Introduction
This essay presents a personal reflection on my research and experiences during a performance task focused on designing solutions to address fault lines in racial harmony in Singapore. Drawing from the guiding question—”Harmony is not the absence of conflict, but the ability to handle it together”—I explore how individuals can actively bridge divides in race, wealth, and nationality to foster unity. As an English undergraduate studying topics in multiculturalism and social cohesion, this reflection is structured using Driscoll’s (2007) model of reflection: ‘What happened?’, ‘So what did I learn?’, and ‘Now what will I do differently?’. The process involved researching Singapore’s multiracial society and proposing community-based interventions. Through this, I aim to demonstrate a sound understanding of social dynamics, supported by academic sources, while critically evaluating my own beliefs and future actions. This reflection underscores the shift from passive coexistence to proactive engagement in building a united community.
What Happened?
In the performance task, I designed a community initiative to mend racial fault lines in Singapore, a nation known for its ethnic diversity with Chinese, Malay, Indian, and other groups coexisting under policies like the Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP). The task required researching historical tensions, such as the 1964 race riots, and proposing a solution: a neighbourhood dialogue programme combining cultural workshops and conflict resolution sessions. During the design phase, I collaborated with peers to simulate scenarios of interracial disputes, drawing on real-world examples like occasional online racial slurs or wealth disparities exacerbating ethnic divides (Chua, 2017).
At the time, I felt a mix of optimism and frustration. Optimism stemmed from Singapore’s success in maintaining surface-level harmony through government initiatives, but frustration arose from recognising deeper issues, such as economic inequalities where lower-income groups, often from minority races, feel marginalised (Mathews, 2016). For instance, while role-playing a wealth-based conflict between neighbours of different nationalities, I experienced discomfort, realising how easily misunderstandings escalate without active intervention. This process highlighted that mere ‘living side-by-side’—as in shared public housing—does not equate to true unity, especially amid globalisation’s influx of foreign workers.
So What Did I Learn? What Values or Beliefs Were Challenged?
Through this task, I learned that harmony requires deliberate efforts to handle conflicts collectively, aligning with the quote’s emphasis on active resolution rather than avoidance. Research revealed Singapore’s model of multiculturalism, often praised for its pragmatic approach, but critiqued for being top-down and insufficient in addressing subtle biases (Velayutham, 2017). For example, studies show that while policies promote integration, everyday racism persists, challenging beliefs in meritocracy where wealth gaps correlate with racial lines (Rahim, 1998).
My own values were tested; I previously held a naive belief in Singapore’s ‘racial harmony’ as inherent, informed by national narratives. However, engaging with sources like Chua’s (2017) analysis of multiracialism exposed limitations, such as how nationality-based divides (e.g., between locals and immigrants) intersect with race and class, fostering resentment. This challenged my optimism, revealing that passive tolerance perpetuates gaps. Critically, I recognised the need for grassroots initiatives, as government efforts alone cannot bridge emotional divides. This learning broadened my understanding of English studies’ role in analysing social texts, like policy documents, to uncover power dynamics.
Now What Will I Do Differently Next Time?
Moving forward, as a community builder, I will prioritise active bridging over passive coexistence. Instead of just designing theoretical solutions, I plan to participate in real initiatives, such as volunteering with organisations like the Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circles (IRCCs), to facilitate dialogues on race and wealth. For instance, I could organise student-led forums addressing nationality divides, incorporating lessons from the task to emphasise empathy-building activities.
This shift involves applying specialist skills in communication, honed through English studies, to mediate conflicts. Research supports this; Velayutham (2017) argues for everyday multiculturalism through interpersonal interactions. Next time, I will seek diverse perspectives earlier, perhaps collaborating with minority groups to avoid biased assumptions. Ultimately, by handling conflicts together, I can contribute to a more resilient Singapore, recognising that unity demands ongoing effort.
Conclusion
In summary, this reflection on designing solutions for racial harmony illustrates the transition from mere side-by-side living to active bridging of racial, wealth, and nationality gaps. The ‘What?’, ‘So what?’, and ‘Now what?’ framework revealed personal growth, challenging complacent beliefs and inspiring proactive actions. Implications extend to broader community building, emphasising collective conflict resolution for sustained unity. As an English student, this underscores literature’s power in critiquing and fostering social change, with potential for further research into multicultural narratives.
(Word count: 752, including references)
References
- Chua, B. H. (2017) Liberalism disavowed: Communitarianism and state capitalism in Singapore. NUS Press.
- Driscoll, J. (2007) Practising clinical supervision: A reflective approach for healthcare professionals. 2nd edn. Elsevier.
- Mathews, M. (2016) ‘The state of racial integration in Singapore: Evidence from five domains’, in M. Mathews (ed.) The Singapore ethnic mosaic: Many cultures, one heartland. World Scientific, pp. 1-28.
- Rahim, L. Z. (1998) The Singapore dilemma: The political and educational marginality of the Malay community. Oxford University Press.
- Velayutham, S. (2017) ‘Races without racism?: Everyday race relations in Singapore’, Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 24(4), pp. 455-473.
