This reflective essay is based on the second panel session titled “Living with New Differences” from the Singapore Perspectives Conference 2014.

Speakers:

Ms Sim Ann
Minister of State
Ministry of Education & Ministry of Communications and Information

Professor David Chan
Lee Kuan Yew Fellow &
Professor of Psychology
Director, Behavioural Sciences Institute
Singapore Management University

Chairperson:

Professor Tommy Koh
Special Adviser
Institute of Policy Studies

 

At the Singapore Perspectives 2014 panel titled “Living with New Differences”, speakers shared thoughtful ideas and interesting perspectives in their presentations on how Singapore and Singaporeans are coping with new and emergent differences. Chairing the session, Prof Tommy Koh set the tone by highlighting differences taking shape in Singapore society as a result of immigration and the rise of new media and globalisation, among others, before handing over to Minister of State (MOS) Sim Ann, and Prof. David Chan.

In a nutshell, both speakers explored how we could live with differences. MOS Sim emphasised that the basis for living well with diversity is to be able to appreciate differences and celebrate uniqueness. This is easier to achieve if society is empathetic, she explained. Similarly, the preservation of shared experience and the common space helps keep a diverse society together.

Meanwhile, Prof. Chan focused on how Research-Policy-Practice (RPP) could tackle issues arising from emergent group differences. He proposed a more strategic approach as opposed to tackling those issues in a piecemeal manner. In particular, he highlighted the need to update the terms and concepts used to study differences. For instance, he suggested that policymakers should rethink the definition of “family” and perhaps adopt the idea of “home” as a building block for society and nation so that a wider group of stakeholders could be represented.

Both speakers were also quick to point out that most of what we perceive as emergent differences are not actually new differences; rather, they are existing differences that have become more salient in recent times. For instance, due to the rapid flows of globalisation, pervasive popularity of new media and complex immigration patterns, differences in education levels, nationality, social identities and affluence have become more prominent.

In my opinion, when studying differences, it is also important to concern ourselves with the driving forces that have caused differences to become more salient. Undoubtedly, it is critical to develop a society that can see the world from different perspectives or, better yet, be able to appreciate and celebrate uniqueness. Nonetheless, it is unlikely that any society, even an empathetic one, would be able to digest constant waves of discord heaped on by shifting social and economic trends.

New salient differences only emerge because of changes to society. Whether the agent is immigration, demography or globalisation, it always entails the notion of some form of change. Hence, it would be useful for us not to just think about improving the way we deal with new differences but also contemplate whether it is possible to reduce unnecessary changes to our society.

If we acknowledge that it is important to think of how we should live with differences, while also keeping into consideration the changes that give birth to them, then naturally the next step would be to include such considerations when applying Prof. Chan’s strategic approach to studying and managing differences in society. The fact that new differences are coined as “emergent” by the speakers shows that their impact on society is still nascent. It may perhaps be logical then to limit the growth of their impact by attending to the agents of change that give rise to them, albeit keeping in mind the potential benefits some differences may bring to society.

As an example, in the aftermath of the Little India riot, some Singaporeans gave out free ice-cream to foreign workers. This gesture of goodwill and empathy helped to ameliorate the tension created by the riot, highlighting MOS Sim’s point about how an empathetic society can deal better with differences. However, the incident may not have happened if immigration policy (the agent) had been tighter. Thus, apart from agonising over how to deal with the differences induced by loose immigration policy, it is also pertinent to evaluate the net social benefit of the policy. If the net social benefit is negative, it might be wiser to make adjustments to the policy to prevent possible negative differences. Although this example simplifies the evaluation process, it is useful in highlighting the importance of analysing both the agents of change and the process of dealing with differences.

Additionally, it is critical to recognise the changes to which emergent differences are linked. To recognise these changes, one first needs to identify the emergent differences. Prof. Chan’s suggested refinements to existing research methods would be useful here. He proposed that research should be approached in a more dynamic manner and has to be more evidence based. In particular, the use of ANOVA (analysis of variance) in empirical studies on social issues can reveal a wealth of information with the least of effort.

For example, variance analysis can uncover intra-group differences and prompt the researcher to look deeper and consider other non-conventional forms of categorisation like social identity profiles to account for those variations. The current focus on mean average analysis could reflect that categorising differences was simple in the past. Nonetheless, as our society becomes more differentiated, it might be useful to explore other statistical measurements. As Prof. Chan argued, in order to address emergent differences, there is a need to go beyond traditional and official groupings to examine new ways of grouping people in various contexts for various purposes.

In conclusion, both speakers spoke convincingly of the need for Singapore society to work together to harmonise our differences, and for research, policy and practice methods to evolve so that they would effectively capture the complexities that these differences add to our society. It is also worthwhile to take a step back and review our national policies on a timely basis so as to avoid sharpening unnecessary differences.

Chang Zhi Yang is a research assistant at the Institute of Policy Studies.

 

For more information on Singapore Perspectives 2014, please visit our IPS website.

Please also do check out the other articles on Singapore Perspectives 2014, including:
• Singapore Perspectives 2014: Opening Remarks by Janadas Devan
• SP 2014: Transcending Differences through the Arts? by Mohammad Khamsya
• SP 2014: Articulating Differences for an Evolving Nation: A Socio-Economic Perspective by Sarjune Ibrahim
• SP 2014: Literature and Empathy: Understanding Differences by Zhou Rongchen
• SP2014: Contestation versus Consensus: which is a more constructive force? by Teo Jin Ye