An examination of the lived experiences of malaysian chinese in singapore and the functional importance of their diasporic spaces

Singapore has often been perceived by many Malaysian Chinese as a nation which can offer them the opportunity to break-free from the constraints of their “state-imposed” and “sanctioned

Chapter One

Introduction and Background

1.1 Illuminating the Malaysian Chinese in Singapore

Malaysian Chinese are numerically the largest among all of Singapore’s varied transnational ethnic groups Existing literature on Malaysian Chinese migrants

in Singapore has often presented these Malaysians as sharing a similar cultural and historical background with their Singaporean counterparts as both are united not only geographically but have also collectively undergone a common colonial historyi The influx of Malaysian Chinese to Singapore could be observed since the island-state gained independence in 1965 This may be attributed to both the “push” factors for Malaysian Chinese in the rise of Malay nationalism in Malaysia and “pull” factors of better employment and educational opportunities in Singapore (Iredale, 2003)

Singapore has often been perceived by many Malaysian Chinese as a nation which can offer them the opportunity to break-free from the constraints of their

“state-imposed” and “sanctioned national traditions” (Kritz, 1992; Leventman, 1982) formed out of Malay culture in their native Malaysia (Nonini, 1997)ii The idea of examining the concept of identity and adjustments of Malaysian Chinese in Singapore has often been considered as “superfluous” primarily because they have been assumed to be “culturally similar” to Singaporeans and not just Singaporean Chinese, mainly because these Malaysian Chinese have garnered knowledge in certain languagesiii, consumption habits and values (Chong, 1993) Another reason why Malaysian Chinese have been considered to be “attached” to Singaporeans is that many have married Singaporeans or have been awarded the status of permanent residency in the island-state, thus depicting their status as “eventual Singaporeans” or

as “Singaporeans in waiting” (Chong, 1993: 15)

However, I propose that the Malaysian Chineseiv in Singapore have to be problematized as a “diasporic community” as just like other migrants to the island-state, they are essentially characterized by “purposive and predominantly reluctant dispersal away from their homeland” and possessed a collective “diaspora-consciousness” in which they identify themselves as migrants with a “common memory” of their homelandv (Cohen and Vertovec, 1999: 293) Migrants in host societies that are culturally similar to their own have often been perceived to be more successful in adjusting to residing in a new environment (Cohen and Vertovec, 1999:294) However, they are nevertheless predisposed to a sense of “diaspora yearning” whereby they are inclined to conceive of the desirability of returning to their homeland (Clifford, 1999:21) which constitutes their place of birth, citizenship and in which their primary kin are located (Tan, 2005:120) Moreover, it is also imperative to examine if the Malaysian Chinese in Singapore are fundamentally

“localized” and have perceived themselves as an undistinguished segment of the populace of their host society (Lam, 2000: 2) It may also be imperative to ascertain if they are essentially actualizing the “counter resistance” of transmigrants who are both adamant in not conceiving themselves as being a part of their host societyvi and subsequently refused immersion in the culture of a nation in which they do not identify with (Lam, 2000: 3)

The issue of identity for these migrants must also be examined in conjunction with their respective lived experiences and their negotiation of a possible “collective identity” (Heidt, 1987: 70) with their fellow counterparts or the possibility that they may organized themselves as “non- amalgamated” groups of migrants with

differentiated identities which are open to “permanent revision” in that they will almost certainly undergo constant change in their sense of self (Heidt, 1987: 6)

1.2 Objectives of thesis

The initial goal of this thesis is to investigate how Malaysian Chinese in Singapore construct their identity and perceive of the values and ways of life of Singaporeans This illumination of the manners in which Malaysian Chinese conduct their lives in Singapore may also facilitate the uncovering of their internal valuation and up-keeping of their identity and values so as to articulate their uniqueness and accentuate their dissimilarities with a society often perceived as no different from their homeland

The results of these investigations will be expected to guide the researcher to the next goal of the research, which is to examine if there is a presence and existence

of a Malaysian Chinese diasporic space in Singapore, initiated and maintained by these migrants This is because existing literature on the importance of diasporic spaces have largely dealt with the importance of these spaces for migrants with varied abilities to adjust to their host society and with different levels of identification with their host’s society It may thus be useful to investigate if these different levels of identification and coping amongst these migrants may lead to their different levels of attachment to any potential diasporic spaces for Malaysian Chinese in Singapore

1.3 Highlighting the concepts of “diasporic space”

The concept of diasporic space, in this case, would entail all the “possible arenas of congregation” (Radhakrishnan, 1996:41) in which the members of the particular migrant group may come together and interact with each other in a platform

which is segregated and enclosed with restrictions to outsiders While research on the functional importance of diasporic spaces frequented by migrants is extremely scarce

in Singapore, research on diasporic spaces in other societies has mostly described the significance of these diasporic spaces as crucial arenas for migrants who have problems adjusting to their host society, who cannot identify with the fundamental values and cultures of their host nation, who are keen to preserve their identity and culture amidst the influence of cultural elements from their host society and for migrants who have been marginalized or stigmatized by members of their host society (Dijker, 2007: 26) The spaces thus offer a platform for the migrants to shield themselves from the “glare of the host society” (Dijker, 2007:30), as an outlet for them to share their collective experiences with their compatriots facing the same problems, as an arena where the migrants may offer support and launch certain projects and activities for the diasporic group to achieve their objectives and as an important area to retain their cultural tenets and continuously engage in activities synonymous with their nation (Pang, 2000: 185) It is thus imperative to evaluate if these seemingly “culturally similar” migrants may maintain such diasporic spaces for the reasons and motives revealed by existing researchers on the functional importance

of diasporic spaces

1.4 Methodology

For the purpose of this survey, I have chosen to adopt the qualitative method

of semi-structured interviewing in an attempt to elicit free-ranging and potentially highly descriptive responses from my respondents about their experiences of living in Singapore 50 informants were solicited for this survey with an equal distribution of

25 male and 25 female respondents, all of whom have lived in Singapore for at least a yearvii Purposive sampling was initiated to seek out Malaysian Chinese respondents who have stayed in Singapore for at least a year and who are holding on to working permits, students passes and those who have obtained Singaporean permanent residency status Face-to-face interviews were selected as an effective form of interview as it not only produces the highest form of response rate and allows the interviewer to readily address any concerns and doubts the respondents may have as compared to other forms of interview methods (Herzog, 1996: 116) My initial informants were known contacts while subsequent informants were solicited through snowball sampling from the referrals of these initial contacts

Attempts were also made to ensure that there is a relatively equal distribution

in the ages of my core respondents with 40% of the informants (n=20) being teenagers and young adults (ages 15-30), 36% (n=18) being working adults and middle aged respondents (ages 31-54) and 24% (n=12) of the informants being older adults (ages 55 and above)

Half of the respondents (n=25) are married and almost half of this group of respondents have revealed that their spouses are Singaporeans Most of the informants are permanent residents (n=31), while those with student passes (n=10) and work permits (n=9) forming the rest of the respondents Nine of the informants have resided in Singapore for between 1-3 years, 15 have been in the island-state for 4-6 years, 13 have been here for 7-9 years while 13 of the informants have been in Singapore for more than 10 years In terms of the occupational status of the informants, 14 are students from secondary schools, junior colleges and tertiary

institutions, six are home-makers, four are retirees, eleven are blue-collar workers or workers in the service industry and 15 are white-collar workers and professionals The informants selected were interviewed regarding their identity associations, their lived experiences as migrants in Singapore, their capacity to adapt and adjust to living in Singapore and their opinion of Singaporeans and Singapore The interviews were conducted in English, Mandarin and Hokkien, with each interview conducted in the language which the particular informant prefers Consent was solicited from the informants to have their accounts recorded on tape The main difficulties encountered

in the interview process is the translation of certain interview transcripts from Mandarin and Hokkien to English and the lack of comprehension of certain informants who may espouse certain phrases in Malay and other Chinese dialects such as Cantonese which the interviewer is not familiar with Efforts were thus made

to request the informants to explain these phrases in a language which the interviewer understood

Upon the completion of the first stage of qualitative interviews, most of the informants have revealed their respective engagements in spaces where they could interact with other Malaysian-Chinese in Singapore It must be noted that access to a couple of these arenas was not possible due to their exclusivity to Malaysian Chinese and also the unwillingness of the informants to lead the researcher into these sites While many of the informants have no issues reflecting their experiences and opinions of these diasporic sites to me (due to my ability to converse fluently in Mandarin, the language of choice for many of these informants), they have expressed reluctance in inviting me to these sites mainly because of their expressed lack of trust

in a researcher whom some feared may be merely interested in commenting solely on the negative aspects of their engagement in these sites Moreover, the revelation of

my identity as a Singaporean Chinese (usually from my clear Singaporean-accented Mandarin) has led some of the informants to suspect or to be wary of me as what some deemed as a “Singaporean undercover agent” tasked to opined negatively on Malaysian Chinese and their lifestyle habits in Singapore As a result, information about these “diasporic locales” are garnered solely from the interviews and anecdotal accounts offered by the informants However, access to certain sites was attained through the help of certain informants and also the personal connection between the researcher and some of the participants in these sites It may also be noted that access

to these sites are easier as they are located in the public setting such as the open spaces near to a temple in Bugis and also in community centres and arcades which were essential diasporic spaces for some of the Malaysian youths surveyed

My initial decision as a researcher was to be a “complete observer” and to shield my identity from the individuals in these arenas and avoid making any forms of interaction with them to minimize any potential bias that may result from my presence (Hessebiber and Leavy, 2006: 246) However, I eventually decided to be a

“participant-as-observer” (Hessebiber and Leavy, 2006: 250) in the field sites which means that I would reveal my identity as a researcher and also interact and engage with the participants The main reason I have in not establishing myself as a

“complete observer” is that the role would not be able to “clarify the meanings and answer questions concerning things that are not readily understood by the researcher” (Hessebiber and Leavy, 2006: 246)

While some of the participants were initially skeptical and suspicious of me observing their activities and proceedings in the field sites due to concerns over my agenda as a non-Malaysian observer, the situation improved when I clarified myself

as an observer who was interested in understanding and recording the functions of their diasporic sites and have no desire to present them in a negative light (a chief concern for the majority of the informants) While I did not and was not asked to offer my opinion to any of the issues discussed in these spaces, my request to clarify the issues being discussed and some of the phrases espoused by the participants which was not clearly understood was met by either the participants or my known contact who introduced me to his diasporic group While tape and video recordings of these meetings were not permitted, I did manage to record the proceedings on a note-book which was permitted by the participants

1.5 Review of the literature

1.5 (i) Literature on the concept of diasporic spaces and diasporic spaces of migrants in Singapore

The fundamental significance offered to the meanings of “spaces” in the study

of migration and diaspora has often centered on the “familiarization of individuals with a territory in a specific locale and thus finding meaning in the territory” (Leach, 2005: 299) De Certeau (2002: 285) has also contexualized the crucial difference between “space” and “place” with the articulation that “space is essentially place made meaningful and awakened by practices that situates it” (De Certeau, 2002:299)

The primary features of a migrant diasporic space in a host society is also predicated upon the ideal that migrants are able to “perform” and “produce” certain forms of their desired identity in these spaces which are essentially “enclosed” and exclusive only to migrants with the same nationality (De Certeau, 2002: 301) Cohen (1997) has also posited that the majority of these migrants have voluntarily migrated, are aware

of their ethnic origins and possess a feeling of “empathy and solidarity” with “fellow ethnics” in these spaces (Cohen, 1997: 45)

The activities within these diasporic spaces may also be described as

“ritualistic” in nature in that they are often repeated and may even be “processual” so that the participants may recognize the “functions, proto-cols and expectations of the spaces and may then achieve a certain attachment to the space” (Leach, 2005: 301) The functionalities of these diasporic spaces have also been exemplified by certain researchers While some have argued that participants garnered a sense of

“belonging” and “group identity” while partaking in the activities within the diasporic space (Fortier, 1999: 45), other researchers have focused on associating the activities conducted within these spaces as a “mode of operation charged with a political efficacy” and which allow the participants to seek knowledge and power within their own migrant sub-group to cope with living in their host society (Bhabha, 1990:6)

Few studies have been conducted on the functional importance of diasporic spaces in Singapore and most in-depth studies of these migrant spaces in Singapore are conducted in the 1980s with few contemporary updates on these areas One study which was conducted in the 1980s illustrated the differences between Thai and Filipinos’ diasporic spaces in Singapore The study (Wong, 1984) revealed that while

the Filipinos gathered in huge groups (gathering of 10 or more Filipinos in a group is not uncommon) in their “diasporic centre” in Lucky Plaza and are made known of their meeting place from church contacts, the Thais gathered in smaller groups (usually just 3-5 individuals in each group) in their diasporic arena in Golden Mile complex and Golden Mile tower Newcomers to the Thai diasporic group were also informed usually by fellow Thais in their workplaces in the factories and on construction sites (Wong, 1984: 43) The report also revealed that the structure of the Thais’ diasporic space is build up from the numerous shops and agencies in the centers such as Thai travel agencies, restaurants, news-stands and music stalls which are aimed to offer a one-stop location for the Thais in Singapore to fulfill their daily needs (Wong, 1984: 44) While no study on the Malaysian-Chinese diasporic space in Singapore has been conducted, studies on these diasporic spaces frequented by other foreigners in Singapore have establish a key research issue of whether there exist a

“one-stop” diasporic locale for Malaysian-Chinese in Singapore It is thus imperative

to investigate if the diasporic spaces of Malaysian-Chinese are indeed differentiated from the rest due to the unique features of these migrants who are often judged to be almost “culturally similar” to Singaporeans (Lee et al, 2007)

1.5 (ii) Literature on the concept of assimilation and migrants’ adjustment

The central problem for many migrants has been the dilemma of having to negotiate the conflicting ideas and values of retaining their national identity and facing social ostracism in the process or to completely assimilate into their host’s nation and forgoing the preservation of their traditional values (Breakwell and Lyons, 1996:17) The process of assimilation is also not analogous across all sectors of

migrants While some may be seen as adopting the “cultural forms” of their host nation and at the same time cloak their ethnic identity underneath this “performative façade” (Glick, 1980:142), others may follow “the path of least effort” and become

“thoroughly assimilated” not just into the mainstream culture of their host nation but into the elemental values and norms of the inner city (Vertovec, 1999: 120) Many migrants have also been observed to forge and multi-stranded social relations with both individuals from their home nation and also those from their host societies (Basch, 1994) These individuals have been perceived as adjusting readily primarily because of their lack of staunch attachment to both their respective nation of birth and

to the host nation

The social psychologist, John Berry, has also proposed a useful framework to showcase the possible relationships between migrants and their host society He predicts that a migrant may be susceptible to the process of “acculturation” where the migrant explores relationships with other groups but maintain the cultural identity of his own ethnic or national group; “assimilation” when the migrant completely submerged his identity within the dominant society in his host nation; “segregation” when the migrant staunchly maintain his identity and maintain minimal relations with other members of his host society and “marginalization” when the migrant group loses its own identity but does not become part of the larger society (Van der veer, 1995: 5) It may thus be important to elucidate if the Malaysian Chinese in Singapore merely undergo the process of “assimilation” due to their seemingly comparable cultural and social characteristics as Singaporeans and undergo a process of “cultural

mixing” where they adopt aspects of their host culture and “rework and reform this in production of a new hybrid culture” (Chambers, 1994: 50)

Research on migration has also continuously pronounced the importance of

“cultural competence” in predicting whether a migrant would be able to be

“integrated” into his host’s society (Vischer, 1994: 18) Taft (1966) used the term to refer to the “potential ability of migrants to learn new culture and successes in adopting to the behavioural requirements of his host nation which may be evaluated

by a whole host of abilities including their ability to communicate with members of their host society” (Taft, 1966, 376) While the central notion of “cultural competency” is essentially vague, studies have revealed that some of its tenets have been useful in predicting migrants’ successes in being integrated into their host society For instance, a study on the lived experiences of migrants to Australia in the 1970s has revealed that there is a positive correlation between the migrants’ fluency

in English language and knowledge of the Australian slang and their satisfaction with life in the country (Hitchcock, 1992) While Malaysian Chinese in Singapore may be able to speak most languages frequently spoken in Singapore, it will be fundamental

to uncover if their accent or ways of communicating may affect their ability to adapt

to living in Singapore

The trajectory of assimilation may also be multi-faceted in terms of adoption” (Xu, 2000:14), with more affluent or the upper-middle class migrants’ potential gradual integration into the upper classes of his host society and the working class or “underclass” migrants adapting straight into the opposite direction of connectedness with their associated lower-class counterparts in their adopted nation

“class-(Xu, 2000:18) However, there have also been emerging reports which have directly problematized the notion of migrants’ ascription and adoption of “class’s values” and norms and instead posit that the concept of “nationality” to be a more salient and important factor than the precept of class in determining whether migrants are able to adjust to living in their host society For instance, a study has illuminated the problems of affluent and upper-class immigrants from Eastern Europe facing huge problems in assimilating into the “upper-class” structure of their host society (Brinker-Gabler and Smith, 1997) These affluent and rich migrants thus face numerous problems in communicating and socially interacting with the upper class residents in their host nation due to the notion that they are essentially “non-locals” and are correspondingly treated as “second-class” citizens (Brinkler-Gabler and Smith, 1997: 142)

Significantly, the failures of migrants to “assimilate” or adjust comfortably to living in their host nation have also been attributed to two major factors by scholars (Wickberg, 1994: 16) They are the migrants’ ethnic identity and the absence or presence of mobility ladders for these migrants to improve their socio-economic status in their host society For instance, researchers have argued that even when migrants adopt similar racial or ethnic features as the dominant race of their host nation just like the Malaysian Chinese in Singapore, particular character traits exclusive to their culture may be a major source of discrimination by the dominant group in their host society (Wong and Chan, 1998) One example offered by Roger Rouse (1991) was Mexican migrants from the United States facing huge problems in assimilating and adapting to the “lifestyles” and “mannerisms” of ethnic Mexicans in

Mexico due to the fact that these “American-based” Mexicans are unable to appreciate and acknowledge certain symbolic and cultural meanings of certain festivals exclusively celebrated by their counterparts born and bred in Mexico (Rouse, 1991: 68-70) The second factor, with regards to mobility ladders, stipulates that changes in the host economy may have resulted in the evaporation of mobility ladders for these trans-migrants who may be relegated to form the “backbone” of what remains of labor-intensive manufacturing in the cities (Reimers, 1992:180) These are niches which seldom allow the immigrants to be incorporated into the “core economy” of their host nation, thus possibly generating a common identity of the migrants as “second-class citizens” (Reimers, 1992: 185) It will thus be imperative to ascertain if the Malaysian Chinese who are facing problems adapting to Singapore may be of a certain profession or educational background which may hamper their ability to cope well with living in the island-state

A migrant’s attachment to his homeland has also been found to be staunchly re-affirmed even when he has resided in his host society for a sustained period of time

A crucial illustration of this could be witnessed through Hurh’s account of Korean

“old-timers” in America (Hurh, 1980) These individuals who have resided in America for a period of ten years or more have indicated that fundamental Korean values such as the strong sense of family priority, ethnic pride and the continuous maintenance of ties with Korean friends and kin in America are highly crucial in them retaining the values of their homeland and their ethnic-national community (Hurh, 1980: 456) This affirmation of ethnic identity and connectedness could be seen through the several “Korean affirming” activities in these spaces with the quest to

articulate certain characteristics of Korean culture Examples of these activities include the staging of ethnic Korean dances and the “dramatization” of Korean values through the mini- educational classes conducted in these premises which emphasize the adoption of certain elemental Korean principles such as “filial piety” and “stern deference to the commands of the senior members of each institutions in society” (Hurh, 1980:458) As the Malaysian Chinese are often perceived as being “largely similar” to most Singaporeans, it will be interesting to investigate if they would introduce similar measures to dramatize their national identity while in Singapore

1.5 (iii) Literature on Chinese identity and the Chinese community

The idea of the “Singaporean identity” superceding any staunch ethnic or racial individuality has been overtly presented by many scholars For instance, studies

on the identities of Chinese residing in Asia since the 1950s have pronounced that the traditionally rooted “Chinese community” has gradually disappeared (Cushman and Wang, 1988) This is attributed to the rise of rapid urban renewal and the development of ethnically integrated housing policies which have seemingly broken down the physical boundaries and spatial segregation of the ethnic Chinese races (Wang, 1991) While the attachment with Chinese from other nations remained strong, there have been indications that the collective Chinese identity amongst Singaporean Chinese has been diluted by the advent of “Western cultural invasion” and

“globalization” (Liang, 2004) These have essentially resulted in the Singaporean Chinese increasingly abandoning or neglecting their collective sense of national identity in favour of consuming cultural artifacts and engaging in social activities which considerably different from their forefathers (Liang, 2004: 126) This may

include their increasing preference to speak in English, being “less likely” to engage

in Chinese cultural activities and favouring Western commercial and popular entertainment programmes which promotes the self-serving individual, which is deemed as contrary to the traditional Chinese “citizen” who essentially “places others before self” and who is less individualistic (Parker, 1995: 200)

It has also been posited that the continual nation-building project by the People’s Action Party’s led government has essentially resulted in the majority of the Chinese and other minority citizens placing their ethnic identities behind their national identity The success of this project has fundamentally resulted in the “partial dissolution” of a fervent and “impassioned” idealization and acknowledgement of Singaporeans’ adherence and ascription to their ethnic sense of self (Suryadinata, 2007:125) There have also been findings which supported the notion of “national-trait enclosures” experienced by migrant groups who are currently attempting to adapt

to living in Singapore These “trait-enclosures” primarily affect migrants who are not only primarily “culturally-dissimilar” to Singaporeans but also migrants from neighbouring nations such as Indonesia and Malaysia who have often been perceived

as closely-related to Singaporeans These migrants are unable to accustom themselves

to what has been regarded as the “unique Singapore traits” (Suryadinata, 2007:186) which include speaking in “Singlish” and being fundamentally pragmatic and “overly

competitive” (Han, 1999)

The key ethnic identification of older Chinese Malaysians have predominantly been derived from their sense of China as a homeland and that traditional Chinese practices such as observing respects to their ancestors who hailed from mainland

China are fundamental in their enactment of their “sense of Chinese-ness” (Nonini, 1997) Younger Malaysian Chinese, however, may be inclined to observe a

“disembedding of place” (Nonini, 1997) in that China and their homeland have become unimportant in their sense of “Chinese-ness” The negativity associated with Chinaviii (Nonini, 1997) may have potentially led these younger Malaysians to identify with the “uniqueness of Chinese in Singapore”, that is an identification with

an embedding of Chineseness with their national belonging (sense of Malaysian Chinese or Singaporean Chinese) as opposed to being “China Chinese” Regretfully, the dearth of literature on the lived experiences of Malaysian Chinese in past and contemporary times in Singapore has proved to be an obstacle for current researchers

to delineate the quotidian attitudes of the contemporary group of Malaysian Chinese migrants from their counterparts who have migrated to Singapore in past generationsix

Contemporary literature has also claimed that Chinese in the 20th century are increasingly given the freedom to select their attachment to their “Chinese label” or to their nationality (Carlier, 2003:156) There have also been reports which posit that newer “generations” of ethnic Chinese migrants may be awarded more leverage than their older counterparts in choosing which particular Chinese identity to adopt They may be awarded the opportunity to selectively ascribe to the ethnic identity of the Chinese from their home nation, the Chinese society which they are migrating to or even adapt to a “hybrid” racial identity of both societies (Carlier, 2003:254) This ability to achieve a certain sense of “fluidity” in identity’s ascription by these migrants is often linked to the suggestion that these migrants are “less entrenched or

beholden” to the particular ethnic identity either reflected in their “home” societies or

in their “host societies” (Carlier, 2003:260)

This suggestion may also be conceived from the standpoint that a strong or particular ethnic identity may be superceded by the force of a “global or cosmopolitan identity” (Chong, 1993) which offers more opportunities for international citizens to interact to the extent that there is a “significant dissolution and blurring of any fixed sense of ethnic sense of self deemed exclusive to any group” (Chong, 1993: 254) Correspondingly, there is also an emerging concern that the “traditional Chinese practice” of conforming staunchly to the “familial, caste and staunchly male dominated father-son dyad” in these more “globalized” states in Asia, such as Singapore, may be impacted by the gradual adoption of the “more Western-centric” social focus which emphasizes on one placing increasing importance on “external relations” and also advocating the “husband-wife” dyad which diminishes the overriding control of the traditional male bread-winner (Clammer, 1985: 60) It would

be interesting to explore if the Malaysian Chinese in Singapore align or detach themselves from their conceptions of the “Chinese values and traditions” ascribed to

by the different segments of Singaporean Chinese

1.5 (iv) Comparative studies on the ethnic similarities and differences between Malaysian Chinese and Singaporean Chinese

Singapore is essentially a city-state of dominantly but not exclusively Chinese population, while its government is made up of officials from the key racial groups present in the nation, although there are significantly more Chinese ministers due to their dominant presence in the island-state (Loh, 1981) The challenge to Singaporean

leaders has often been to cope “politically and culturally with not only the significant presence of Malays and Indians but that of the different varieties of Chinese in the country” (Loh, 1981) Thus, while the dominant Chinese has often been regarded almost as an amalgamated whole, the elemental differences between the various Chinese dialect groups in the nation needs to be illuminated in order to offer a fair depiction of the variegated distinctiveness of the Chinese community in the nation (Loh, 1981)

As compared to Singapore, Malaysia is a society where Chinese constitute the minority instead of majority populace in the nation However, the two nations shared distinct similarities in that no singular distinct ethno-linguistic Chinese subgroup but

a plethora of dialect groups is predominant in each state (Loh, 1982) Moreover, the process of cultural adaptation of these Malaysian Chinese migrants could be regarded

as being facilitated through the notion of “urban-urban” transfer in that the majority

of Malaysian Chinese who reside in urban districts in their homeland may avoid the pitfalls associated with rural-urban transition to a nation which is hundred- percent urbanized (Loh, 1982) By migrating to a state which are majority Chinese, the Malaysian Chinese transnational may also appear to be transiting from a nation in which their comparative economic success and entrepreneurial drive may provoked resentment among the dominant group in the nation which are the Malaysx (Kee, 2005) to a nation which often cite these very ostensibly Chinese traits as the fundamental attributes which ensure the success of the nation and its development to

a first-world enterprise (Kee, 2005)

The central structure of the Chinese diasporic space in a migrant land has often been associated and linked to the “Chinatown business system” (Levy, 1996) in that this arena is often the “go-to” place for new Chinese migrants and most have stayed within this “central base” to conduct their business activities and to build up their community networks (Levy, 1996) The Malaysian Chinese migrants to Singapore historically constituted a broad spectrum of individuals with a majority arriving in Singapore to seek employment and education instead of being solely entrepreneurs (Nonini: 1997) Moreover, as the majority of the individuals in the nation are Chinese, there is little need for these migrants to source out a particular arena or diasporic space whereby migrants who have various problems of adjustments are prone to congregate in

The need to maintain the essential Chinese linguistic and cultural identity have been a perennial pre-occupation for Chinese migrants who emphasized the strict maintenance of ethnic “principles” (Iredale, 2003:17) The concern has often been centered on young Chinese migrants who are increasingly perceived as readily accepting the economic opportunities awarded to them by their host nations and in the process, gradually increasing their social relations with non-Chinese (Iredale, 2003:148) While the Malaysian Chinese migrants to Singapore will predominantly interact with the dominant Chinese in Singapore, it is important to uncover their response towards the “Western-centric and the perceived cultural adoption of Western values” by Singaporeans as a whole (Lee et al, 2007: 18)

Most Chinese residing in Malaysia have often been lauded for their staunch upholding of particular Chinese dispositions such as ambition, diligence and

enterprising spirit (Ling, 1988: 125) While Malaysian Chinese are often conscious of their adoption of universal Chinese traits which include the tolerance and pugnacity displayed by their forefathers in their survival quests in foreign landsxi (Ling, 1988:90), many have also advocated the ostensibly Malaysian Chinese trait of the

“moderate and non-extreme individual” which emphasizes the “exercise of control to a proper degree without being overly ambitious or proud” (Ling, 1988: 119)

self-The political influence of the MCA in Malaysia, as part of the ruling coalition

of ‘Barisan Nasional’, has also attempted to shape Malaysian Chinese consciousness

to primarily adopt their national identity, rather than their ethnic identity, as evident from the support of then Prime Minister, Dr Mahathir Mohammed’s vision of Bangsa Malaysia which advocated a “collective sense of communal language ascribed to by all the races in the nation” (Ling, 1988:91) This goal of ensuring all Malaysians, including Malaysian Chinese, in identifying primarily with their nation is supported through the philosophical principle envisioned by the Malaysian government which stresses the need to build up a meritocratic system that promotes creativity, excellence and hard work (Alattas, 1998) The creation of national pride and emotions

by the Chinese community in Malaysia has been astutely manufactured by projecting the ruling authorities as catering to the fundamental needs of the Chinese community The government has promised that there would be “complete freedom in their religious practices” and the continual maintenance of Chinese schools from the Primary level to tertiary levelxii (Alattas, 1998)

Language has also been espoused as a key national identity marker for Malaysian Chinese, particularly in response to the often-perceived notion of their similarities to Singaporeans The majority of Malaysian Chinese are well-versed in Bahasa Malaysia due to the compulsory learning of the language in most government schools while the majority of Singaporean Chinese are unable to understand the language (Nonini, 1997:124) Moreover, certain terms of address and phrases are also exclusive to the knowledge of Malaysian Chinese and together with their accent, have been acknowledged to be fundamental in them “differentiating” from Singaporean Chinese (Kee, 2005:126) However, there has been a general dearth in literature exploring the usage of language and collective accent as an important source of identity-marker for Malaysian Chinese in Singapore

A major difference between the Chinese in Malaysia and Singapore is the potentiality for Malaysians to be more “community-centered” than Singaporeans and

to possess a “stronger sense of loyalty to their ethnic community” as their sense of national identity has been hampered by their perceived lack of equality rendered to them as citizens of Malaysia (Wang, 2004:18) Singaporeans, on the other hand, may possess a “clearer sense of national identity with reference to a globalizing world” and its seemingly more successful nation-building policies may have ensured that the

“local” and the “national” may be less “distinguishable” for Singaporeans and thus result in Singaporeans being less reliant on their adherence to “Chinese-based traditions” (Wang, 2004: 22) In short, it can be argued that Singaporean Chinese are more disposed to identify with their nation ahead of their ethnicity due to their greater beliefs in their government’s ability to secure equality for all races in the nation as

compared to Malaysia, where there is a greater need for the Chinese to exert their racial and community identity in the quest to elevate their current “secondary” status

as Malaysian citizens behind the dominant Malays (Suryadinata, 1997: 181) The Malaysian Chinese cultural and social attributes are also thought to be more variegated than their Singaporean counterparts which have often been labeled as a

“homogeneous group” due partly to the state-led initiatives to prevent the polarization

of the Chinese by advocating the “Speak Mandarin’s Campaign” and for banning the use of dialects on the majority of local media programmes Besides being more heterogeneous due to a greater capacity to actualize their dialect identities, the Malaysian Chinese are also citizens of different Malaysian states which may have vastly different customs and “localized norms” (Okposin and Cheng, 2000: 84)

1.5 (v) Literature on transmigration and transmigrants

Transnationalism has often been defined as a process through which immigrants develop and maintain multiple social relations that link together their societies of origin and of resettlement (Jackson et.al, 2004: 126) The daily life of these transnational migrants is often based on multiple and constant interconnections that transcend international borders There have also been arguments which state that the term “transmigrant” should only apply to people who actually commute across national borders on a regular basis, chiefly for professional or political reasons (Jackson et al, 2004:128).“Transnational migration” has also been depicted as a pattern of migration in which persons, although they move across international borders settles and establishes social relations in a new state, maintain social connections within the polity from which they originate (Jackson et al, 2004: 130)

Thus in terms of transnational migration, individuals literally live their lives across international borders

According to Glick Schiller (Schiller, 1997), the term “transmigrant” should only apply to “people who claim and are claimed by two or more nation-states, into which they are incorporated as social actors, one of which is widely acknowledged as their state of origin” (Schiller, 1997: 158) Transnational migration has also been implied through the continuing participation in the economy, politics and social organization of one’s state of origin while, at the same time, being more or less fully involved in one’s country of adoption (Schiller, 1997: 160) There have been suggestions that those migrants who travel to states in close proximity to their home nation, such as Malaysians who travel to Singapore, would be awarded more opportunities to be “successful” trans-migrants in that while contributing to the economy and industrial development of their host society, the close geographical linkages with their home societies have often been regarded as crucial in them being kept informed with the contemporary happenings in their home nations (Nonini, 1997) It must be contemplated if the migrants from Malaysia are essentially experiencing a form of “international migration” where they experienced “marked shifts in culture and relatively permanent separation from friends and family” (Nonini, 1997: 3) as many literature has already showcased that Malaysians and Singaporeans shared many similar cultural values and Malaysian migrants in Singapore have been known to regularly travel back to their hometowns due to the close proximity between the two nations (Lee et al, 2007: 67)

Moreover, the experiences of these migrants with citizens of their host society may not be treated simply as an “atypical migrant-host” relationship whereby it is often depicted as a “confrontation of two cultures, each providing more-or-less consistent “rules of behaviours” (Scott and Scott, 1989: 14) as the similarities between the two in this case presents the Malaysian Chinese migrants as a seemingly unique and atypical group of migrants in the island-state Another source of consideration in classifying Malaysian Chinese migrants in Singapore as compared to other migrants may be their potential evolution from being considered as fundamentally “inferior migrants” who took on menial jobs or professions shunned

by citizens of their host society to “elite migrants” who are perceived as “esteemed expatriates” or valued as skilled workers (Scott and Scott, 1989: 5)

Chapter 2

The Malaysian Chinese in Singapore:

Identity, adaptation and perceptions of Singaporeans

2.1 Representative model of the Malaysian Chinese migrants in Singapore

The conscious experiences of Malaysian Chinese in Singapore and their concept of identity could be solicited from their attitude and reaction towards their perceived concept of “Singaporean values and lifestyle” and their level of adaptation and adjustment to living in a state often regarded as “largely similar” to their own From the analysis of the results of the survey, certain Malaysian Chinese interviewed have overtly expressed that they are able to adjust or adapt to living in Singapore while there are also informants who have voiced their discomfort and inability to do

so Amongst these two groups of informants, there are also differing views with regards to their opinions of their respective notions of Singaporeans and values and fundamentals attributed to Singaporeans

From the matrix presented below, the analysis of the survey results has illuminated various sub-groups of Malaysian Chinese in Singapore, according to their respective opinions on their ability to adjust to living in Singapore and their conception of Singaporeans’ values and characteristics While most of the informants surveyed have expressed their inclination or detachment from the concepts of their notion of values and lifestyles attributed to Singaporeans and have revealed their respective abilities to adapt to Singapore’s society, there is a group of Malaysian Chinese whom I have termed “neutral goal-getters” who have stressed that they have little problem adapting to Singapore and have also described their roles as “neutral citizens” who are not beholden to their notions of Singaporean and Malaysian’s values and characteristics

The respective sub-groups of Malaysian Chinese in Singapore illuminated from the surveys will be further deliberated in the analysis below

2.2 The “Malaysian-Singaporeans”

While most research on migrants and trans-nationals have often centered on the migrants’ inability to adapt completely to living in their host society and have drawn on the need for the migrants to preserve their intricate identities, few literature has dealt on migrants adopting a seemingly harmonious “dual-identity” which downplays the legacy of citizenship and blurred the clear demarcation of “homeland” and “migrant land” The group of Malaysian Chinese in Singapore who have largely termed themselves as “Malaysian-Singaporeans” have emphasized the “artificiality”

of citizenship categorizations They have mostly defined their personal sense of citizenship in terms of their identification and affective relationship with their nation

of birth and the nation in which they are currently residing in For many of them, the idea that their citizenship is spelt out as Malaysians in their identity card is essentially

an “artificial construction” in that they disagree that they should be labeled as solely Malaysians in accordance to their place of birth by the Malaysian government They have also revealed that they conceive themselves as both “Malaysians and

Singaporeans” in their personal consciousness as they felt that they could identify with and adapt to living in both nations and they have also claimed that they love both nations equally Thus, they have acknowledged their individuality as not just physically administered by the state but also consciously achieved through “affective identification”xiii with their host society

These “Malaysian-Singaporeans” are predominantly Malaysian Chinese who have stayed in urban areas and have expressed that living in Singapore is not much different from the hustle and bustle of city life which they are familiar with This group of informants is also predominantly schooled in English medium schools and is generally below the age of 40 The majority of them have also revealed that they live

in Johor, the Malaysian state closest in proximity to Singapore Many of these Johoreans may be evaluated as migrants potentially with “ambiguous identities” in that they are “similarly pulled” both ways culturally and geographically by their country of current residence and their nation of birth (Ng and Wee, 1994:14) With their relative ease in crisscrossing both nations and readier access to information and knowledge of both nations, they may thus be more inclined to experience a “plurality

of life worlds” in identifying readily with the “social worlds”xiv of both nations (Ng and Wee, 1994: 16)

There is also an indication from an earlier piece of research which posits that a difference in the different level of “acculturation” amongst Malaysian migrants in a foreign state could be linked to their spatial inhabitation, the type of education received and their age (Loh, 1982) Most informants who have identified themselves

as “Malaysian Chinese” have revealed that as English is the main language of

communication in the island-state, their training in English-based private schools in Malaysia has enabled them to communicate relatively non-problematically in Singapore while their lack of knowledge in the Chinese language has not been a problem with the majority of Singaporeans being fluent in English Moreover, a couple of these “Malaysian-Singaporeans” have also expressed an affinity with an increasing number of Singaporeans who are seemingly weak in their mother tonguesxv:

We speak in English all the time, is used to the system of education which enforced an English medium of instruction and at the same time we are like the majority of Singaporean who are unable to speak well in their mother tongues

We are like the majority of Singaporeans who believe in the mantle of

“working hard and playing hard” and being overly competitive is good as it ensures

that you succeed Unlike most Malaysian Chinese, we believe that the attainment and accumulation of material goods are the real indication with satisfaction in life

(Tammy, self-employed)

A couple of Malaysian Chinese has also remarked that residing in Singapore

is relatively comfortable for them due to the perception of an associational link with the majority of Singaporean Chinese who are not as “religiously-bound” as the

“typical” Malaysian Chinese This corresponds with existing reports which have stressed on the “secular shift” among younger Malaysian Chinese who have professed

a lack of “fervent religious beliefs” as compared to their older counterparts (Loh, 1981) The majority of “Malaysian-Singaporeans” who are young schooling or working adults have expressed that a fundamental attachment with Singapore’s secularism stems from their wish to escape the “extreme religiosity” of their parents and older counterparts in subscribing to the “rigidities” of and “enchantment” of predominantly Chinese religious beliefs:

I felt closer with the Singaporean Chinese as most of them are not so “crazy” over Buddhist’s or Taoist’s practices like having a huge altar, visiting the temple every week and making sure all of us go through the Buddhist scripts It is tiring

The notion of escape for the Malaysian Chinese from their “cultural precepts”

is also an opportunity for female Malaysian Chinese to ascribe to the lifestyle and principles of their notion of the “typical” Singaporean women These informants have voiced out that although Malaysia is a progressive society, the general dictates of patriarchy is still relatively dominant in the structuring of the familial order This is associated with the findings of recent studies of Malaysian Chinese households which still advocated “female conformity” and women’s contribution to the “harmony” of the household by being a “helpful domestic servant” (Kee, 2005) The perceived inferiority of the women is advocated through an underlying pressure on them to be subservient to men in the decision-making process in the household while being discouraged from being independent in securing her economic security without the aid of men (Kee, 2005) Many informants have indicated a preference for living in Singapore due to the perception that it is a society which has allowed greater freedom and independence for women as expressed through the account of this female informantxvii:

I felt that being in Singapore is much better as women here will not be criticized if they chose not to get married and won’t be labeled negatively if she is not

a housewife (Jiawei, production officer)

This group of migrants has also adopted a “non-differentiated” characterization of Malaysians and Singaporeans with the promulgation of their ease and seemingly easy transition to living in Singapore They claimed to be adept at communicating with most Singaporeans, inclusive of non-Chinese, due to their abilities to converse in Malay, a trait which they regard as a sign of them being more

exposed to multi-cultural living than Singaporeans as illustrated from the accounts of this informant:

We are very comfortable in talking to Singaporeans of all races as we learned Malay in Malaysia and so we can talk to older Singaporean Indians and Malays who may only know how to speak Malay (Peter, sales coordinator)

Besides this perceived edge over the majority of Singaporeans, Singaporeans” have also expressed their ease in adapting to the Singaporean educational and industrial “system” which they have regarded as almost similar to the Malaysian model:

“Malaysian-The education system is like the one in Malaysia as we all learned about the same subjects The only difference is that we learned it in Malay back home However, it’s only an issue of “re-programming” the language not the content, so it is alright for the students (Rachel, junior college student)

The work “system” is also about the same About the same time knock-off and same kind of industrial procedures We feel very comfortable here (James, office

worker)

It may be worthwhile to note that these group of migrants who labeled themselves as “Malaysian-Singaporeans” are more pre-disposed to adopt their perceived notion of “Singaporean values” and living habits and have illustrated the favouring of these envisioned “Singaporean traits” over their conception of inherently

“Malaysian values” They have also often offered a direct comparative depiction between what is known to them as “Malaysian values” and “Singaporean values” with the former often regarded as “less positive” than the latterxviii:

Singaporean values such as being hard-working, Kiasu (afraid to lose) and being pragmatic is good as this is one reason why they are so rich They are also very sacrificial when it comes to work, that’s a good mentality to follow in life Malaysians are more laid-back, lazier and less focused when it comes to work (James, office

worker)

This group of migrants has also revealed that their conception of “positive” Singaporean traits such as being pro-active in seeking material success, being assiduous in their work-ethic and their supposed balanced achievement of work-play are reinforced by both media portrayals and their personal experiences with Singaporeans:

We really admire Singaporean values such as being diligent and hardworking

as often reported in the newspapers and represented in movies about Singaporeans

In my contacts with Singaporeans, I have also admired their work ethic and have seen how hard they strive to succeed in everything (James, office worker)

This particular group of migrants may thus be represented as showcasing the

“dual-identity” of being Malaysian through birth or conferment and Singaporean through current place of residence and an “affective identification” and active adoption of its values and lifestyle habits:

We are Malaysians because we are born in Malaysia and we are conferred Malaysian citizenship by our state We are “Singaporeans” because we have adopted Singaporean values and lifestyle habits which are different from Malaysians Most Malaysians don’t always think about movies and consumption and unlike

Singaporeans, have not prioritized their work and being exceedingly competitive in whatever they do (Joo Lee, businessman)

The “Malaysian-Singaporeans” have also illustrated that their identity is relatively permanent in that they would not “convert” to being strictly Malaysians or Singaporeans in the future as although some may move back to Malaysia or convert their citizenship to Singaporean, they have expressed that their identification with

“Singaporean values and lifestyle” is too strong to detach away from However, the consciousness that their birthplaces and the homes of most of their relatives are in Malaysia have also been a strong impetus in them holding on to their Malaysian

individuality

2.3 The “Detached Migrants”

While the majority of Malaysian Chinese migrants have indicated that they have relatively few problems in adjusting to living in Singapore, a point of departure needs to be drawn to discriminate between this group of “comfortable settlers” While the “Malaysian-Singaporeans” are comfortable in adapting to living in Singapore and have expressed their admiration and quest to adopt certain perceived “Singaporean traits”, the “detached migrants” may also be relatively well-adjusted in Singapore but have expressed their overt desire to detach themselves from adopting their perception

of “Singaporean values and living habits” This group of individuals is also occupied with the preservation of their conception of “Malaysian values” even while inter-mingling with Singaporeans They have mainly defined themselves as migrants who are in a sense “non-integrated” and removed from any considerations of assimilating to the Singaporean way of life

pre-These migrants have been quick to pronounce their ability to adapt to living in Singaporean as being dissimilar to them being “affectively” connected to the Singaporean way of life Their articulation of being adept to living in Singapore as just a form of “coping” has exemplified their dispassionate attitude in their contact and exposure to Singaporeans:

We are able to cope here because we have no problems in terms of communication and we can continue to participate in the activities we do in Malaysia such as visiting the temples and cooking Malaysian food But don’t think that we will

“feel” for Singapore just because we can cope with living here (Celest, student)

We can cope with staying here as we can talk to people here, the type of work

is also about the same here and there are also coffee-shops and temples here However being able to adjust here is not the same as loving it or agreeing with the values here (Chia, businessman)

The “detached migrants” have thus illustrated that their ability to cope with living in Singapore is predominantly based upon the premise that living in Singapore offers them a chance to re-live or replicate their way of life in Malaysia Concomitantly, they have also identified themselves principally as Malaysians and have overtly rejected or claim to avoid their perception of certain “Singaporean values” in their quest to preserve their Malaysian identity On numerous occasions, these Malaysian Chinese have proclaimed that they maintained certain “values” such

as conservatism, public courtesy and leading a more laid-back lifestyle compared to Singaporeans (Teh, 2007) They also possess the outlook that Singaporeans are increasingly turning “Western-centric” and are gradually displaying signs of

“excessive individualism” in that they are largely concern only with their personal welfare, have indulged in material consumption and are predisposed to dramatize their personal achievements instead of contemplating how to utilize their success to improve society as a whole (Velayutham, 2007) Their analytical outlook has been laced with an almost dichotomous representative valuation of Singaporean and Malaysian attributes with national identity superceding any sense of connection with Singaporeans in terms of ethnicity and dialect-group affiliation:

While we are here (in Singapore), we adopt the role of the “detached migrant” as we are detached from Singaporean self-centeredness, lack of traditional beliefs and materialistic pursuits We will continue to preserve our Malaysian Chinese values such as being filial to elders and following Chinese culture (Lim,

warehouse helper)

I can say that almost all Malaysian Cantonese can speak Cantonese, know about Cantonese cuisines and manners of ancestors’ praying Can even half of Singaporean Cantonese do that? (Jim, technician)

Another presumed feature of the Singaporean Chinese character which the

“detached migrants” is uncomfortable with is the lack of “ritualistic preservation” of kinship ties (Levy, 1996) The pre-occupation with gaining affinity with those belonging to their own familial or clan network is a major consideration for these Malaysian Chinese who have expressed concern that many Singaporean Chinese are generally less “estate-bound” and may have neglected the quintessential ethos of placing kin ties first in order to adhere to forming staunch ties with those from the

“outer environment”xix:

Singaporeans often place priorities in their ties with people from their

“external environment” with stronger relationships built with colleagues, friends and even business partners rather than with their own family or relatives (Jamie,

housewife)

The thing about Singaporean Chinese which we don’t wish to emulate is the fact that they placed very little priority in staying in their homes or the confines of their kin’s residences in order to build relational ties They rather go out with acquaintances to enjoy themselves on the weekends (Jim, technician)

The focus on maintaining traditional Malaysian Chinese ideals is common among this group of migrants who have mostly received their education in traditional Chinese schools and could be regarded to belong to what Wang Gung Wu’s described

as “traditional group A Malaysian Chinese” who are keen to preserve “Chinese culture and identity and are die-hard fighters for Chinese education and Chinese culture” (Wang, 1970) While expressing that they are “comfortable” in adapting to the Singaporean lifestyle, this group of Malaysian Chinese are keen to voice out their displeasure in the lack of options available in Singapore to be “truly immersed” in Chinese culture Most of these “detached migrants” are concerned with the lack of schools which advocate a Chinese medium of instruction:

There is no school in Singapore which gives our kids the chance to be strong

in Mandarin as there are no public-run schools which offer Chinese as the language

of medium (Jiarong, manager)

There is a serious problem of transmitting traditional Chinese values to students as even for subjects such as moral education, you have to translate

everything to English By then the true meanings of the Chinese teachings would have been lost (Jianwei, duty officer)

Many of these “detached migrants” have also opined that while leisure is pursued mostly by Singaporeans for pleasure and self-satisfaction, it served a “wider” objective for Malaysian Chinese either than fulfilling individual’s need for play They have stressed what contemporary scholars pronounced as “Asian leisure engagement” which emphasized the concept of leisure as an important form of “family or group engagement” or as “purposeful leisure” which states that leisure activities need to be linked to its educational purposes (Manrai and Manrai, 1995) Correspondingly, the

“detached migrants” have stressed the need to partake in less of the “frivolous” leisure activities pursued by Singaporeans:

We need to ensure that we do not engage so much in things Singaporeans like

to do such as shopping, pigging out at buffets and visiting pubs and arcades We chose not to due to the fact that we think leisure should be tied in with education such

as visiting nature habitats or as things which foster family ties such as picnics (Jamie,