Drawing Aside the Veil: Examining Multiculturalism’s Liberal Underpinnings with a Singaporean Lens

ABSTRACT

Multicultural theorisations have presumed principles adopted from liberalism, and multiculturalists have explicated their theorisations within liberal democratic contexts. This article problematises both these conflations by focusing on an avowedly non-liberal polity, Singapore. Rather than focussing on developing and identifying normative justifications for multiculturalism, it advocates a practice-based approach which examines multiculturalism as an ethos of accepting cultural difference and actions that uphold such an ethos. This approach allows this paper to do three things: First, it demonstrates that Singapore’s approach to engaging with its internal ethnic diversity is indeed a form of multiculturalism. Second, it highlights the pragmatic basis for the country’s adoption of multiculturalism to manage diversity. Third, by identifying commonalities in multicultural practice in liberal and non-liberal settings, this article calls for a more critical examination of the slippage between theory and practice that is often overlooked by scholars on multiculturalism.

KEYWORDS:

• Multiculturalism
• liberalism
• Singapore
• theory and practice

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 This paper uses the terms ‘dominant’ and ‘subordinate’ to refer to cultures and groups that are often referred to as ‘majority’ and ‘minority’ cultures respectively by scholars of multiculturalism. The purpose for this distinction is to highlight the difference in power dynamics and relative social positioning of each group (van Amersfoort 1978). The terms ‘majority’ and ‘minority’ are avoided in this paper to avoid confusion with the numerical meanings often associated with such terminology, since in reality, subordinate groups (commonly referred to as ‘minorities’) need not be in the numerical minority, as in the case of Blacks in apartheid South Africa or women in a patriarchal society.

2 Parekh is included in the Bristol School of Multiculturalism despite lacking a formal connection with the institution because of the strong influence that he has had on Modood’s scholarship and vice versa, or what Levey terms ‘an intersecting sociometry’ (2019: 206)

3 Ownership of government-subsidized public housing is largely limited to (soon-to-be) married couples (Housing & Development Board 2018a). Hence, LGBTQ couples and any accompanying children are not considered to be a family unit according to the Housing and Development Board, rendering them ineligible to buy new HDB flats and to qualify for any government housing grants. Effectively, this means that they can only buy a flat off the resale market (at a higher price than new Built-to-Order flats) once they are past the age of 35 under the various Single schemes (Housing & Development Board 2018b).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by University of Bristol.