| Yawning
Bread. January
2006
Racially integrated neighbourhoods?
|
|
||
Top of the news in the Sunday Times of 22 January 2006 was the People's
Action Party's (PAP) response to some of the key points in the Workers'
Party (WP) election manifesto.
|
|||
|
The newspaper's headline was "Govt
warns of 'time bombs' in Workers' Party manifesto", which only made
people sit up and take note of what's in the opposition party's $5
booklet. That was very adroit, wasn't it?
Among the items in WP's manifesto was the promise to "remove ethnic quotas for HDB flats as society has attained a level of multi-racial integration." The Housing and Development Board (HDB) builds most of the flats in Singapore. Over 80% of Singaporeans live in flats that they have built. While we speak of "buying" flats from the HDB and "owning" them, the HDB continues to have certain rights that circumscribe ownership. Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen said this promise by the WP was one of the "time bombs" that would destroy key pillars of Singapore's stability and success, according to the Sunday Times. The HDB's "Ethnic Integration Policy" is a means to ensure that no areas become ethnic ghettoes. The policy states that an while an existing flat owner can sell his flat to a buyer of the same race, if he wishes to sell to someone of a different race, it will be subject to race quotas. Currently, Chinese can own no more than 84% in any neighbourhood and Malays can own no more than 22% [1]. For a long time, minority-race flat owners have complained that this policy depresses the price they can get for their flats, by limiting their potential pool of buyers. However, from a logical examination of the effects of the policy, it would seem that only some minority-owners would be thus handicapped. These would be the ones who currently live in areas where Chinese already exceed 84%. In this case, Chinese aren't allowed to buy any more flats, and so a Malay seller is deprived of the bulk of the potential buyers in Singapore. Yet, it is an undeniable fact that race ghettoes, coupled with other social and economic disadvantages and policies of neglect -- and I must stress that these other factors are equally, if not more important -– have often been flashpoints for civil unrest. The riots in France just a few months ago, should be fresh in our minds. On the other hand, just because through HDB's policy we don't have race ghettoes, does not mean that social and economic disadvantages aren't present. Or that policies of neglect aren't with us. If anything, an enforced integration policy may render invisible these other ills when people and families in distress as a result of various kinds of race- and official policy-linked bias are dispersed and diluted throughout Singapore rather than be visibly obvious through concentration. For example, if joblessness, whether through poorer educational attainment or employment discrimination, is particularly high in one racial group, it becomes a lot more obvious when the racial group is concentrated in certain areas than when they are evenly dispersed. (Alas, that doesn't mean that remedial action comes any sooner, even if it is visible, as empirical evidence from other countries demonstrate.) Thus, it can be argued that whether or not we have a housing integration policy is really quite a small matter. The bigger issue is how well integrated racial minorities are in our society in terms of education, jobs, advancement and access to social services. The PAP's argument that housing integration is a tool to achieve social integration is not without merit. We know, for example from the gay and lesbian experience, that one of the most powerful forces for changing people's minds about gay people is to actually know someone gay. Singapore has also had debates about the 'SAP' schools, which, because they teach Chinese to a standard equal to English, is almost 100% Chinese in their enrolment. Many have argued that they breed a section of a population that have never really interacted with minorities through their formative years, and that cannot be good for our society. The opposing argument however is that racially integrated schools is quite a different kettle of fish from racially integrated neighbourhoods. People can live next door to another family for years and never even say 'hello'. To claim that racially integrated neighbourhoods foster racial tolerance in people's minds is more wishful thinking than reality. * * * * * What the foregoing thus shows is that this is a very complex issue and neither the PAP nor the WP should insist on a simplistic solution. Perhaps the issue is really one of equity. How do we compensate the racial minority flat-owner for depressing his resale price as a result of the effects of official policy? Imagine a person who, at the time he bought his flat, had to pay the market price because the Chinese had not yet exceeded 84% in his neighbourhood. But a few years later, when he wants to sell his flat, he discovers that the quota rule has come into effect because the Chinese now make up over 84%. His negotiating room for getting a good price for his flat is much reduced, and naturally he feels hard done by when it is not his fault. Surely, some kind of compensatory mechanism can be designed to make up the difference? Another issue that comes to mind is how such a policy is going to work when more and more Singaporeans are inter-marrying. How does one define whether one is Chinese or Malay or Indian or whatever? Imagine a couple comprising a White French guy and a Chinese wife. How is their unit classified? What if one passes away, leaving the property to the spouse? Will the unit be reclassified? What is worse is that the HDB doesn't even declare the policy percentages on its website. All it says is that the percentages change from time to time and would you please contact us to find out. This kind of opacity is no good. The public can't know what exactly the policy is, or how the HDB classifies them or their family members. Such a practice is open to abuse and leaves open too much room for conspiracy theories. So it's good that the WP has raised this issue in their manifesto and compelled us to think about it. You see what free and competitive elections can do? Shouldn't we have more free and competitive elections? * * * * * The WP said that the reason we should dismantle the ethnic quotas is because " society has attained a level of multi-racial integration." [2] I think we ought to be sceptical of such breezy claims. All we need to do is to ask a few people from minority groups what they truly think. The world over, people like to live among neighbours that are similar to them. Race and religion are among the chief factors in assessing similarity. It is perhaps a bit naive to think that once the HDB policy is lifted, we won't very quickly see enclaves form. Now, whether that is objectionable in itself is another question. Perhaps it is not if we rigourously ensure that other measures to integrate racial minorities work. * * * * * Talking about neighbourhoods, the New York Times (NYT) on 21 January 2006 ran a feature story about a reality show that was killed after all the episodes had been filmed. None of the episodes was broadcast by the producers, the ABC network, even though it had been heavily promoted prior to its original summer release date [3]. The show was called "Welcome to the Neighbourhood" and the prize was a US$300,000 house in Austin, Texas. The reality show was premised on the idea that seven families would compete with each other for acceptance by the neighbours, with one family being voted out each episode. Among the seven families were African-American, Hispanic, and Korean ones. There was also a family that was heavily tattooed and another that was "Wiccan" – an obscure religion. The existing neighbours identified themselves overwhelmingly as White, Christian and Republican. Three couples from the cul-de-sac were charged with making the decision. As the New York Times reported, the discussions recorded on film were "often raw, as contestants and judges speak openly about their preconceptions." But equally, in further discussions, they "observe[d] in amazement as some of their ideas - though by no means all – melt[ed] away."
|
|
||
The eventual winner was a family that was the same race and religion as the neighbourhood, and there must be a sociological message in this. When it came to accepting neighbours that were different in ethnicity and religion, it seemed just too hard. But then again, we should not draw too much of a conclusion from a sample of one. For all we know, the other families might have been difficult to accept because of their personalities, pets or other reasons. Since ABC has canned the show, we may never know. The winning family was no shoo-in, for while they were of the same race and religion, they were gay. It comprised 2 men and an adopted son. In fact, "the neighbors' attitudes toward homosexuality constitute[d] the dominant theme" though the discussions. But see also the pink box at right.
|
|
||
|
And as often happens in life, the person who starts off mouthing off against homosexuality often has some unresolved personal or family issues. The NYT reported,
The winning couple, Stephen Wright and
John Wright, and their son Eli moved into their new house in September
2005. © Yawning Bread
|
|
||
|
Footnotes
Addenda None
|
|
