Comments by "K `" (@user-jt3dw6vv4x) on "Rwanda to become the next Singapore?" video.

@goeast12 Singapore is diverse, the only reason why you think it's not diverse is because you think Chinese and Malays are the same and that Indians being Asians too means that "Singapore is not diverse". I've heard this argument made by many Westerners who try undermine Singapore's success, they say "everybody is Asian". Chinese, Malays and Indians are all different to one another, just because they're all from the same continent doesn't mean they're all the same. The Chinese and Malays suffered from extreme racial riots which led to Singapore becoming a country. Singapore managed to unite the Chinese, Malays and Indians and used common ground (which came to be known as "Asian values" in the 1990s) to create the most stable and successful multi-ethnic nation in Asia. Look at Singapore's neighbours (near and far), Malaysia, Indonesia, Myanmar, Sri Lanka they all suffer from racial division. Singapore is diverse and it knows how to manage its diversity without alienating anybody at a national level.
6
@goeast12 Malays are NOT East Asians. So you can't say "more than 90% East Asian". To say it's "more than 90% East Asian" is only indicative of one's lack of knowledge on Singaporean multiracialism. Malays are native Southeast Asians and have always been viewed as such. Chinese (and Japanese, Koreans) are known as East Asians while Indians (and Ceylonese, Bengalis etc.) are South Asians. This distinction has always been noted until the 21st century, including by Singapore's founding father, Lee Kuan Yew, as Singapore is described as a "mini Asia" composed of people of East Asian, Southeast Asian and South Asian origin.
3
@goeast12 Chinese, Malays and Indians are all from different cultures. The idea that Singapore is not diverse because most people are from different Asian groups is wrong because you're implying that they are all basically the same. Asia is a diverse place. You are only saying this because in the US, many European-descended people (excluding those of Italian and other Mediterranean and eastern European people) have lost touch with their ancestral heritage and so now they're just a mish-mash of different European groups with no unified cultural heritage. It may be news to you but local Chinese, Malays and Indians find more in common culturally with Malaysians (who are composed of the same racial makeup, with the same ethnic subgroups and share pretty much the same culture) than they do with people that come from mainland China or India. There is extreme xenophobia and racism directed towards people from mainland China and India in Singapore. So saying "it's not diverse" doesn't make sense. Singapore actually has a lot of temporary immigrants from other parts of Asia as well as PR from other parts of Asia. It is very much diverse, just not in the way you're used to. Local Singaporeans of diverse origins alongside foreign workers and expats from Malaysia, India, China, Philippines, Bangladesh, Indonesia and Myanmar among other places. It's diverse even beyond its own local population. If it wasn't diverse, anti-immigrant sentiment and the whole "Singapore for Singaporean" mentality wouldn't exist and be a contentious issue.
3
@goeast12 Singapore is a small country and uses that to excuse itself from accepting refugees, whether that's right or wrong it's not my place to say. Singapore is also very strict when it comes to managing its own ethnic diversity. It gives preference to people from Malaysia, China (including Hong Kong) and India because people from those places are of the same ethnic or of related ethnic origin to local Singaporeans. Singaporean government uses Malaysian+Chinese+Indian immigration to maintain the ratio of Chinese to Malays to Indians (the fertility rates of all three groups are incredibly low, with the Chinese and Indians having statistically less than 1 baby - 0.9 - each year). You also can't compare Singapore's ethnic demographics to the USA's ethnic demographics. Remember, the US only consisted of 13 colonies along the east coast that were taken from Native American populations. On top of that, slaves of West African origin were brought over to the US adding to the ethnic demographics. Additionally, the USA's expansion west meant it acquired land that was originally owned by Spain (and post-independent Mexico) which was already home to many people of Latin American origin (of whom many are of European origin as well as mestizo origin). Singapore's native people are Malays and like the rest of Southeast Asia, thousands of ethnic Chinese and ethnic Indian migrants settled in Singapore over the 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. Singapore and the US have different histories and different geographies.
2
Oh Sri Lanka, the country that Singapore's own Lee Kuan Yew marvelled at for its potential and strong foundations for future success but just simply could never truly overcome the destruction from its era of systematic ethnic violence. Mr Lee was right to lament at the destruction of Sri Lanka and what it could have been in one of his final books before his timely death.
1
@goeast12 You are correct and I see the point you are making, especially when the whole "Asian Values" ideology was taught in Singaporean schools in order to cultivate a national identity. It only worked because everybody was from some Asian culture. Having said that, I think New Zealand is exemplary of successful multiculturalism. Not only does it have a mix of people of different European, Asian and Pacific origin with smaller numbers of people from the "Middle Eastern, Latin American or African (MELAA)" category, its indigenous population (Maori) are well represented members of New Zealand identity. The predominantly dual mix of European + Maori cultures as the foundation of New Zealand identity is probably part of the reason why it has been successful.
1