“Identity politics” is but a term invented by the dominant, so that they can push their agenda while others cannot.
So, when the late Tang Liang Hong, former Workers’ Party candidate, tried to seek fair treatment and preserve Chinese cultural and linguistic rights—not to promote supremacy or exclusion—he was accused of being a Chinese chauvinist and dabbling in “identity politics”, and was hounded out of the country.
But when the People’s Action Party (PAP) tried to win Chinese votes in Malaysia during our short merger, its own members, including the current batch, would deny that it was dabbling in “identity politics”, but, on the contrary, was trying to pursue a race-blind policy.
Instead, it was the ruling coalition, in particular, United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), and to a lesser extent, the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA), which accused the PAP of playing up “identity politics”, and hounded it out of Malaysia.
Now that the PAP is the dominant political party here, it has never failed to bring up “identity politics” to defend its policies, especially when they are difficult to defend on merit.
So, when Mr Leong Mun Wai of the Progress Singapore Party keeps bringing up the influx of foreign workers, because they unfairly drive down local wages but increase corporate profits, as well as drive up the cost of living, he is accused of sowing the “us-them” divide.
The thing about human beings is that they like to do unto others because they think they are right, precisely what they will not let others do unto them because they think they are wrong. Talk about hypocrisy.
To be fair, race and religion are very sensitive topics.
But shutting out public discourse is not the solution; it will just make the topics even more sensitive. Instead, there should be more public discussion—in the press, on TV, or in some safe settings, even on social media—so long as no one explicitly exhorts violence. In time to come, race and religion will become less sensitive, but bottling them up is just going to make them explosive.
Even so, people seldom resort to mass violence and destruction unless they have been systematically oppressed and pushed to the limit. When violence happens, it is usually because they were instigated, or even orchestrated, by external forces.
For example, there is strong evidence that the 1964 Communal Riots were instigated by UMNO in retaliation for the PAP rousing “identity politics” up north.
Since Independence, the PAP has a record of shutting down free expression and imposing its will on the people, because they have the power and because they think they are right (which is subjective), leading to a very oppressive society that hinders human growth.
If Singapore is to further progress, beyond the material aspects, the PAP has to stop using “identity politics”, fear, and other bogeymen to control the people, and instead let them blossom in an environment of honesty, transparency, and freedom.
The post The politics of “Identity”: Power, hypocrisy, and control appeared first on The Online Citizen.
