Singapore’s first Olympic gold provides a lesson in ethnic integration for Hong Kong

Identity politics is the theme of the time, and the Olympics provides a useful starting point. Singapore just won its first ever gold medal with a remarkable swimming victory. But at least as important was the identity of the victor. This was not some recent immigrant table tennis star from China but one born in Singapore and, to cap it all, a product of two generations of ethnic mixing in a state once seen as starkly divided into three racial groups.

Behind that lies a startling statistic. In 2014, one marriage in four in Singapore was across ethnic lines. That compares with one in eight in 2001 and, 40 years ago, probably no more than one in 50. Marriages between Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans are now well over 30 per cent. As a frequent critic of Singapore, I am impressed.

All hail Joseph Schooling: victory parade pays tribute to Singapore’s first Olympic gold medallist

Part of this rapid change may be attributable to a high rate of immigration of skilled people without local roots and ethnic assumptions. But, clearly, there has been a change, which is now raising questions about official ethnic categorisation.

That is not to say that Chinese chauvinism, condemned but also once abetted by late leader Lee Kuan Yew, is dead. Racial animosities do flare up. Singapore’s exploitation of Asian domestic helpers is worse than Hong Kong’s. But the official enforced mixing of races through public housing – once seen as a way of keeping minorities from congregating together – may have had some impact on traditional thinking by all races. National service for all males helped, too.

The contrast with peninsular Malaysia is striking. Official sponsorship of conservative Islam, mostly for reasons of political advantage, not piety, has seen a huge widening of the social divide between Malays and the 35 per cent of non-Malays. This has exacerbated the divisions caused by a race-based political structure and rules to protect Malay rights. That was once defensible as, at the time of independence in 1957, Malays made up only 49 per cent in their own country, and most of the poor, thanks to massive immigration under British rule. But, now with 65 per cent, they are getting to the 75 per cent Chinese that Singapore has approximately maintained via its immigration policies.

But it is not only the once disadvantaged Malays who are at fault in Malaysia. The insistence of the Malaysian Chinese on maintaining their own cultural and political identity has been important, too. It contrasts with the expectations placed on minorities in Singapore and the experience of other Southeast Asian countries, which have had large Chinese immigration over the past 200 years.