Mr David Neo, Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth
His Royal Highness Sultan Nazrin Shah,
Distinguished Guests,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

1. Let me start with a basic proposition. For a multicultural society to remain cohesive in today’s world, requires more than the coexistence of different races, religions and cultures. It requires more than tolerance or a ‘live and let live’ approach, or even the celebration of the fact of diversity within one nation. It requires more than that.
2. Cohesive societies can only be sustained, and their diversity remain a strength, if people have shared hopes and a shared purpose; if their lives are interwoven, starting from how kids grow up together; if they develop respect for each other – not merely the respect for differences, but respect for the contributions that they each bring to the table. In other words, if there is respect for the dignity of every individual and every group.
3. History has shown us that these attributes do not come by chance. And where they have arrived, they can also fade. We have to develop these attributes through the active weaving together of multiculturalism, the active weaving by government, civil society, educationists, religious and community leaders, the media, and of course, citizens themselves.
4. As we look around the world, we see multiculturalism in retreat and social cohesion weakening in too many societies. The Edelman Trust Barometer, based on a large-scale global survey done each year, found that more than half of all respondents globally felt that their societies were more divided than at any time in living memory. And only 20 per cent of respondents said they would live near someone who had different views from them. Just think about that.
5. The weakening of togetherness reflects a mix of factors, besides a waning enthusiasm for multiculturalism. It also reflects political polarisation, which is advancing on the world, with the weakening of the moderate middle ground and the rise of the extremes, particularly the rise of parties of the radical right, which preach either overtly or subtly, the exclusion of the ‘other’ – the exclusion of other cultures, other races, or other nationalities.
6. There’s has also been, particularly in the last decade, a startling trend in the advanced democracies, of a widening social and political divide between the better educated and the less – in particular, between those with a college education and those without. And that corresponds too, to a widening political divide between those who live in the countryside and those who live in the cities. Each of these emerging divisions is feeding on the other: the waning enthusiasm for multiculturalism, political polarisation, the widening divides between the more and the less educated, and between those that live in the countryside and the cities. They’re feeding into each other, which makes this a complex and increasingly difficult problem in many societies.
7. What is most worrying is the way in which culture and identity are being injected into the normal contentions over economic issues. Identity and exclusionary views – you could call them reactionary – have always been lurking below the surface. But economic insecurity, or at least the perception that ‘I am losing and someone else is winning’, converts identity and culture into a more divisive political tool.
8. A study done by the polling firm Focaldata in eight countries across the Atlantic – the US, Britain and six European countries – found that the best predictor of whether someone was likely to vote for a right wing nationalist party, a far right party, was the belief that minorities had better access to job opportunities than white people. That was the single best predictor – more than immigration itself, or the conventional sources of economic tension between social classes.
9. So you can see how culture and identity are adding virulence to longstanding economic debates and sources of contention. They add a further, emotional layer of resentment to the sense that the system is not fair – ‘someone else is winning, and I’m losing.’
10. Even in the US, despite it being the most successful by far of the advanced economies, with incomes rising for most groups, race relations have fallen sharply. They have fallen sharply. Much fewer than half of all Americans believe that relations between blacks and whites are satisfactory. In many developing countries too, culture and religion have now become a more divisive force, and there has been a rise in in anti-minority speech.
11. The Overton Window has shifted in both older and younger democracies. (Political scientists use the term to refer to the range of views and opinions that are deemed acceptable by the mainstream.) In particular, extreme right and exclusionary views are entering the mainstream. The causes are not recent. It’s not due to who has won the last elections in this or that country. The forces are somewhat deeper. I will mention just a few.
12. First, failure to manage immigration, and particularly to integrate immigrants. This has been most pronounced in parts of Europe – where there have been large and sudden waves of immigration, and a failure to integrate people. Whether immigrants live in mixed neighbourhoods or in concentrated suburbs, and whether whole towns have a heavy concentration of immigrants, makes a difference. It also matters whether they’re integrated in the workforce and appear to be contributing actively to society makes a difference. Studies have shown that the failure to integrate immigrants has led to both under-assimilated immigrants themselves and the white working class losing faith in the system.
13. A second factor has been the polarising effects of a fragmented media landscape and the rise of social media. There is a good argument for the social media. It empowers many more voices around the world, leads to free access to information, and has a democratising effect in many societies. But we can’t run away from the fact that much of social media is now shaped by algorithms shaped by large tech companies, that have a polarising effect. Citizens in many societies no longer have a shared reality, a shared framework of facts upon which they form different views. We no longer live in that world because increasingly, a more divided media space and social media algorithms are leading to a more divided public and more divisive politics.
14. Studies have shown that if people have regular exposure to a feed of stories that accord with their ideological preferences or views, it strengthens their preferences. It makes them more partisan, and it polarises society. In other words, it’s not like just another consumer good that is meeting people’s preferences. Here, it is accentuating preferences, and it is a polarising force.
15. The advertising-based social media business model also has an incentive to maximise attention. Studies here too have shown that to maximise attention, you propagate negative messages. And wait for what is coming. Advances in AI are setting in motion further changes. AI-driven search interfaces and chatbots may very well create a flood of synthetic media of dubious provenance. It’s not yet prevalent, but it’s coming.
16. A third factor, not as much noticed, is the growing isolation in the way people live their lives, particularly in the advanced countries. Societies can advance economically whilst regressing socially. What we are seeing today in many advanced countries – there are good studies of this by sociologists – is a major shift in behaviour over two decades: people are more likely to take their meetings home; more likely to shop from home; more likely to eattakeaways or delivered orders at home rather than out in the neighbourhood; more likely to be entertained at home rather than go to the movie theatres; more likely even to be worshipping at home. Young people are no longer going out as much, no longer hanging out with their friends, let alone going on dates. Even the architecture of homes is changing – apartments are now being designed so that every room has can accommodate maximal screen-time.
17. So people are living lives more on their own, and have less face-to-face interactions with people who live around them, in the same town. The weakening of those interactions has consequences, because it is those interactions that enable people to understand differences and to accept people who disagreed with them. And this too, is contributing to the loss of social cohesion.
18. How do we respond? How do we restore trust in each other in each society, and trust in the system? How do we build shared hopes and shared purpose?
19. The truth is that no political system, democracies included, can give us assurance that moderate tendencies and a desire for inclusiveness will prevail in government or amongst the people. History shows that no system gives assurance of this, and too much of the evidence in recent times is that we are regressing. We are moving away from moderate and inclusive tendencies towards more polarising views and politics.More than a quilt
20. Shared values and a belief in a common future do not come naturally. And there are always countervailing sentiments below the surface. Multicultural societies must therefore be actively woven.
21. Traditionally, in many societies, that meant weaving the patchwork quilt. You know what quilts are –different patches, each with its own design, and attractive when they’re stitched together. But in times of stress, at times of economic insecurity, at times when polarising forces are growing, the stitching weakens, and the quilt gradually falls apart.
22. So we need to weave a different fabric of society to sustain multiculturalism and make cohesion resilient. We have to weave threads of different colours, even different textures, into a single tapestry – or as they do in batik, involve many artisans in making a single fabric – that creates a larger motif of a nation with many strands and many histories, but at one with itself.
23. That’s the fabric of society that we have to weave. It requires, above all, creating opportunities for interaction, the interweaving of lives. And it also requires putting in place sensible guardrails, to prevent extremism and self-reinforcing polarisation, while allowing and encouraging differences of views.
24. Education is fundamental, and that is where we must start. It is the most powerful tool a society has for integrating people. Bring children of all backgrounds together, particularly in public school systems, regardless of ethnicity and social backgrounds. Bring them together, not just for classroom time, but keep them in school after classes for a whole range of activities – sports, dance, music, creating their own hip hop.
25. And equally important as the social mixing has to be the effectiveness of education in uplifting people of all backgrounds. People must see that they can get ahead on their merits, with the necessary support from government and community schemes for those who start from behind. Without that evidence, it will be very difficult to sustain a sense of togetherness. Education systems must be effective in uplifting every individual and every group. And I must say that’s what we put great effort into that in Singapore.
26. A second important area for creative public policy is urban design, especially to prevent ethnic or socially-defined enclaves. Singapore’s integrated housing estates are well-known. They are unique in their scale – the fact that more than 75 per cent of the population lives in integrated public housing estates, a mix of ethnicities in every block, every precinct, and in the whole estate, and a mix of people from different income groups, from the poorest to the upper middle-income group.
27. Importantly, it’s not just about housing. It’s about the facilities for recreation, for learning, for interaction, for morning qigong, a whole set of activities that bring people together. Common spaces in every neighbourhood, where you can develop your skills in a futsal court or watch others, or try out a new dance together. It’s not just housing, it’s an estate for social life.
28. Denmark is another example. They, like many European societies, found that society’s resilience was being eroded by having neighbourhoods with large concentrations of minorities, immigrants essentially. They are now seeking to achieve integrated housing by redeveloping old neighbourhoods, replacing what they call ‘ghettos’, and developing new, mixed neighbourhoods. At the same time, they are providing extra support to immigrant children starting from preschool, so they can learn the language early and get used to local mores.
29. Not every society can replicate what Singapore did; we started building public housing estates early, almost from scratch, because people were living in urban slums and very poor conditions. For mature societies, which have a legacy of segregated neighbourhoods, it is more difficult now. But it is still possible, and important, to provide public spaces. It’s particularly important for poor or disadvantaged teenagers to have those spaces: the athletic fields and courts, public swimming pools, libraries with nice spaces for people to hang out in. Public spaces play a critical role in an inclusive society.
30. The third issue goes back to what I mentioned earlier – media fragmentation and the almost intractable problem of social media algorithms. It is one of the most complex problems that democracies face. We are nowhere near international agreement on the regulation of social media platforms. We are making advances, there are discussions taking place, but we are still far from a solution. It requires bold thinking. Both government and civil society have to actively work together, and with the tech companies that run the largest social media platforms, to provide make democracy safer and more sustainable.
31. The European Union’s new Digital Services Act is a good example. It holds the social media platforms accountable for content, and requires quick removal of hate speech. We do essentially the same in Singapore and Australia, and a few other countries. The EU has also gone further to address the systemic risks posed by social media algorithms. They require the larger platforms to dial back the risks of algorithmic amplification of disinformation. It’s not easy, because a lot of the onus is on the platforms themselves, but the laws are in place and it’s an important start.
32. Some may say this is over-regulation. It is more regulation than the big tech players are used to. One can debate the specific mechanisms, but an unregulated media landscape will only see democracy gradually unravel.
33. There is no easy step off from this race between the leading tech companies and the platforms that they run. They have an incentive to keep people and traffic within their own platforms. And as I mentioned, they have the incentive to maximise attention through negative news. So this is an market-driven algorithmic treadmill, and there’s no easy stepping off. It can only be addressed through regulation of the market – regulation set by the public sector, but with significant engagement of both civil society and the tech companies. In fact, in the case of the European Union’s Digital Services Act, civil society was very actively involved in working with public sector officials in formulating the plans.
34. The established news media will also have to respond to the challenge of a fragmenting landscape. If they can show that they have a brand of journalism that is built on accuracy and transparency; if they can show that they are reporting the world as it is, and separating news from opinion; and if they can show that when they publish opinions, they’re providing different perspectives for people to assess – that will help restore trust and the value of their brands.
35. I don’t promote the Singapore media as a model for the world, but we have fortunately been able to retain the role of our mainstream media as by far the largest source of news. Citizens have access to many other sources of information, but still choose to rely on the mainstream media as their major source of news. And that’s critical, because it keeps that shared reality and a common framework of facts for citizens. If there are other platforms that abide by the same norms – and some of them do in fact – they too will be providing a service that helps us keep society together.
36. Fourth, we have to develop a culture of respect and solidarity, through actions in everyday life. There are many examples, but it requires everyone to pitch in. as I mentioned earlier, it’s not just a job for governments, but requires civil society, educators, the media, the religious and community leaders and individuals too.
37. Everyday deeds and actions matter, because when they’re done frequently enough, and people see that they are done, they cascade. And when they cascade, they create norms, and create a culture.
38. We have examples in our own region. HRH Sultan Nazrin Shah spoke powerfully a year ago about the role we all play in building that interfaith solidarity on the ground. He commended the spontaneous actions of the leaders of the Al-Falah Mosque Subang Jaya and the Sri Maha Kaliamman Temple, who came together to help the victims of a major gas pipeline fire in Putra Heights. Both places of worship providing shelter and support for them; and the temple opened its grounds for the use of Muslims for their prayers.
39. Indonesia’s cross-cultural religious literacy programme run by Leimena Institute is training 9000 teachers to help children learn about the country’s diverse faiths, dispel old stereotypes, and to respect each other. I’m pleased that Leimena is present at this conference, and they will be sharing their experience.
40. In a world of conflict and ethnic suppression, in a world as bleak as it is today, there is still common humanity. Besides Muslims, a growing number of Jews and other non-Muslims in the US, Europe and elsewhere are calling for an end to the killing and destruction in Gaza, and for a solution that enables lasting safety for both Israelis and Palestinians. Rabbis and Imams and their followers have joined hands to convene prayers and dialogues for peace. And faith in diversity remains alive in most societies. In the US, despite the noisy divisions, a Marist poll last year found that over 80 per cent of Americans felt that a diversity of races, ethnicities and religions made their country stronger.
41. But let me come back finally to the culture of respect. We must build a community of respect, in each of our societies. It goes to the heart of multiculturalism and social cohesion. Respect for all is a source of unity. But it’s also more than that. It is how we uplift ourselves as a society.
42. We uplift people not just by putting more financial resources into play to support the disadvantaged, and not just by opening up more opportunities – those are both important, but we also need something more. We need something more intrinsic to upliftment, we need the motivation that drives people to strive to overcome difficulties and to do their best. And the respect we lend each other is a most powerful source of motivation. Knowing that others are backing you, and have hope in you. It is how you can do it. It’s how we all do it. It’s how we rise together.