seen from Figure 3.2 below:




(Figure 3.2: Ethnic Enclaves before 1989, Singapore; Redrawn by Ooi, 1994; Sim et a l., 2002)

Despite much improvement in alleviating racial unhappiness through public housing, there

still has been the prevalence of racial discriminatory acts relating to housing. For example, a

significant number of property advertisements on rental websites in Singapore like Property Guruspecify that no Indians or PRC Nationals or Malays are allowed to rent various properties (Holmes &

Mahtani, 2011). This reflects that racist behaviour is still present amongst Singaporeans.

Therefore, in order to better integrate the races and achieve social cohesion amongst them, the

HDB implemented social policies which will be further examined.

3.1.2 Common Spaces & Precinct Concept

The strategy of having common spaces in public housing blocks has an objective of allowing

people of different races to be able to congregate. It is through the constant interaction amongst people

of ethnic groups where mutual understanding is hoped to be built and hence progress with social

cohesion. Through public housing, the “precinct concept” was established to improve communityinteraction. Under the concept, HDB neighbourhoods are subdivided into housing precincts where a

few block of flats are built in a “rectangular -like” fashion and the central area houses common

facilities like clinics, playgrounds and bakeries etc (Yap, 2007 & Ministry of National Development,

2008).

(Figure 3.3: Playground; taken by author)

Furthermore, common facilities within the HDB blocks, like corridors, void decks and lifts

also allow residents of that certain block to meet and interact.




(Figure 3.4: HDB Corridors; taken by author) (Figure 3.5: HDB Void Decks; taken by author)

Additionally, Figure 3.5 which shows the furniture being placed at the void decks. This

common practice belongs to that of the older generation, where they will commonly bring down their

furniture, like television sets, so that they can share them and interact with others whilst using them. In

the past, people, after being transferred from Kampong areas, used to congregate at places like the

corridors of HDB blocks and converse with others living on the same floor. It was even accounted that

it was a practice to leave their doors open without the burden of thieves entering. Overall, the idea ofthe common spaces is to bring back the concept of “everybody knows everybody” which was how it

was like in Kampong times (Chua, 1997 & Chua, 2004).

3.1.3 Ethnic Integration Policy

Apart from physical features of the HDB blocks, a more stringent policy known as the Ethnic

Integration Policy (EIP) was implemented in 1989 to promote racial integration and harmony too. The

policy aims to prevent racial enclaves from forming by ensuring a fair mix of citizens of different

ethnicities in the public housing estates (HDB, 2012) Under the EIP, the different races in Singapore

each have a certain representative quota of houses for them in a particular HDB block or housing

estate. No buyers of that race will be entertained once that quota has been reached. In addition to theEIP, the Singapore Permanent Resident (SPR) quota has been implemented as well. The SPR quota

ensures that SPR families can integrate into the community as well and interact with the local citizens

to achieve social cohesion. The quota applies to non-Malaysian SPRs only. Non-Malaysian SPRs refer

to buyers who are neither Singapore citizens nor Malaysians and they must adhere to the housing

policies in order to purchase a flat (HDB, 2012). The EIP and SPR quota works in a way such that

when the quota for both policies have been reached in a block or neighbourhood, no buyers will be

allowed to buy a flat that will exceed the quota.

3.1.4 Conclusion

With the setting up of the HDB, the blocks of flats now built are a testament to how the PAP

government has improved the lives of the people (Chua, 1997) and has been and will be one of

Singapore’s national pride (HDB, 2012). Through the policies implemented along with the established

public housing, the government hopes that the different ethnicities will learn to interact whilst living

side by side, and through the constant interaction, achieve social cohesion, just like how it is depicted

in the poster below:




(Figure 3.6: Poster depicting CMIOs in housing estate living harmoniously; Adapted from East Coast

Residents’ Council & People’s Association, 1998)

3.2 Education in Singapore

3.2.1 An Introduction

Widely acclaimed as an educational success story (Dixon, 2005), Singapore, embraces quality

education for all as well as a bilingual education. The birth of Singapore’s education landscape alreadyhad to do with social cohesion and ensuring fairness for all races. The predominant issue then was

being mindful for all races. Previously, schools were teaching different syllabus and subjects, hence in

order to standardize the curriculum, the Ministry of Education (MOE) brought all denominationally

and racially funded as well as private schools under its umbrella to ensure a common educational

experience. All children had to undergo ten years of compulsory basic education, which would

eventually lead to streaming at tertiary and graduate levels.

The idea of social cohesion and ethnic integration has been closely related to education in

Singapore. A main reason would be the fact that all children had to attend compulsory education, thus

integration would be unavoidable. Social cohesion in schools could be analyse in a three-pronged

model: Syllabus, Schools and Students. Firstly, syllabus has to be analyse as it plays a crucial role in

what students learn and that will translate into their actions, for example the role of National

Education and Social Studies in the curriculum. Secondly, the schooling environment like the teachers’

impact, the activities etc. also contribute to students’ interactions. Lastly, students themselves, be it

their social interactions in class, or breaks, or the ethnic demographics in a school play possibly, the

largest role as minorities are commonly segregated in a social environment. Lai’s (2002) research

targeted schools and their impact on ethnic integration. He pointed out how impactful things like

streaming play in ethnic integration. Steaming is said to have promoted intra-ethnic group segregation

as Normal-Academic and Normal-Technical students are commonly regarded as “second class” by

their Express counterparts, and this might translate into racial stereotypes. Also, Lai (2002) added that

within the normal stream, peer groups are ethnically homogeneous and peer groups are said to play a

large role amongst Malay respondents. A discriminatory act pointed out by Lai (2002) is the use ofMandarin in classrooms with Malay or Indian students, which shows the priority set on the majority

race, which could lead to possible unhappiness. Such problems are present definitely, but the

government has introduced measures which aim to dilute such issues and promote entirety – they are

Ethnic Self-Help Groups, National Education as well as the Bilingual Education Policy, which will be

further analysed.

3.2.2 Ethnic Self-Help Groups




Ethnic Self-Help Groups (SHGs) are ethnic-community-based groups which assist their ethnic

community in terms of things like education, so as to ensure a level playing field for all races. In

Singapore, the Malays have the Council for the Education of Muslim Children (CEMC), the Indians

have the Singapore Indian Development Association (SINDA), the Chinese – The Chinese

Development Assistant Council (CDAC) and the Eurasians have the help of the Eurasian Association.

Each of these SHGs aim to help their individual communities, for example, the CEMC aims to lookinto the educational problems of the Malays so as to ensure they are better-qualified and can increase

their contributions to Singapore. Another example would be the Indians, where SINDA aims to

address the issue of the Indian community “lagging behind” and plan to enhance the educational

achievement of these Indian children (Mathews & Hong, 2012). The rationale given by Prime Minister

Lee for such SHGs is to ensure that Singapore is a nation where every citizen has a place and can live

in harmony with one another.

Apart from educational services, SHGs also provide youth development and workers’ tra ining

implemented to fit the different background and needs of the different racial communities (Lui, 2008).

Actually, the main ideology behind these SHGs is the help rendered to the different ethnic groups,

ensuring they are equally qualified and have a level playing field, and from there identify and affirm

their duty of multiracialism (Mathews & Hong, 2012). Additionally, Tharman (2009) adds that by

helping the needy within each community, social cohesion will build as no one would be left behind,

and empathy for each other regardless of race and religion will start to build as well. Furthermore, as

we look into the future, these SHGs ensure that every Singaporean can keep pace with the changes in

our operating environment and benefit from the economic progress of the country (Lui, 2008). This

clearly highlights a common long-term goal shared by Singaporeans alike, regardless of race or

religion, and in the process, social cohesion is the target as well.

Overall, the government tries to help each and every person in need regardless of race and

religion, and through that, it shows the people the importance of racial equality and not belittling other

races (which can be seen from their actions which promote entirety by not leaving any particular race

out). Through the actions of the government, they hope that Singaporeans will understand and followsuit, by understanding each other, regardless of race and religion as well.

3.2.3 Bilingual Education Policy

In 1959 when Singapore first gained independence from the British, it chose to be referred to

as a multilingual state, together with four main languages: English, Chinese, Malay and Tamil, so as to

promote a common language spoken by the different races in Singapore due to the need for inter-

ethnic communication (Dixon, 2005). At independence, Singapore could have chosen to discard its

official language – English, but it stuck due to the importance of a common language amongst races as

well as the need for its economic survival (Lee, 2000 & Dixon, 2005). Aligned with the

implementation of the Mother Tongue Languages, the Bilingual Education Policy (BEP) wasimplemented around 50 years ago. The main reason was to promote economic growth and aid the

modernization process. Special efforts have been made in schools like the Speak Mandarin Campaign,

the Special Assistance Plan (SAP) schools etc. to spike the interests for the Mother Tongue Languages.

The formulation of the BEP was due to two main reasons:

The first rationale is more pragmatic. Accordingly to Dixon (2005), the goal of the BEP was

to create a general populace who are bilingual and biliterate at a high level, so as to boost educational

qualifications and economic growth due to the benefits of bilingualism in today’s society. Lai (2002)




has noted the success of this, stating that the biliteracy rates stood at 56% in 2000, which is a sharp

increase since the policy.

The second reason is more long-term. Lee (2009) pointed out that BEP was also introduced to

promote racial harmony and integration with the rationale that “English is seen as the language of

technology and management, and the Asian languages as the carriers of cultural values”. Being in

touch with one’s roots through studying their mother tongues has been a hope that one would learn toappreciate it as well as other cultures in the long run, promoting social cohesion due to care and

understanding developed. This perhaps seem as a long-term and unachievable goal, but the

government still stresses the need for educating the youths of Singapore their mother tongue, and

hopefully, social cohesion can be met through this too.

3.2.4 National Education

As introduced by the MOE, National Education (NE) is perhaps the largest education policy

promoted in schools with the very pragmatist motivations of the nation achieving social cohesion and

economic success (Singapore Angle, 2008). NE, not being a curriculum subject, still has an

overarching theme across the entire education journey for Singaporean students. In conjunction withNE, schools celebrate significant events like Total Defence Day, Racial Harmony Day, etc. to

commemorate key milestone events in Singapore’s history with the aims of learning from our past and

appreciating things like ethnic diversity. Also, apart from celebrating such events, NE is infused into

the core curriculum with nation-building messages in core subjects like Languages, Mathematics and

Sciences to ensure that the curriculum objectives are congruent with national goals (Singapore Angle,

2008 & Sim & Adler, 2004).

Through schools, NE wishes to put forth the nation’s values and goals to the students and with

that as its ultimate goal, NE has smaller objectives as well. NE aims to develop the consensus among

the diverse ethnic groups and move Singapore towards economic development and modernization, as

well as instill cultural and symbolic civic-instrumental dimensions for nation building. With all those

goals in mind, NE revolves the following aspects to achieve them:

(Figure 3.7: Overview of National Education according to MOE)

3.2.5 Conclusion

The government utilizes core education in its schools to educate students from young, not just

focusing on the main subjects but through them and apart from them, inculcate the importance of




social cohesion. This idea is transmitted using several policies which target very distinct aspects of

education in Singapore. NE is perhaps, the largest policy in which is applicable to all students. It is put

forth during curriculum time through lessons as well as induced into the teaching of other core

subjects. On the other hand, the BEP targets a main subject, specifically the Mother Tongue to bring

about appreciation for each student’s own culture and roots. Finally, the implementation of the SHGs

help alleviate any ethnic-class division, to ensure fairness and equality and a level playing field interms of job and education prospects, therefore mitigating any possible unhappiness due to unfairness,

with the hope of social cohesion amongst races.

3.3 Laws in Singapore

3.3.1 An Introduction & The Constitution of Singapore

By introducing multiracialism in Singapore, the government has put in place laws under the

Constitution of Singapore to govern the people and ensure that no one is racially or religiously

discriminatory against each other, with the ultimate aim of instilling peace amongst races. The

government is placed in a “neutral position” where laws are passed in ways which cannot be bias or

advantageous towards any particular race (Leong, 2009). Additionally, laws in Singapore like the

Sedition Act have been implemented to prevent any person from passing racially discriminatory

comments of other racial groups or doing anything to hurt other races, so as to maintain racial stability

and not hinder social cohesion amongst the races. The constitution of Singapore allows every citizen,

regardless of race to freely practice his or her religion of choice. It also states that no citizen should be

discriminated against on the grounds of race and religion (Nexus, 2009).

3.3.2 Sedition Act

The Sedition Act was implemented in 1948 with the goal of prohibiting seditious behaviour

towards other races or to the state. Under the statutes of Singapore, it states that any person whoattempts to do or conspires with another person to do any act which has a seditious tendency, utter any

seditious words, or engage in publication of seditious materials shall be guilty of an offence and be

liable on conviction for a first offence to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment of not more

than 3 years or both. The law clearly spells out what seditious tendencies constitute, but the main

aspect targeting races in Singapore is the prohibition of “promoting feelings of ill -will and hostility

between the different races or classes of the population of Singapore”.

This act clearly defines seditious behaviour towards other races and was used to charge

several individuals who crossed the line. The first time the act was used was in September 2005,

where two bloggers were charged with making seditious racist comments on the internet.

Subsequently, the act was used to charge several individuals who posted racist comments targeting the

Malay-Muslim community and Christianity on the internet. Another case took place on 2008, where a

couple was charged for distributing seditious publications to two Muslim women and a second such

booklet to another Muslim.

3.3.3 Conclusion

By instilling such stringent laws in Singapore, the government wants to prevent the

occurrences of such racist behaviour that would possibly pose as a problem for ethnic relations in




Singapore. By sowing discord amongst races, there will be a sense of discomfort and unhappiness

amongst the people, therefore social cohesion will not be able to progress as well. The presence of

laws will deter people from committing such crimes as they would have to face the consequences and

punishments if they were to cross the line. By properly spelling out laws against racism or seditious

behaviour, it also highlights the government’s emphasis and priority on racial harmony and social

cohesion as the laws of the country forms its key framework which every citizen must abide by.

Chapter Four: Discussion – Analysis of Effectiveness of Policies

4.1 The Effectiveness of Housing Policies on Social Cohesion Amongst Races

When one discusses how effective housing policies in Singapore have been in allowing the

different races to achieve social cohesion, he or she has to consider the real objective behind such

policies, one of which is the Ethnic Integration Policy. The objectives of such housing policies can be

seen at both a surface level and a long-term level. The surface-level would be to merely ensure that

each housing block reaches a certain quota, and once there is a “racial mix”, it is successful. The long-

term level is that these citizens of different races really integrate, which means they learn to appreciate

and understand one another’s culture and way of life.

(Figure 4.1: HDB Ethnic Diversity Statistics; adapted from

http://www.rst.nus.edu.sg/research/doc/Crestimes05.pdf)

According to Figure 4.1, the Ethnic Integration Policy has succeed in reaching its ethnic

quotas in housing estates and each housing block by eliminating possible ethnic enclaves (Lum & Tan,

2002). This is attributed to the government’s priority of a “balanced racial mix” in housing estates, and

citizens must abide to such stringent laws when purchasing houses.

The HDB (HDB, 2008) conducted a wide scale survey on neighbourly interaction with people

of other races and gathered the following data. They found that more than 50% of respondents

exchanged greetings with neigbours of different races and occasionally help each other, like looking

after each other’s children, providing financial help etc:




(Figure 4.2: Survey Results on Neighbourly Interaction; adapted from HDB, 2008)

While the surface-level objective of such housing policies have been reached, the long-term

goal of social cohesion amongst races via housing policies still remain an aspiration and have not beenachieved yet. Appold & Chua (2006) did a large-scale survey of respondents living in public housing.

Their methodology was requiring the respondents to list down the names of those with whom the

respondents have a relationship with within the neighbourhood. They found that public housing has

mandated high levels of integration, but spatial proximity has not contributed to this interaction. While

there have been such accounts of residents living harmoniously and appreciating each others’ culture

and way of life through meaningful activities like celebrating each other’s festivals together,the

presence of racist behaviour and mindset still exist between neighbours. One clear example of this is

the “curry” incident in 2011 where one neighbour living in a p ublic housing block could not stand the

smell of curry which came from another household. This was followed by a debate sparked between

the Indian and Chinese families (Chan, 2011).

Even though housing policies have been implemented and housing estates have reached a

balanced racial mix, genuine social cohesion can only be met amongst races if each individual

commits to it, and it boils down to an individual and how he or she learn to appreciate the different

ethnic groups around him or her. Racial integration cannot stop at placing racially diverse persons

within the “proximate distance” of each other (Chua, 2010), but what the government can do is

provide the environment where races are together and the policies act as regulatory tool to prevent the

worsening of ethnic imbalances (Lum & Tan, 2002). With that said, it is still up to each individual to

appreciate each other and through that, achieve genuine social cohesion.

4.2 The Effectiveness of Education Policies on Social Cohesion Amongst Races

Compulsory education in Singapore plays a large role in a child’s development and early years,

specifically Singaporean children, regardless of race or religion. Through the holistic approach MOE

took in implementing its policies to promote social cohesion, academics still question the effectiveness

of these policies. Lai (2002) conducted research on schools and the presence of racism within

educational institutions and found that children do mix with other races and do so comfortably during

recess and co-curricular activities. However, he noted that there are presence of stereotypes about

which CCAs each ethnic group should or may join, and that in some instances, dark-skinned children




are alienated by peers and are often singled out in exclusionary ways (Lai, 2002). Such observations

often bring about the question of how effective these education policies have been. Singapore Angle

(2008) and Tan (2008) questioned the true effectiveness of National Education in Singapore and how

applicable it is. Singapore Angle (2008) mentioned that NE often takes a backseat to examinable

subjects in the minds of both school management and students. It shows that teachers do not value NE

and therefore do not mind replacing the allocated lessons with others deemed as more important. Suchan issue could be analysed in two ways, either the government has not stressed enough the importance

of nation-building through education, or teachers and students simply do not value the importance of

this. Tan (2008) further elaborates that NE, instead of promoting social equality, due to its underlying

framework, it creates social inequality. For example, ITE students learns that their main goal is to

understand that by working hard, they are helping themselves, Polytechnic students learn that the

country’s continued survival and prosperity depend on their efforts and Junior College students learn

that they shape their own future and are the nation’s future leaders. This division among the various

post-secondary educational institutions clearly reflect a stratified view of society and it’s even more

difficult to aim for social cohesion if the message directed at different groups of people differ (Tan,

2008), thus highlighting the presence of social bias, which might be a problem in social cohesion.

Barr (2006) examined Singapore’s primary school textbooks and found that there were

prevalent signs of racial prejudice in them. He mentioned that an NIE study revealed that up to 80% of

surveys conducted showed Singaporean school children socializing exclusively with members of their

own race only. Additionally, he found textbooks containing clear signs of racial stereotypes, for

example, Chinese are constantly regarded as “studious” while Malays and Indians engage in

“horseplay” in a classroom setting, and Malays are collectively stereotyped to have jobs like menial

workers. Overall, the portrayal of racial stereotypes through writing or pictures has existed in

Singapore’s education curriculum since the 1980s. Such portrayals act as racial -cum-ethnic markers

which stick with students from young, and will contribute to possible racial-stereotypical thoughts

from students.

Another point raised was regarding the SHGs. Through these SHGs, a level playing field isachieved as well as eventual progress, but does bringing each ethnic group up really result in fairness

and a better democracy? Mathews & Hong (2012) points out that instead of improving Singapore’s

social cohesion, it would impair it as SHGs work individually among their own race and this promotes

a sense of group separateness and insecurity. Such strict classification within each race ensures no

room for “racial and religious hybridity”.

Even though education policies have the aim of achieving social cohesion amongst the races,

there are prevalent flaws in their approaches, which sometimes worsen the situation instead of

improving social cohesion. Perhaps, the government should relook these measures pointed out by the

academics and further strengthen how these policies are put forth.

4.3 The Effectiveness of Laws on Social Cohesion Amongst Races

By instilling stringent laws within Singapore, it is generally effective in terms of deterring

citizens from going against them, for example, committing acts considered seditious towards people of

other races. This is mainly due to the possible penalties that could be warranted against them.

Logically, one would tend to think twice before committing such acts as they definitely would not

want to face fines or a jail term. However, even if this is so, by preventing people from voicing out

their opinions and restricting their “freedom of speech”, in terms of personal views, this does not mean




such views do not exist. Instead, this may equate to “bottling up” their feelings and still translate into

unhappiness when having to interact with people of other races. With this barrier separating these

individuals from other races, it also hinders overall social cohesion amongst them.

Another point about the effectiveness of such laws is that judicial intervention may reinforce

racial differences and deepen unhappiness rather than integrating the different groups (Neo, 2011).

From the perspective of someone who has yet to commit a seditious act, laws may act as a preventivemeasure, but for those who have committed them and have to face the consequences under those laws,

their resentment will bound to worsen, thus those laws have not been effective in eradicating those

racially discriminatory sentiments.

Next, the effectiveness of laws against racist behaviour raises concerns about the point of

defining what racist behaviour really is. Anthony (2010) claims that in a society, there is bound to be

societal norms and that they are largely formed based on the culture of that country, which again, is

largely formed based on a majority race within that society, hence this puts minorities at a severe

disadvantage as they would have to assume certain roles based on that country’s culture, which may

be foreign to them. Also, Anthony (2010) further elaborates that laws like the Sedition Act may act as

“stumbling block” especially towards an egalitarian society, such as Singapore. Instead of ensuring

equal rights, it might result in the minorities keeping quiet whilst the associated “race” or “majority’ is

allowed to gain prominence or dominance over the rest, meaning that there will be presence of social-

bias possibly towards different races. What this means is that under such laws, it might result in

charging individuals who attack discrimination for promoting hostility when actually they are standing

up against an unequal and unfair status quo, formed mainly by the majority race or culture.

Overall, it still boils down to an individual responsibility. There is really no need for such laws

like the Sedition Act if people knew how to exercise empathy and care for other races. However, when

this is not in place, the law will have to step in (Anthony, 2010), and it being a preventive measure for

people to commit seditious acts is one thing, but posing as a problem for minorities to speak up may in

turn worsen the situation and thus, reducing its effectiveness in promoting social cohesion amongst

races.

Chapter Five: Conclusion

5.1 Conclusion

Ever since the proclamation of Singapore as a multiracial state, the government has upheld

social cohesion amongst races as its key priority. By targeting the aspects of education and housing to

reach out to the vast majority of Singaporeans as well as implementing its Constitution to provide fair

and equal rights to the people regardless of race, the government wishes to promote equality to all

citizens regardless of race. Additionally, through the policies implemented, the ultimate aim is to

instill mutual respect and appreciation for each others’ race and culture, and through that progr ess with

social cohesion. While we, as citizens, have been bought into this multiracial ideology, achieving

genuine cohesion amongst different races is more than just respecting them, but the willingness to

associate plays a large role. Again, the government can play a part by instilling policies to promote

racial harmony, but it still remains up to each individual in Singapore to integrate with other races.

Without this responsibility, these policies can only improve social cohesion but reaching it will still




remain an aspiration. As far as the future is concern, everyone must play a part for social cohesion

amongst the races to progress and learn to appreciate the racial diversity in our society.

5.2 Limitations of Research

When analysing social policies in Singapore, the main limitation would be opinions regarding

these policies, especially critics, as they may come across as offensive especially online. Additionally,

measuring the effectiveness of policies may not necessarily be accurate as it is difficult to find a

yardstick to measure a successful policy and the research can only target opinions and statistics.




Bibliography

Books and Selected Chapters

Chua, B. H. (1997). Political Legitimacy and Housing – Stakeholding in Singapore. Singapore: Routledge

Publications

Grunsven,L. van. (2000). Singapore: The Changing Residential Landscape in a Winner City. In P. Marcuse, & R.

van Kempen (Eds.), Globalizing cities: A new spatia l order? Oxford: Blackwell

Benjamin, G. (1976). The Cultural Logic of Singapore’ s “Multiracialism”. In R. Hassan (Ed.), Singapore:

Society in Transition. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press

Lee, K. Y. (2011). Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going. Singapore: Straits Times Press

Neville, W. (1996). Singapore: Ethnic diversity in an interventionist Milieu. In C. C. Rose,H. D. Laux, & G.

Thieme (Eds.), EthniCity: Geographic per spectives on ethnic change in modern cities. Maryland:

Rowman and Littlefield

Ooi, G. L. (1993). The Housing and Development Board’ s Ethnic Integration Policy. In G. L. Ooi, S. Siddique &

K.C. Soh (Eds.), The Management of Ethnic Relations in Public Housing Estates. Singapore: Times

Academic Press for Institute of Policy Studies

Quah, J. S. T. (2000). Globalization and Singapore’ s Search for Nationhood. In L. Suryadinata (Ed.),Nationalism and Globalization: East and West. Singapore: ISEAS

Tan, C. (2008). Tensions in an ability-driven education. In J. Tan & P. T. Ng (Eds.), Thinking schools, learning

nation (pp. 7-18). Singapore: Prentice Hall

Journal Articles

Barr, M. D. (2006). Racialised Education in Singapore. Educational Research for Policy and Practice 5: 15-31

Chang, D. W. (1968). Nation-Building in Singapore. Asian Survey 8(9): 761-773

Chih, H. S. (2009). The Quest for a balanced Ethnic Mix: Singapore’ s Ethnic Quota Policy Examined. Urban

Studies 39(8): 1347-1374

Dixon, L. Q. (2005). Bilingual Education Policy in Singapore: An Analysis of its Sociohistorical Roots and

Current Academic Outcomes. Internationa l Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 8(1): 25-47

Field, B. G. (1999). The Morphology of Planning in a n Urban Laboratory. Property Management 17(2): 139-

156

Moore, R. Q. (2000). Multiracia lism and Meritocracy: Singapore’ s Approach to Race and Inequality. Review of

Social Economy 58(3): 339-360

Neo, J. L. C. (2011). Seditious in Singapore! Free Speech and the Offence of Promoting Ill-Will and Hostility

between Different Racial Gr oups. Singapore Journa l of Legal Studies 2011: 351-372

Sim, J. B. Y. & Adler, S. A. (2004). The Role of Secondary Social Studies in Educating Singapore’ s Citizens.

Teaching and Learning 25(2): 161-169

Sim, L. L., Yu, S. M. & Han, S. S. (2003). Public housing and ethnic integration in Singapore. Habitat

International 27(2): 293-307

News Articles

Anthony E. S. (2010, February). The Sedition Act needs revision. The Online Citizen. Retrieved from

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/02/the-sedition-act-needs-revision. Accessed on August 1, 2012

Boey, E. (2011, March 19). How Singapore reacts to a crisis will be true test: PM Lee. Retrieved from

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/singapore-reacts-crisis-true-test-pm-lee-20110319-

212244-412.html. Accessed on March 7, 2012




Chan, J. (2011, April 16). Shanmugam clarifies “curry case”. Retrieved from

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1147353/1/.html. Accessed on April

5, 2012

Chia, S. A. (2009, April 6). Self-help groups ‘play critical role in bad times’. Retrieved from

http://www.asiaone.com/News/Education/Story/A1Story20090406-133719.html. Accessed on June 7,

2012

Gomez, J. (2010, September). Politics and ethnicity: framing racial discrimination in Singapore. Retrieved from

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/09/politics-and-ethnicity-framing-ra cial-discrimination-in-singapore/

Accessed on March 7, 2012

Ho, L. C. (2009). Global Multicultural Citizenship Education: A Singapore Experience. Retrieved from

http://www.hci.sg/admin/uwa/MEd7_8678/Global_Multicultural_Citizenship_Education-

A_Singapore_Experience.pdf. Accessed on June 6, 2012

Holmes, S. & Mahtani, S. (2011, November 10). Discrimination Pervasive in Singapore Rental Market.

Retrieved from http://blogs.wsj.com/searea ltime/2011/11/10/discrimination-pervasive-in-singapore-

property-renta l-market/. Accessed on April 1, 2012

Ismail, M. N. (2011, April). Hard Truths about Integration. Retrieved from

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2011/04/hard-truths-about-integration/ . Accessed on April 1, 2012

Palay, S. (2010, January). Is Multiracialism also just an aspiration? Retrieved fromhttp://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/01/multiracialism-an-aspiration/. Accessed on March 22, 2012

Organizational and Personal Research Publications

Appold, S. J. & Chua, V. K. H. (2006). Crossing Life Domains: Can Workplace Affirmative Action Achieve

Social Peace in Urban Neighbourhoods? Retrieved from

http://www.unc.edu/~appolds/research/progress/AANeignborhoodsASA.pdf

Cheung, I., Kan, C. L. B. & Wong, S.P. H. (2009). Singapore ’ s Construction Process of National Identity

through Mutliracialism. Retrieved from http://cim.scm.cityu.edu.hk/~ivecheung2/singapore.pdf

Chua, B. H. (2005). Taking Group Rights Seriously: Multiracialism in Singapore. Working Paper 124, Asia

Research Centre, Murdoch University

Chua, B. H. (2007). Multiracialism as Official Policy: A Critique of the Management of Difference in Singapore .Paper presented at the workshop “Learning from London: Exploring Social Resilience in Singapore”.

Chua, E. (2010). Living without Colorblindness: Comparing the US and Singapore’ s Approach to Racial

Equality. Retrieved from http://works.bepress.com/eunice_chua/1/

Chua, S. H. E. (2004). Selected History Topics for Primary Social Studies – An Oral History Assignment.

Retrieved from www.hsse.nie.edu.sg/staff/blackburn/oralhistoryHDBflats.doc

Lai, A. E. (2002). IPS: Report on IPS Research Forum on Ethnic Relations in Singapore. Retrieved from

http://www.ips.org.sg

Leong, K. C. (2009). Envisioning Chinese Identity and Managing Multiracialism in Singapore. Retrieved from

http://www.iasdr2009.org/ap/Papers/Ora lly%20Presented%20Papers/Society%20in%20Design/Envisi

oning%20Chinese%20Identity%20and%20Managing%20Multiracialism%20in%20Singapore.pdf

Lee, S. B. (2007). National Education: A Micro Study of the Challenges in Implementing NE in School. Paper

presented at the workshop Proceedings of the Redesigning Pedagogy: Culture, Knowledge and

Understanding Conference, Singapore, May 2007

Lim, Y. K. (2008). Singapore Society – Multira cialism in Singapore. Retrieved from

http://staff.science.nus.edu.sg/~phylyk/downloads/reports/ss_term.pdf

Lum, S. K. & Tan, M. T. J. (2003). NUS CRESTimes Volme 3 No. 1. Retrieved from

http://www.rst.nus.edu.sg/research/doc/Crestimes05.pdf

Mathews, M. & Hong, D. (2012). Ethnic-Based Self Help Groups in Singapore: Rationale and Critique.

Retrieved from author

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2011/04/hard-truths-about-integration/

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/01/multiracialism-an-aspiration/

http://www.iasdr2009.org/ap/Papers/Orally%20Presented%20Papers/Society%20in%20Design/Envisioning%20Chinese%20Identity%20and%20Managing%20Multiracialism%20in%20Singapore.pdf






http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/01/multiracialism-an-aspiration/

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2011/04/hard-truths-about-integration/




Ministry of National Development (2008). Building Homes, Shaping Communities. Retrieved from

http://www.mnd.gov.sg/MNDAPPImages/About%20Us/Building%20Homes%20-

%20Shaping%20Communities.pdf

Nexus, Ministry of Defence (2009). Singapore’ s Efforts to Foster Racial and Religious Harmony. Retrieved

from Nexus, Ministry of Defence

Singapore Angle (2008). Values Education in Singapore – Tensions and Suggestions. Retrieved from

http://www.singaporeangle.com/2008/06/values_education_in_singapore_1.html

Tan, E. K. B. (2004). Multiracialism and Meritocracy in Singapore: Conventional Wisdom Reconsidered. Paper

presented at Asia Pacific Research Centre’s Southeast Asia Forum

Yap, C. B. (2007). Centre for Governance and Leadership: Homes for a Nation – Public Housing in Singapore.

Retrieved from http://www.cscollege.gov.sg/cgl/pub_ethos_3e1.htm

Websites

Chew, V. (2009). Public Housing in Singapore. Retrieved from http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_1585_2009-

10-26. Accessed on April 1, 2012.

HDB (2011). Life Storeys – Life in the HDB Heartlands: Live Well for the Long Haul. Retrieved from

http://lifestoreys.hdb.gov.sg/for-the-long-haul.html. Accessed on April 1, 2012

HDB (2012). HDB InfoWeb: Ethnic Integration Policy & SPR Quota. Retrieved from

http://www.hdb.gov.sg/fi10/fi10321p.nsf/w/BuyResaleFlatEthnicIntegrationPolicy_EIP?OpenDocument.

Accessed on April 1, 2012

HDB (2012). HDB InfoWeb: Public Housing in Singapore. Retrieved from

http://www.hdb.gov.sg/fi10/fi10320p.nsf/w/AboutUsPublicHousing?OpenDocument. Accessed on April

1, 2012

Lim, G. (2002). Gifted Education for Economic Survival: The Case of Singapore. Retrieved from

http://www.ualberta .ca/~ckreber/papers/lim/htm. Accessed on June 25, 2012

Lui, T. Y. (2008). Speech by RAdm (NS) Lui Tuck Yew, Senior Minister of State, Ministry of Education and

Ministry of Information, Communication and the Arts, at the Self-Help Groups’ Joint Tuition Awards

Ceremony at the Singapore Polytechnic Convention Centre on Saturday, 5 July 2008 at 4.00pm.

retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/speeches/2008/07/05/speech-by-radm-ns-lui-tuck-yew-12.php. Accessed on June 7, 2012

People’s Association (2011). Speech by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. Retrieved from

http://www.narpani.sg/speech/32-speech-by-prime-minister-lee-hsien-loong. Accessed on March 22,

2012

Rutherford, T. (2010). Racism in Today’s Society. Retrieved from http://www.published-

articles.com/Art/73727/370/Racism-in-Today-s-Society.html. Accessed on February 28, 2012

Shah, A. (2010). Racism, Retrieved from http://www.globalissues.org/article/165/racism. Accessed on January

18, 2012

Tan, B. (2002). Raffles Town Plan. Retrieved from http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_658_2005-01-07.html.

accessed on April 1, 2012

http://www.mnd.gov.sg/MNDAPPImages/About%20Us/Building%20Homes%20-%20Shaping%20Communities.pdf


http://www.hdb.gov.sg/fi10/fi10321p.nsf/w/BuyResaleFlatEthnicIntegrationPolicy_EIP?OpenDocument

http://www.hdb.gov.sg/fi10/fi10320p.nsf/w/AboutUsPublicHousing?OpenDocument

http://www.hdb.gov.sg/fi10/fi10320p.nsf/w/AboutUsPublicHousing?OpenDocument

http://www.hdb.gov.sg/fi10/fi10321p.nsf/w/BuyResaleFlatEthnicIntegrationPolicy_EIP?OpenDocument



An Analysis of Policies Implemented in Singapore to Promote Social Cohesion Amongst Races-libre

Documents

Transcript of An Analysis of Policies Implemented in Singapore to Promote Social Cohesion Amongst Races-libre