From Colonial Segregation to Postcolonial ‘Integration’ – Constructing Ethnic Difference Through Singapore’S Little India and the Singapore ‘Indian’
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
FROM COLONIAL SEGREGATION TO POSTCOLONIAL ‘INTEGRATION’ – CONSTRUCTING ETHNIC DIFFERENCE THROUGH SINGAPORE’S LITTLE INDIA AND THE SINGAPORE ‘INDIAN’ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY BY SUBRAMANIAM AIYER UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY 2006 ---------- Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ABSTRACT 1 INTRODUCTION 3 Thesis Argument 3 Research Methodology and Fieldwork Experiences 6 Theoretical Perspectives 16 Social Production of Space and Social Construction of Space 16 Hegemony 18 Thesis Structure 30 PART I - SEGREGATION, ‘RACE’ AND THE COLONIAL CITY Chapter 1 COLONIAL ORIGINS TO NATION STATE – A PREVIEW 34 1.1 Singapore – The Colonial City 34 1.1.1 History and Politics 34 1.1.2 Society 38 1.1.3 Urban Political Economy 39 1.2 Singapore – The Nation State 44 1.3 Conclusion 47 2 INDIAN MIGRATION 49 2.1 Indian migration to the British colonies, including Southeast Asia 49 2.2 Indian Migration to Singapore 51 2.3 Gathering Grounds of Early Indian Migrants in Singapore 59 2.4 The Ethnic Signification of Little India 63 2.5 Conclusion 65 3 THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE COLONIAL NARRATIVE IN SINGAPORE – AN IDEOLOGY OF RACIAL ZONING AND SEGREGATION 67 3.1 The Construction of the Colonial Narrative in Singapore 67 3.2 Racial Zoning and Segregation 71 3.3 Street Naming 79 3.4 Urban built forms 84 3.5 Conclusion 85 PART II - ‘INTEGRATION’, ‘RACE’ AND ETHNICITY IN THE NATION STATE Chapter 4 RACIAL POLITICS AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT OF THE INDIANS IN SINGAPORE – WHO AND WHAT IS AN ‘INDIAN’? 88 4.1 Introduction 88 4.2 What is an ‘Indian’ in Singapore? 90 4.3 ‘Indian’ identity in Singapore 104 4.4 Indian foreign workers 110 4.5 Indian talent 116 4.6 Conclusion 129 5 ‘RACE’, ‘ETHNICITY’ AND THE SINGAPORE NATION STATE 132 5.1 Introduction 132 5.2 The Evolution of Race as a Worldview 133 5.3 Race and the Colonial Imagination in Singapore 134 5.4 Emergence of Ethnicity 145 5.5 The Relationship between Race and Ethnicity 146 5.6 ‘Race’, Ethnicity and the Nation State 148 5.7 Race, Ethnicity and the People in the Nation State 159 5.8 Conclusion 160 6 RACIAL POLITICS AND SOCIAL ENGINEERING – FAMILY, POPULATION AND ‘CHINESENESS’ POLICIES 163 6.1 Introduction 164 6.2 The Rationale for Race-based Policies 165 6.3 Family policies 170 6.4 Population policy 187 6.5 ‘Chineseness’ of Singapore 194 6.6 Asian Shared Values 203 6.7 Conclusion 204 Chapter 7 RACIAL POLITICS AND SOCIAL ENGINEERING – HOUSING AND LANGUAGE/EDUCATION POLICIES 206 7.1 Introduction 206 7.2 ‘Race’ and Public Housing 207 7.2.1 Ethnic dispersal (1965-1989) 208 7.2.2 Ethnic quotas (1 March 1989 to date) 214 7.3 ‘Race’, Education and Language Policy 222 7.4 Conclusion 242 8 RACIAL POLITICS AND SOCIAL ENGINEERING – SELF-HELP AND HERITAGE CONSERVATION 243 8.1 Introduction 243 8.2 ‘Race’ and Self-help 243 8.3 ‘Race’ and Heritage Conservation 260 8.4 Conclusion 278 CONCLUSION 279 Appendix A - Random press cuttings and reports 300 List of Tables 308 List of Plates 309 List of Maps 310 BIBLIOGRAPHY 311 ACKNOWLEGEMENTS First and foremost, my warmest gratitude and appreciation go to my supervisors Associate Professor Maureen Montgomery, Head of School, American Studies Programme, School of Culture, Literature and Society, University of Canterbury and Dr Christopher Houston, now Lecturer, Department of Anthropology, Macquarie University, Sydney for their unstinting patience, kindness, warmth, friendship, support and extremely helpful advice and guidance in successfully seeing me through my thesis. Their readings of my many drafts with a fine toothcomb inspired me to sharpen my writing skills and arguments. They also gave me the confidence and wide room to explore the issues I wanted to without breathing down my neck. Both of them have been a constant source of intellectual inspiration. I appreciate this more than they will ever know and I remain indebted to them forever. Similarly, Dr Raj Vasil and Dr Wendy Mee, my external examiners, as well as Dr Aditya Malik of the Religious Studies Department, University of Canterbury, provided me excellent inspiration and advice. Emeritus Professor David Gunby, Dean of Postgraduate Studies, who first introduced me to the University of Canterbury inspired and motivated me through all these years and consistently checked on my progress. To him my heartfelt gratitude. Faculty and staff at the American Studies Department never failed to nudge me forward and it would be remiss on my part not to acknowledge with gratitude their kindness, in particular the sincerity and warmth of Gwen Standring, Secretary in the Department, who gave me a patient listening ear to all the trials and tribulations I underwent as I struggled through the lonely path to writing this thesis. Staff at the Central and Physical Sciences Libraries were extremely helpful and understanding. The Physical Sciences Library was actually a “home away from home” for me because Dawn McMillan, Theresa Graham, Angela Davies and every member of the staff at the library treated me with so much cordiality and friendship. Dr Mukundan from the Computer Science and Software Engineering Department went the extra mile to drill some computer knowledge into me. I am also indebted to vintage friends like V G Krishnan – a schoolmate whose friendship has spanned the length of five decades - who provided valuable suggestions and words of encouragement in the writing of this thesis. Numerous well-meaning relatives and friends including Associate Professor Venkataraman Nilakant of the Management Department, Dr Peter Green, Research Engineer, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Dr Rajagopal, Mr P Balakrishnan and Mr Palaniveloo were all pillars of support. Throughout, my fieldwork experience brought me to the meeting places of many strangers in Singapore. I still cannot quite comprehend why people of all ages and levels could open their hearts to a complete stranger. I only know that in doing so they made my task exhilaratingly meaningful and less onerous. The debt I owe them is tremendous, because without their cooperation this thesis would not have seen the light of day. Through it all, my beloved wife Kasthuri and our sons Ramesh, Suresh and Dinesh and their families have provided me their unfailing love, devotion, patience, encouragement and support as I worked through long hours trudging through my task. Kasthuri was always by my side, urging me on through moments of despair, cheering me when I wrestled with demons, and celebrating with me when the writing flowed easily. To her I dedicate this labour of love. ABSTRACT In Singapore the state defines the parameters of ‘ethnic’ identity on the basis of the ideology of multiracialism, in which any particular ‘ethnic’ identity is subsumed under national identity and permitted expression in cultural and economic, but not political, terms. Multiracialism’s appeal for the state as well as for its citizens lies in its objective: social cohesion between and equality for the four officially recognized ‘racial’ groups. Nevertheless, from the viewpoint of the ‘Indian’ community, this thesis demonstrates how the multiple layers of meaning given to the doctrine and practice of multiracialism by various social actors and their interactions create tensions and contestations in reconciling ‘ethnic’ and national identity. Public expression of ‘ethnic’ politics is considered by the state as subversive towards the nation, although the state itself implements its ideology through a stringent regime of ‘racial’ management directed at every aspect of a Singaporean’s social, cultural, economic and political life. The thesis addresses important issues involving ‘racial’ and ‘ethnic’ identity, modes of ‘ethnic’ interaction and nation building in the multiethnic and globalised context of Singapore in general and in ‘Little India’ in particular. This area, though theoretically democratic in nature, is embedded in state-civil society power relations, with the state setting the agenda for ‘ethnic’ maintenance and identity. My research interviews demonstrate the dominating and hegemonic power of the state, its paternalistic governance, and its wide network of social control mechanisms organizing ‘ethnicity’ in Singapore. The historical decision, made firstly by the British colonial administration and thereafter perpetuated by the nation state, to make ‘race’ the basis of all social classification has had far-reaching consequences. With the postcolonial state wishing to be the sole authority over ‘ethnic’ practices and discourse, Singaporeans’ lives have been heavily conditioned by its impact, which I argue resembles to some extent the ‘divide and rule’ policy of the colonial regime. ‘Race’ as the structuring principle and accepted reality of Singapore society since colonial days is so entrenched that it has been essentialised and institutionalised by the state as well as by the people in contemporary Singapore. The terms ‘race’ and ‘ethnicity’ are used interchangeably and synonymously in daily usage, though “race” is preferred by political leaders, academics and the population at large. I will argue that with ‘race’ as the reference point ethnic communities that migrated from China, 1 India and other places became socially, culturally and economically segregated and polarised from colonial days to such an extent that extensive stereotypes and prejudices have fed on their lives. Such perspectives have led to differing constructions of national identity discourses presented by the nation state based on its objectives of ‘racial’ integration, economic development and national identity. By way of interview and survey material I demonstrate that ‘race’, ethnicity and national identity as defined and managed by the state have not only been inextricably linked in the everyday lives of Singaporeans but more importantly they have resulted in a resurgence of ethnic consciousness in the last three decades or so, thereby undermining the state’s attempts at national identity.