UKHarv and We as in America

 This Saturday, I had the good fortune of attending the “Straits Connect” event which was organized by the “Indian ScholarsAssociation.” This was gathering of high-powered individuals who had been invited to share their views on various topics.

One of the major highlights was a discussion on geopolitics, which was moderated by Singapore’s most famous diplomat, Professor Kishore Mabhubani. The speakers were H.E Dr. Shilpak Ambule, the High Commissioner of India to Singapore, H.E Mr. Paul Thoppil, the High Commissioner of Canada to Singapore and H.E. Mr. Nikesh Metha, the High Commissioner of the United Kingdom to Singapore.

 

 

 The quip that all the excellencies made was that this was a gathering of four diplomats, representing four different nations and all of them were off Indian origin. Then one of them joked that all they needed was the presence of H.E. Dr. Anjani Sinha, the American Ambassador to make it lucky number five.

The discussion was intellectually stimulating. You could say that Professor Mahbubani is Singapore’s most famous “intellectual,” and as someone of a high level of intellect, he would ensure that his discussions would be of that level.

However, I do believe the fact that we had four diplomats representing four different countries being of Indian origin was particularly significant in that it was a story of “integration,” specifically in the case of H.E PaulThoppil and H.E. Nikesh Metha, who are from countries where they are “ethnic minorities.” Had H.E Anjani Sinha been there, that point would have been even more significant especially if you consider the fact that he’s appointed by the Trump Administration, an Administration that isn’t exactly known for being friendly to ethnic minorities.

The fact that these men stood on stage representing their countries outlines a major difference that I have noticed in how “ethnicity” is perceived in Asia versus how its perceived in the West.

I am writing from Singapore. A place that has on average, a pretty good record in managing ethnic relations. Singapore has not had a racial riot since 6 June 1969. Successive Singapore governments have gone out of their way to point out that Singapore is “multiethnic,” and “multireligious” and anyone who posts anything gives a hint of anything that has a hint of stirring up communal tension. Singapore makes a big deal about “race” but has justified argument in saying that its ensured that no particular ethnic or religious group takes over an entire estate.

We do not have ghettos like Harlem (the joke in the James Bond movie “Live and Let Die,” is that following James Bond is like following a “cueball.”). We’ve not had riots between communities. Singaporeans, regardless of race, somehow get along. I think of a recent lunch break where I and another colleague had Indian food whereas an Indian colleague had chicken rice.

Yet, whilst the state of ethnic and other communal relations in Singapore and much of Asia might seem like something to be envied, a lot of it does seem manufactured. Talk about who gets the top job for example. Its been voiced by the government that “The Public is NOT READY for a Non-Chinese.” – Hence anyone from an ethnic minority with political ambitions should forget about running for Prime Minister anytime soon.

Whilst there’s no “overt nastiness,” in ethnic relations, a good portion of the population have a problem seeing certain communities beyond certain professions and that’s just in Singapore where we’ve had 60 over years of “nation building.”

I’m not saying that its great in West. The George Floyd murder and the subsequent riots show that there are deep fault lines. Yet, whenever is said of Western societies, once an ethnic minority is “integrated,” they are truly integrated and accepted. I think of a former client who is of Gujarati decent. He ended up having to stress a thousand times that he was “American,” because there was enough talk about him being considered a “Mamak with an accent.” Likewise with another Punjabi friend who had to put “UK” on his email address.

Talk to enough people in Asia and there is still a mentality that certain nationalities are equated to certain ethnicities and when there’s talk about “your own kind,” in generally means the people who look like you. The examples I gave are actually small. On the international stage, the Americans once appointed “Gary Locke” as Ambassador to China. Mr. Locke is ethnic Chinese but he is the American Ambassador. The Chinese had issues with him having his main loyalty to “America.” Australia’s foreign minister, PennyWong faces similar issues when she travels to Beijing.

I think back to the time when Rishi Sunak took over as Prime Minister of the UK. The entire Indian press corps was very excited by that – so excited that one British commentator had to make the point that “he’s becoming Prime Minister of the UK, not Prime Minister of India.”

The establishment in the West has somehow made it such that ethnicity has become a non-issue” for those who have blended into the system. The major issue against Mr. Sunak was his lack of “working class” friends than the colour of his skin.

So, how does one manage ethnic relations? It’s a topic that deserves a study on its own. Coming from Singapore, I do see an argument for a certain amount of “management,” but there needs to be a point where one just has to move ethnicity out of the public discourse until it’s a non-issue. In a way, there is some amount of optimism, even in the age of Trump. I think of the Straits Connect event which was organized by the Indian Scholars Association. The majority of people were Indian nationals, of the community being “PiyushGupta,” former CEO of DBS Bank. Yet the man who brought everyone to standing ovation – Dr. Jack Sim, a local Singapore Chinese.