The consistency of PAP ideology

Even if the 6.9 million figure were a projected estimate and the White Paper could have been presented in a more palatable way, the fact remains that Singaporeans have been discussing the issue of new immigrants, a burgeoning population and the problem of integration for a long while. The publication of the White Paper merely focused national attention and energies on an issue that has long bothered many in the proverbial ‘Singaporean Core’.

In his measured objection to the White Paper in Parliament, MP Inderjit Singh had talked about the importance of taking care of the ‘Singaporean Core’ and their interests, as well as the need to find a “better balance between economic growth and social cohesion”.

Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean, in his support for the White Paper, said: “Most of these migrants come from similar ethnic backgrounds. They will adapt to our lives, become more like us over time.”

These two positions reflect the slow divergence of an old-guard, People’s Action Party ideology with the sentiment on the ground that wants to protect the privileged position of the indigenous population. While I identify emotionally with the latter, the former view has historical roots and an ideological consistency that are worthy of closer scrutiny and discussion.

In the same way that the PAP-led state has traditionally reconfigured the physical landscape of Singapore to unsentimental extents – tearing down sites of cultural and historical significance to make way for infrastructural projects that would aid economic growth, most recently and prominently in the Bukit Brown case – the state has also managed the demographic landscape in a similar heavy-handed way, and always with an eye on economic targets.

In addition to population management measures like “Stop at Two” in the 1970s or “Have Three Or More If You Can Afford It” in the 1980s, the Singaporean state also carefully manages racial relations, racial communities and more importantly, has sustained the bureaucratic use of racial categories.

The status quo of 70+ per cent Chinese, 14+ per cent Malay, 9+ per cent Indian and 5+ per cent Others is itself a statistical construct sustained by the state, despite increasing rates of intermarriage and more individuals identifying with multiple ethnicities. This status quo shapes how many of us, and many in Government, view Singapore – Singapore is intrinsically defined by her majority Chinese population.

DISSOLVING CATEGORIES

This status quo, however, is being radically rewritten today; this radical revision made its most impactful, official appearance in the White Paper.

Although the racial composition may not reflect these changes (as DPM Teo mentioned, these new immigrants come from similar ethnic groups), the fact is that official categories have long stopped reflecting social reality, and a collective identity across ethnicities, in defiance of institutional parameters, has strengthened over the years.

The Government’s bid to alter the demographic landscape, in the name of economic growth, should be seen in tandem with its history of radical reconfiguration of our urban geography. In the same way that the Geographic Singaporean Core can be readily relocated – that is, demolished and rebuilt – the Demographic Singaporean Core can also be readily remoulded and reconstituted.

Singapore, spatially and demographically, has always been an ideological production of the state. Both these aspects are hyper-open to dynamic change.

Whittled down to the essence, the PAP has always been about economic growth, and the beneficiary of this economic growth is an unstable, ever-changing Singaporean subject, liberated from history and context and possessing only an ethnicity which is the passport for eligibility. The White Paper has shown how consistently the party has brought its ideology to its logical conclusion.

Once upon a time, the overwhelming number of 20th century Chinese immigrants had outnumbered the indigenous population. The hitherto majority now, however, identifies with other minorities as a collective in the face of more population inflows, forgetting their own ‘heritage’ as erstwhile new immigrants.

The PAP ideology however has taken this principle in a clinical, impersonal and impartial manner – for them, Singapore is always an immigrant society, and not simply a society that came to maturity with the particular wave of immigrants in the 20th century.

The PAP-led government, by evacuating the nuances of identity from their conception of a Singaporean, has been thoroughly consistent in its steady pursuit of economic growth and an ethnicity-based society.

Singaporean Koh Choon Hwee is pursuing graduate studies in History at the American University in Beirut, Lebanon.