Two Cabinet Ministers recently offered a sobering view of the state of ethnic relations in Singapore, against the backdrop of rising religiosity and global terrorism. Home Affairs and Law Minister K Shanmugam spoke of four threats to social cohesion, including Muslims growing more distant from the rest of society and feelings of Islamophobia among non-Muslims. Environment and Water Resources Minister Masagos Zulkifli reiterated the importance of practising religion suited to the local context and for Muslims not to be influenced by radical foreign ideologies — often easily spread through social media.

Both ministers shared disturbing examples. Mr Shanmugam, in his speech last month, noted that some Muslims believed it was un-Islamic to say Merry Christmas to Christians and Happy Deepavali to Hindus. In an interview last week, Mr Masagos observed that some Muslims preferred to isolate themselves and not eat with others who consume non-halal food.

In light of these examples, how do we reconcile the troubling prognosis with the consistent survey findings of the generally healthy state of racial and religious relations here? Are we sleepwalking towards a fractured future in which the salient fault line of religion becomes a real source of conflict?

My take on this worrying state of affairs is that we have placed a premium on the facade of harmony, but not on its substance. Also, in strengthening inter-faith ties, too much is expected of the Muslim community here and more can be done by non-Muslim Singaporeans. Third, too little emphasis has been placed on individual responsibility for better ethnic relations, as many see it as the Government’s job.

The goal of societal harmony — denoted by the absence of disagreement, tension or overt conflict — is noble. But how we manage disagreements and misunderstanding — inevitable in a compact, heterogeneous society — matters immensely. Harmony obtained from blind compliance and fear of our strict laws against disharmony is not sustainable.

What we make of the occasional disharmony also matters. In addressing disagreements, misunderstanding and tension, efforts must be meaningfully channelled towards attending to the underlying causes, rather than a symptomatic treatment. The quest must be to attain genuine understanding, enabling us to appreciate and embrace our differences.

For instance, national initiatives such as the Community Engagement Programme and the Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circles were implemented after the discovery and arrest of Jemaah Islamiah members in 2001. Intended to strengthen understanding and ties among Singaporeans of different races and religions, why have these efforts not resulted in deeper bonds among Singaporeans?

We must not worship harmony blindly. Disagreements, misunderstanding and tension need not always be portrayed as clear and present dangers that must be extinguished promptly. Otherwise, opportunities for meaningful engagement and a deepening of our bonds are wasted.

Thus, the comments by Mr Shanmugam and Mr Masagos should galvanise Singaporeans and the Government to address the root causes of the threats identified. Rather than letting them fester, it is far better to be open about problems and seek solutions. A national conversation about religion and race can function as a vivisection of the broader and deeper effort and mindset change that are urgently needed.

EASIER FOR THE MAJORITY TO REACH OUT

In improving inter-faith understanding, it is easier for the majority non-Muslim community to reach out and take the lead. Their actions are less likely to be seen as threatening or undermining the status quo. Further, Chinese-Singaporeans, comprising three-quarters of the population, can better appreciate that they may, unwittingly, be less mindful of the genuine interests, concerns and fears of the minorities.

Singaporeans must endeavour to better understand Muslims and Islam. Elsewhere, although questions have been raised over Islam’s compatibility with the contemporary world, our Muslim community is “tolerant, positive and are in every way Singaporean”, as Mr Shanmugam put it. They must not be made to feel that they are “under siege” or under a persistent pall of suspicion and distrust.

Extremism, militancy and violence have nothing to do with the true teachings of Islam or any other faith. To protect our inherent, rich diversity, it is imperative that we go beyond tolerance and seek genuine understanding. Last week, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam urged Singaporeans to take a keen interest in one another’s cultures to deepen the Singaporean identity, and to take real pride in our multiculturalism.

Finally, each of us has a critical role to play. The management of ethnic markers of race, language and religion in Singapore has been characterised by top-down control to guard against threats to harmony. But this should not result in Singaporeans shirking personal responsibility for ensuring that our diversity works for us.

Where faith matters are concerned, do our thoughts, values and actions in the public domain differ from that in our intimate private sphere and in our minds?

If so, this lends easily to unconscious discrimination and stereotyping. This must be tackled head-on, for it is in the enclaves of closed minds and networks, in which we seek to exclude others who are different from us, that our ability to resolutely take on the threats to Singapore is undermined.

Let’s not forget our growing sense of the Singaporean national identity. This overarching identity should take precedence over our ethnic identities and spur us to celebrate our commonalities while we manage the differences. Multiracialism cannot be a mere slogan of the fact of different races and faiths coexisting on this island. Instead, it must be the means by which we align the hearts and minds of the various faith communities with an inclusive and cohesive Singapore as enshrined in our national pledge and founding ideals.

Our fundamental challenge is not so much the threats identified by the ministers as it is whether our social fabric and cohesion are strong and resilient enough to rise above these threats. Robust interfaith ties recognises that religious freedom, the security and wellbeing of the state, government, society and individual are intimately connected.

In strengthening our social bonds and resilience, trust- and confidence-building cannot be the responsibility and effort of a minority race or religion. All of us have a big stake, too.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Eugene K B Tan is associate professor of law at the School of Law, Singapore Management University.