Discrimination in the WorkPlace is Unacceptable – Unless We Do It

 One of the most noticeable things about Singapore is the fact that it is probably the most Conveniently Racist place on the planet. All us pledge that we will be “Regardless of Race or Religion” and the government is famously strict on people who “stir up racial hatred.” It is drilled into the heads of every child in our school system that modern day Singapore is a wonderfully harmonious place unlike that place in the 1960s, where various ethnic communities were at each other’s throats. There’s even a “racial harmony” day where children are supposed to dress up in “ethnic costumes” and this is supposed to be a sign of how wonderful we are as a place because everyone gets along.

Yet, at the same time, we are probably the most blatantly racist place around. The racism in Singapore is not the KKK, let’s bash up black and brown people that you get in the Western World. It’s the more subtle type, and in some ways its worse than the Western variety in the sense that it’s become acceptable and even sanctioned. Think about it as simply as “You’re not getting the job because you’re the wrong color,” type of racism.

What makes this type of racism so obnoxious is the fact that its “acceptable.” As one of my favourite Englishmen told me – when Singapore first started its F1 race, every brown and black person ended up as cleaner, while every white and yellow person ended up in catering. It’s not officially racist but it could not be such a coincidence that every brown and black person who applied to work at the race had a strong desire to be a cleaner.

Then, there was my friend, who is Afrikaans. He’s a qualified dental technician, who couldn’t get his work pass approved. Then, when he went into meet the immigration officer, he had convince them that it really was possible to be white and have the words “Africa” on your passport (apparently he was asked several times “what do they call you,” and he only got the hint when the immigration officer indicated that he was talking about skin colour.”)

The latest example of Singapore’s convenient racism has come from an incident where a sales promoter at Tangs Department store was told to remove her hijab. This incident sparked a row on the issue of work place discrimination and it even went as far as having our President (who wears a headscarf or Tudong to give the proper Malay term), coming out to condemn the department store and announcing that work place discrimination was totally unacceptable. The various reports can be found at:

https://www.asiaone.com/singapore/promoter-pop-booth-allegedly-told-remove-hijab-tangs-department-store-she-could-work; and

https://mothership.sg/2020/08/halimah-yacob-tangs-hijab/

I agree with the official sentiment. Work place discrimination based on race or religion has no place in the modern world. People should be free to wear their religious garments wherever they choose to. I think of the Sikh’s (or Sadars as they’re known in India), who wore allowed to wear turbans, but they had to be regulation turbans ie those in infantry wore green, black for those in armour and so on.

However, there’s one slight snag to all of this, which is the fact that work place discrimination is perfectly acceptable when it’s practiced by the government. The government that is now championing the right of Muslim women to wear a headscarf on their heads, is the same government that won’t let young Malay girls wear the tudong attend mainstream schools. Apparently, our schools are secular and therefor they can’t wear signs of the religion but a department store cannot insist on the same when it comes to the work place.

On a more serious note, being a Muslim is a career endangering move if you’re in the military. As former Indonesian President JB Habibie noted, there were no senior officers who were darker than yellow in the Singapore Armed Forces (A point that a Saudi deputy minister made to be during the Crown Prince visit in 2006). President Habibie’s remarks had the effect of getting the SAF to publish the names of every Malay officer with the rank of lieutenant-colonel and above and it was not long before we had our first Muslim general. However, despite this rushed public relations exercise, it’s a well-known fact that Malays are banned from certain vocations and very few of them make it to the top.

The reason for this was simple. In our early days, our most likely military adversaries were likely Malaysia and Indonesia (we had Konfrantasi with Indonesia and after kicking us out, the Malaysian leadership made sure that we were aware that they could put us in our place.) Lee Kuan Yew argued that he didn’t want our Malay population to have any sense of dual loyalties should we ever get into a fight with either Malaysia or Indonesia.

However, does this “discrimination” work in today’s world, where our most likely adversary is not a nation state but a cross-border terrorist group. Dealing with today’s adversary would involve working with Malaysian and Indonesian armed forces rather than against them. Its more than likely that we will need military commanders who can gel with their Malaysian and Indonesian counterparts.

When you look at our current security situation, one should be inclined to ask if keeping this form of work place discrimination in the armed forces a case of just being racist for the sake of it.

Let’s go back to the president, who is the champion of “non-discrimination.” In the early years of independence, it was understood that the presidency would be reserved for ethnic minorities and there was a specific need for a Malay head of state. However, in 1985, the government felt that our race-relations were harmonious enough not to reserve the office for an ethnic minority and appointed Mr. Wee Kim Wee to the job. Why was there a sudden rush to give the job to a Malay after 32-years?

Then there is the issue of the fact that the public is apparently not ready for a “non-Chinese” prime minister. While Singapore’s population is predominantly Chinese and any political party would take that into consideration before fielding candidates. However, why is the PAP, the party that wrote a nation pledge based on “regardless of race” making such a big song and dance about how the public is not ready for a non-Chinese leader? Let’s ignore the fact that in the last election the most popular politician (Senior Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam) is non-Chinese and the second largest party in parliament is lead by a non-Chinese. The key question here is – as a party that espouses “regardless of race or religion, and talks about “meritocracy” shouldn’t the ruling party be fighting to ensure that a non-Chinese gets the top job if he or she is the most qualified? Even if the public is racist and not ready for a non-Chinese Prime Minister, shouldn’t the PAP be at the forefront of changing this perception and not pandering to it?

Work place discrimination is wrong and the government should be leading the fight against it. However, to do so with full moral authority, it has to do all the way and not by only fighting to do it when it is convenient and pandering to racist instincts when it’s not.