Interethnic Marriage in Singapore: A Study in Interethnic Relations 9789814376549

Citation preview

The Institute of Southeast Asian Studies

Established as an autonomous corporation in May, 1968, the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies is a regional research centre for scholars and other specialists concerned with modern Southeast Asia. The Institute's research interest is focussed on the many-faceted problems of modernization and social change in Southeast Asia. The Institute is governed by a 24-member Board of Trustees on which are represented the University of Singapore and Nanyang University, appointees from the Government, as well ·as representatives from a broad range of professional and civic organizations and groups. A ten-man Executive Committee oversees day-to-day operations; it is ex officio chaired by. the director, the Institute's chief academic and administrative officer.

"Copyright subsists in this publication under the United Kingdom Copyright Act, 1911 and the Singapore Copyright Act (Cap. 187). No person shall reproduce a copy of this publication, or extracts therefrom, without the written permission of the Inititute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore."

Interethnic Marriage in Singapore A Study in Interethnic Relations

by

Riaz Hassan

Occasional Paper No. 21 Institute of Southeast Asian Studies Price : $ 6 • 00

FOR SELVA AND HAROON

FOREWORD Delineation of colonial boundaries not only split homogeneous communities, but also resulted in the inclusion of a number of quite different, and frequently mutually antagonistic and hostile, ethnic and cultural groups within the same colonial unit . The infusion of substantial numbers of Chinese, Indian and other settlers into such units only further emphasized the existing heterogeneity and diversity which, not surprisingly, frequently bred tension and open conflict . Political self-assertion in the post-colonial era and the struggle for independence, nationhood and cultural identity tended to further exacerbate this problem of ethnic and minority relations. In fact the whole question of local and regional ethnic and majority-minority relations has continued to impinge so heavily on so many aspects of governmental policy and the day-to-day affairs and lives of ordinary people that a proper evaluation of this phenomena is i .m perative to any worthwhile and meaningful appreciation of the existing and potential Southeast Asian political, economic and social mores. Yet, except for information on certain aspects of ethnic relations and minority problems, there is not only a dearth of comprehensive overviews about their changing character and patterns, but also little or no comparative o~ region-wide investigation and analysis of such specific issues as the nature, extent and ramificat ions of racial discrimination and prejudice; the foundations and consequences of ethnic discord and polarization in, say, the Philippines and Malaysia and the alienation of hillpeoples in parts of Indochina and Thailand; or, the economic, social and political implications of the existing patterns of racial accommodation and/or conflict and their beari ng on national and regional stability and development policies and strategies. Equally obscure are the answers to such questions as how far are the fortunes and positions of the minorities or their integration or rejection a result of their own wishes and actions and how far is it that of the majority community? Also when does an immigrant commun i ty become acceptable to the native society? Is there an acceptable threshhold in such situations? In short, despite the obvious importance and potential significance for the region of the whole question of ethnic relations and minority problems it remains poorly documented and understood ~ This may partly be due to the sensitive nature of the subject, and we may have to tread warily here . Nevertheless a proper illumination of this area of darkness should be one of the major concerns of scholars in Southeast Asia. In this context, Dr. Riaz Hassan's study of interethnic marriage in Singapore is all the more welcome and one hopes it will

ci r c ulate widely and st~ulate more systematic work leading t o a proper elucidation and understanding of ethnic relations n o t only in Singapore but in the region as a whole . In wishing Dr . Riaz Hassan a ll the best, i t is clearly understood that the responsibility f or facts and opinions expressed in the study that follows, r ests exclusively with Dr. Riaz Hassan, and h i s interpretations and conclusions do not n e c essarily reflect the views or policy of the Institute i tself or its supporters. 27 April 1974

Kernial Singh Sandhu Director

PREFACE Ethn1c heterogeneity is a feature common to all Southeast As1an societies o Its influence is felt 1n all spheres of economic, social, cultural, and pol1t1cal l1fe . W1thout an objective understand1ng of the ethn1c factor , any analysis of these societ1es 1s at best incomplete . Yet, despite the significance of the ethn1c factor, there is, a general lack of sociological studies deal1ng with this phenomenon. This is particularly true with respect to the field of interethnic relations . Most of the exist1ng studies and writings tend to focus on i ndividual ethnic communities (Chinese, Indian, Malay , Javanese, et cetera) rather than on the nature and qual1ty of the interaction which takes place among members of different ethnic communities~ Most of the references to interethnic relations made in these studies are superficially descriptive rather than analytical . However, some studies of interethnic relations do These were prompted by special social events e xist . such as "race" riots~ While these too have a tendency to be descriptive, they do provide useful insights 1nto the dynamics of interethnic relations in their respect1ve SOC1et1es . The study reported in the following pages represents an attempt, albeit a limited one, to examine an important (and omnipresent) aspect of interethnic relations , namely interethn ic marriage, in one of Southeast Asia's most ethnically heterogeneous societies. It is hoped that it will contribute to our understanding of the dynamics of i n terethnic relations in Singapore , and that it will stimulate further discussion and research concern1ng th1s as well as other related topics . I should like to acknowledge my indebtedness to the Department of Statistics of the Government of S1ngapoLe Some parts of the research reported here are based on information made available by the Department and I should I also w1sh to l1ke to express my gratitude for thls. thank the off1cers of· the Department who read an earl1er draft of this study and suggested changes wh1ch I have incorporated o It should be noted, however , that ~he study represents my own views and interpretations of the data . I acknowledge my sole responsibility for these ~

- iv-

Chapter four of this examination is based primarily on a paper which my colleague Dr. Geoffrey Benjamin coauthored with me. The paper entitled " Out-Marriage Rates in Singapore : The Influence of Traditional SocioCultural Organization ," was published in the November 1973 issue of the Jo ur naL o f Ma rr iage and the FamiLy . I should like to thank Dr . BenJamin for his collaboration on the paper and for his permission to use our work as part of this study . I am also indebted to Professor Kernial Singh Sandhu, Professor Hans-Dieter Evers, Dr. Michael A. H.B. Walter, Dr . Erik Cohen , and Dr. Edd1e Kuo for reading an earlier draft of this study , and for the1r many useful and critical comments. Finally I should like to thank Ms . Suzanne Newman for her editing of this manuscript, and Mrs. Seah Soo Yeng, Miss Ho Yin Ping and Miss Rebecca Goh for their uncomplaining labours at the t y pewr1ter. Riaz Hassan S1ngapo re

CONTENTS Page Foreword

ii i

Preface

iv

List of Tables

Vl.

1

Sociological Significance of Interethnic Marriage

1

2

Interethnic Marriage in Singapore

7

3

Types of Interethnic Marriages

15

4

Traditional Socio-Cultural Organi zation and Ethnic Marrying-Out Rates

22

5

Sociological F actors

33

6

Assessment of Findings and Research Possibilities

1.n Interethnic Marriages

51

No tes

63

Appendix

74

Bibliography

77

- vi -

LIST OF TABLES Page 2.1

Population of Singapore in 1967 by Ethnic Group, Sex, and Sex Ratio

9

2.2

Interethnic Marriage in Singapore, 1962-70

12

3~ 1

Intermarriage by Ethnic Classificat1on, 1962-70

16

3.2

Interethnic Marriage by Ethn1c Affiliation and Sex, December 1966-January 1969

19

3.3

The Rank Order of Twelve Most Common Types of Interethnic Marriages in Singapore

20

4.1

Numbers and Percentages of Grooms Marrying-Out by Ethn1c Affiliation in Singapore, 1962-68

23

4.2

Numbers and Percentages of Brides Marrying-Out by Ethn1c Affiliation in Singapore, 1962-68

24

4.3

Sex D1fferences in Marrying-Out Rates, by Ethnic Affiliation, 1962-68

26

4. 4

Ind1an-Pak1stani Marrying-Out Rates by Sex and Rel1g1on, 1962-68

29

5.1

Marriages Registered Between 1967-70 by Relig1on and Ethnic Group of Marriage

3S

5 .2

Distribution of Religion of Bride and Groom by Race of Br1de and Groom, 1967-68

38

5.3

Distribution of Religion of Bride and Groom Who Intermarried, 1967-68

39

5.4

Occupat1on of Br1de and Groom Who Intermarr1ed, 1967-68

4l

5.5

Rank Order of Principal Occupations by Mean Years Descr1ption in Singapore of of Education, 1966 ~ Occupation - Education Classes

43

Soc1al Status and Ethn1c Affilia~1on of Bride and Groom Who Married-Out Between December 1966 and January 1969

44

5.6

- vll-

Page The Social Status o f Br~degrooms Marrying- Out , December 1966-January 1968 and of ALL Bridegrooms Who Married in 1968 in Singapore ---

46

5. 8

Average Age at Marriage of ALL Brides and Grooms and o f Brides and Grooms \~o Intermarried , 1967 - 68

46

5. 9

Distribution o f Difference is Older, 1967-68

5.7

~n

Age if Bridegroom 48

5.10 Distribution of Difference in Age if Bride is Older , 1967-68

48

5.11 Distribution of Intermarriage by Previous Marital Status of Groom and Bride, 196 7-68

49

6.1

A Typology o f Interethnic Marriage

57

1:

INTERETHNIC MARRIAGES

Sociological Significance of Interethnic

Marr~ages

In ethnically heterogeneous soc1eties of the world today, the sociology of interethnic marriage has become a subject of increasing scientific and public interest . As evidence of this growing attention, one may po~nt to the volume of scientific research and wr~tings on the subject wh~ch has appeared in recent years.l For sociologists in particular, the question of interethnic marriage holds a special appeal because of its significance in understanding the inner dynamics of soc~ety. As a country whose population is character~zed by great ethnic diversity, Singapore falls naturally ~nto the category of an ethnically heterogeneous society. Because of its particular situation - ~ts economic, social, and polit~cal structures are undergoing rapid changes - S~ngapore must understand the dynamics of ~ts interethnic group relations in order to achieve the many By undertaking the present goals it has set for itself. ob)ect~ve and empirical study of interethnic marriage in Singapore, it is hoped that ~mportant and useful insights into the question of interethn~c group relat~ons and their dynamics may be arrived at . Although to date there has been a general scarcity of empirical stud~es dealing either with interethn~c marriage or w~th interethnic relat~ons ~n s~ngapore, sociological investigations elsewhere have made suggestions a nd ra~sed further questions which are of relative significance for Singapore. Before our study of Singapore itself is undertaken, it will be useful to rev~ew some of the general findings of varied approaches to the subject of interethnic marriage. In most ethnically heterogeneous societies, interethnic un~ons constitute only a very small proport~on of A large major~ty of people ~n almost total rnarr~ages . all soc~et~es are predominantly endogamous. Therefore the quest~on of marrying a person of another ethn~c In group, race , rel~gion , or nat~onal~ty never arises. of pr~nciple the process, mate-selection the fact , ~n homogamy - the marrying of like to l ~ke - ~s well established in all societies.2 Interethn~c marr~age, therefore, represents a dev~at~on fr om a commonplace universal Th~s fact alone invests the examination norm of marriage. of such marriages with soc~olog~cal s~gnificance.

- 2 -

Of greater import, perhaps, is the fact that the sociologists have long considered the incidence of intermarriage as "the final solvent of th~ cultural barriers and the best index of assimilation." Drachsler, who made one of the classic studies of i 'nterrnarriage in New York, states: "A study of the facts of intermarriage offers a reasonably secure base from which to begin excursions into the elusive problem of .assimilation ... , Intermarriage, as such, is perhaps the severest test of group cohesion. Individuals who freely pass in marriage from one eth~ic circle into .another are not ~der the 4 spell of ~n 1.ntense cultural or racial consc1ousness." Similarly, in a recent theoretical discussion of the process of ethnic assimilation, Gordon points out that assimilation covers a multitude of sub-processes. He distinguishes between what he calls "behavioural assimilation" and "structural assimilation."S The former refers to the: process in which one group absorbs the cultural behavioural patterns of another group. Behavioural assimilation may also be thought of as the following: the inclusion and omission of specifiable attitudes and cultural behavioural patterns by individuals or groups as a result of physical or symbolic contact between or among individuals, among individuals and groups, or among groups themselves . In contrast, structural assimilation refers to the entrance of the members of one ethnic group into the social organization, inst~tutional activities, and general civic life of another -ethnic group. Gordon argues, more~ver, that if this process takes place on a large enough scale, a high frequency of intermarriage must then result. In other words, intermarriage can be taken as an index both of structural assimilation, and of 6 the amount of reduction in intensity of primordial sentiments . In attitudinal assessments of social distance, interethnic marriage has long been considered the ultimate measure of proximity.? Furthermore, interethnic marriages may involve different patternings among groups than do less intense group relations. For example, in a study of selective association among students belonging to different ethnic groups, Lundberg and Dickson found that the ethnic prefe.r ences of Chinese, Japanese, Black, Je ~,, is h, and White high school students were different where the selection of dates as opposed to work partners, leaders, or friends was concerned.8

-

3 -

In their work, sociologists have attempted to In most sociolo g~cal studies separate fact from fiction. the quest~on of ~ntermarriage is approached objectively. The general public, however, tends to disregard empirical evidence . People therefore react to intermarr~age in a var~ety of ways, few of which can be justified by reference to· facts. While some of the younger members of ethnically heterogeneous societies like Singapore see intermarriage as a desirable phenomenon leading to greater racial harmony, others blame intermarriage for such undesirable consequences as the d~sharmonious combination of genes , mental retardation or cultural marg~nality of offspring, and increased domestic diff~culties. Even upon reading these two extremes in att~tudes, we can say that there often may be considerable d~screpancies between individual beliefs and sociolog~cal evidence pertaining to ~ntermarriage.

Empir~cal ev~dence, for example, indicates that the b~olog~cal consequences of miscegenation are ~n themselves ne~ther good nor bad. They depend, rather , upon the qual~ties of the particular ~nd~viduals who enter ~nto ~nterrna rr~age. The ill effects often noted and quoted w~th respect to crossbreeding are pr~marily soc~al rather than b~olog~cal.9

Sim~larly , where social consequences of such unions are concerned, a recent study by Lind calls into serious question the commonly cited generalizat~on that interracial marriages always ~nvolve greater r~sks of failure Referring to the divorce than do intraracial ones. statist~c s of Hawa~i, a state which has one of the highest intermarriage rates in the world , Lind shows that those who married interrac~ally had a sl~ghtly higher overall divorce rate (29.0%) than couples who married w~th~n the Certa~n groups- the Hawa~~ans, same rac~al groups (26. 8%) . Koreans, Puerto Ricans, F~lipinos , and Caucas~ans - even had lower d~vorce rates than the overall average when they entered ~nto ~nterrac~al unions . Lind's study serves to ~nd~cate that ethn~cally mixed marr~ages do not ~n He a lso points themselves produce h~gher divorce rates~ out the great ~mportance of commun~ty att~tudes towards racially m~xed marr~ages.lO Hav~ng br~efly

find~ngs

and

rev~ewed

suggest~ons

of

some of the more pertinent who carr~ed out

soc~ologists

-

4 -

studi es 1n areas other than S i ng apo r e , we shall now look at s ome of the main points c o ntained in existing studies of interethnic marriage in S i ng a p ore and Ma l aysia . Ma1n P o1 nts Contained in Existing Studies of Interethnic Marriage in Singapore and Malay sia As mention ed earlier, there has been a general scarc 1ty of empirical studies t o date which deal with the question of i nterethnic marriage in Sin gapore . The l i terature which d o es actually exist is characteristically e t hnographi c al, historical , s p e culative , and impressionistic 1 1 It i s primar1ly concerned with the assimilation of overseas Chinese in various Southeast Asian countries . Certain conclus1o ns arr1ved at in the course of these existing s t ud1es d o , however , merit attention. In the following sec t1 o n, we shall touch upon th e more useful ones in order that during the course of our own investigation we may examine their relevance a n d sub ject their validity to empir1cal tests . Most wr1ters have concluded that interethnic marriage 1n Singapore and Malaya is rel atively uncommon. In one of the most recent pape r s wr i tten on the subject, Edmonds stat es that "as far as is known f r om the evidence available, intermarriage between Chinese a nd Malays in Malaya has not been frequent, " and " that toda y they [intermarriages] are rela t 1vely few.ul2 Edmond's evide n ce is supported by the find i ngs of Djamour in her study of Malay kinship and rnarr1age 1n Singapore. In it Djarnour states that "marriage un ions between Ma l a ys and Chinese are extremely rare When they occurred , the ma t ch was usually between a Chinese girl who became converted to Islam • • . and a Ma lay man. I carne across only three such un i ons , one i n a rural area and two 1n t he rnu n 1 c i pality . . .• Mar ri age between a Ma l ay woman and a Chinese · • c was even more inf requent. " Speaking of 1nt errnar riage between Malays an d Indians, she continues: " • • . marriage between Muslim Indians and Malay women was ra r e ~ It seemed that reluc tance to e n ter into such un i ons mai nly ori ginated from the Malay commun ity . Malays explai ned t hat i t was in principle better to mar ry a person of one's ban gs a (race ) ... o. " On Mal ay - Ar ab int ermarri age, Djamour commented that " the re was some i ntermarri age between Arab men a n d Malay women, wh e r eas the degree of i ntermarriage between Arab women a n d Ma lay men was practi cally nil ~ " I3

-

5 -

Generally, then, Djamour finds intermarriage to be In another study, the except1on rather than the rule ~ this time of Chinese marriage and the Chinese family in Singapore, Freedman qualifies those marriages which do "As far as Singapore is concerned I know of no occur: ev1dence to suggest that Sino-Malay marriage has ever taken place except 1n a sporadic fashion " "l4 But Freedman's study does provide some stat1stical evidence of 1ntermarriage by Civil and Christ1an r1tes Summa~1z1ng h1s between January 1941 and August 1949 . ev~dence, Freedman states that" . •• 1n the pe~1od 1941-49 three Chinese men married Malay women by C1v1l r1tes; and that dur1ng the same period Malay and Indones1an men marr1ed one Ch1nese bride by Christian r1tes and e1ght "15 by C1V1l Upon analyz1ng this ev1dence, Freedman suggests that rel1g1ous factors may encourage or d1scourage He states: "The smallness of interethn1c marr1age . marriages takes on added Sino-Malay for f1gure the against the numbers of seen is 1t when s1gnif1cance Ch1nese marr1ages with other ethn1c groups: Euras1ans, Europeans, and Ind1ans o The role of Christ1an1ty as a In the period covered by meet1ng-ground is made plain . European women and thirtytwo took men Ch1nese table, the five Euras1an women in Christ1an marr1age, and one hundred and th1rty-n1ne Ch1nese women so marr1ed by European, Euras1an and Indian men . About the same number (one hundred and th1rty-five) of Ch1nese were taken by men "16 of these ethn~c groups in Civil marr1age • If Chr1st1an1ty appears more tolerant of m1xed ethn1c marr1ages, almost all studies of ethn1c ass1milation and intermarr1age 1n Singapore and Malays1a concl ude that the Islarn1 c relig1on is one of the major barr1ers to ethn1c ass1m1lat1on and ethn1c 1ntermarr1age between Malays Th1s v1ew 1s summar1zed by S1lcock who and other races. wr1tes tha~ "1nterrnarr1age 1s l1m1ted by the strong barr1er of the Musl1m rel1910n."17 It 1s these points - that Islam acts as a sturnbl1ngblock to marr1age between Malays and non-Ma lays , that when such 1ntermarriages as these do occur it 1s 1n a sporad1c fash1on, and that 1nterethn1c marr1age occ urs infrequently 1 n Singapore - wh1ch I have selected as the more s1gn1f1cant f1nd i ngs of ex1st1n9 soc1olog1cal l1terature deal1n9 w1th 1ntereLhn1c marr1age 1n S1ngapore and Ma lays1a

-

6 -

Main Objectives of the Present Study It is hoped that this study will contribute to the rather limited information currently available on Singapo rean inte rethnic marriages. In addition, the s tudy should aid in providing insights into the degree o f structural assimilation achieved to date in Singapore as well as into the dynamics of intergroup relations within the socie ty of the country. It is obv ious that accurate predictions or assertions pertaining to the relative s u c cess or failure of structural assimilation or the d y namics of these intergroup contacts cannot be gleaned fr om Lmpressionistic observations, ideological bias, or attitudinal surveys alone. Fo r this reason, we shall undertake an objective and empirical investigation of data pertaini ng to various aspects of interethnic marriage in Singapore. Although by necessity a limited o ne, the present study is intended to provide at least partial answers to the following questions : 1.

To what ext,e nt does interethnic marriage in S ingapore take place?

2.

Wlth whom does each ethnic group intermarry?

3.

What percentage of the members of the different ethnic groups marry-out ?

4.

What socio-cultural factors influence the decision to marry-out?

5

What relates those who intermarry?

-

2:

7 -

INTERETHNIC MARRIAGE IN SINGAPORE

As S~ngapore is an ethnically heterogeneous society, it will be useful to introduce the actual data derived from intermarriage statistics together with a short description of the growth of the country's ethn~c diversity. In the f~nal sections of the chapter, we shall discuss the sources of the study's main body of data and certain interethnic marriage trends as they existed in the years 1962-70. Development of Ethnic Diversity in Singapore The process of ethnic diversificat~on began when the Brit~sh acquired control of the island which became At that time, in 1819, it was inhabited by Singapore . a populat~on of about 450, most of whom were Malays ~ Within a generation after the establishment of British The rule, s~ngapore underwent many sign~f~cant changes . most prominent change was of a demographic nature as the result of the arrival of immigrants from the Malay Peninsula, Brita~n, Ch~na, India and Indonesia. In succeeding years, the "Chinese or~gin" component in the population increased steadily until it became the By 1901, the population had grown predom~nant group . to 227,592 of whom 72% were Chinese. The Malays made up about 15% and the Indians another 8% of this total figure. The Europeans, Eurasians , Arabs , and other ethnic groups Since 1901, this constituted only 4% of the total people. ethnic composit~on has remained more or less the same o As has been said , Singapore ' s ethnic d~versity resulted d~rectly from the influx of different groups Several factors relat~ng to immigration of immigrants. Singapore attracted ~mm~grants are worthy of mention. excellent commercial opportunities. its of because primar~ly trade policy provided these free British the Initially, opportun~t~es; as time passed , the island's good harbour and strategi c geographic locat~on augmented them . The port and geographic advantages made the island a natural centre ~n the reg1on for the distr~bution of labour and goods to British and Dutch terr~tories in Southeast Asia . For the most part, it was economi c necessity which male members of the emigrant communities in Southern China and India to seek alternative sources of income in order to maintain families , land holdings , and obl~ged

-

8 -

lineage in their place of family origin. The Chinese in question originated mainly from the Kwangtung and Fukien provinces, and belonged to several different "dialect groups" - Hokkien, Teochew, Cantonese, Hakka, and Hainanese . The majority of the Ind~an immigrants were from Tamil-speaking parts of the subcontinent, but there were small numbers from other regions such as the Punjab, Bengal, Gujerat, Sind, and Kerala. The Malays came mostly from the Malay Peninsula and Indonesia. Most immigrants regarded themselves as transients, and their economic and social circumstances in Singapore as temporary < Their main intention was to make money quickly and then return to their respective homelands . Although the turnover of Chinese and Indian immigrants was very high, some did stay on. Among these were men who failed to realize their plans for economic success and were therefore obliged to remain. On the other hand, often because of financial success, others decided to stay and soon began adapting themselves to the realities of their new environment. The ethnic diversity resulting from social change over the last one hundred and fifty years is reflected in all aspects of modern Singapore and gives it the distinctive character of a plural society in which different ethnic groups continue to maintain their ethnic boundaries and their distinctive sets of institutions .! Population of Singapore in 1967 by Ethnic Group, Sex and Sex Ratio As indicated by the figures shown in Table 2 . 1 the population of Singapore in the year 1967 showed the trends towards qonsiderable diversity which began with ·the growth of immigration after the colony's inception. In 1967, the Chinese made up about 74 . 4% of the population, which was at that time already approaching 2 million o The Malay and Indian-Pakistani groups comprised 14.5% and 8 . 1% respectively of the total number of Singaporeans . The "Others" category numbered slightly over 1%; of the "Others, " the Ceylonese and the Arabs made up the largest group . As is also indicated in Table 2.1, the sex ratio for the total population in 1967 was about normal. Within the specific ethnic groups, the Chinese and Malays had about normal sex ratios, whereas the Indians and

-

9 -

Pakistan1s had the most unbalanced figures. The sex ratios of the Eurasians , Europeans , and "Others" were also somewhat unbalanced . Populat1cn of Singapore in 196 7 Ethmc Group, Sex and Sex Ratio

Table 2. 1:

By

Female

Sex Rat10*

734 , 600 144,900

719 ,900 138 , 600

1,020 1 ,045

lOO, 10 , 100 ll ,

59,400

1 , 684 1 ,247

18 , 900

8.10 0.93 0. 96

21 ,100

1.10

12,300

8,800

1,398

100.00 1,012 , 900

942 , 700

1,074

Total

Ethnic Group

Group Percentage

Male

1 ,454, 500 283,500

74.40 14.50

Eurasians

159 , 400 18 ,200

Eurqleans

C"linese MalC!:jSl

Indi.ans

Others

2

3

1,955 , 600

Total

Source:

Computed

f~ the Repo~ t

and Dea ths and MGPriages,

on

8,100 7,900

~he Regist~a ~ ~on

Peg1strar-re, 1962-70.

With reference to the data, two generalizations seem plausible. First , there has been a steady increase in the number of interethnic marriages in each year between 1962 and 1970 : the increase measures about 88% in the period under study . Second, although the actual numbers of interethnic marriages have steadily increased, the . rate· (interethnic marriages per 100 marriages) has been steadily declining. In 1963 , for example , 6.3% of all marriages in Singapore were interethnic. Between 1963 and 1969 the rate of interethnic marriage declined steadily each

- 13 -

year; in 1969 it registered a slight increase, but In 1970, only 4.6% of marriages declined again in 1970. In other words, between 1963 and 1970 were interethn~c. the interethnic marriage rate declined by more than 25%. The overall rate of interethnic marriage in Singapore for the period under study was 5.1 per 100 un~ons . Comparing th~s rate w~th those reported for other countries , we find, for example, that s~ngapore has relatively more ~nterethnic marr1ages per 100 than do various parts of the continental United States, but fewer than Hawa1i , Studies of Negro-White ~ntermarriages over the last fifty years or so have indicated that in New York City , New York State , Boston, and Los Angeles th1s sort of mar~tal union represented from 1-5% of all marriages in which Negroes part1cipated .5 Between 1945 and 1954 ~n Hawa1i, 28 . 4% of those entering into marital un1ons married outside their group.6 From a comparative point of v~ew, the intermarriag e rates for S1ngapore fall somewhere 1n the middle of the range of worldw1de figures. This suggests that the data presented in this paper ~ndicate a moderate degree of social integrat1on among the ethnic groups in Singapore . Th1s conclus~on 1s confirmed by studies 7 which have been made of other aspects of this problem. The data revealed 1n Table 2.2 po~nt to another The intermarr~age rate reached interest~ng deta~l. peaks in the years 1963 and 1965 {less marked) without hav1ng followed any apparent regular pattern . These years, ~n fact, were marked by important events in S1ngapore's recent h~story - events which had great effects on all levels of the country's life - the State's entry 1nto the newly - formed Federation of Malays1a 1n 1963, and 1ts secess~on from the Federation in 1965 to In 1965, form an independent sovere1gn republic the aga1nst itself Singapore also had to prepare of result a poss1bil1ty of external aggress~on as 8 . Malaysia against Indones1a's pol~cy of "Confrontat1 on" It may well be that these events had the effect of strengthenin g the sense of solidar~ty among the main If so , this could have ethnic groups in s~ngapore. led in turn to the marked 1ncrease ~n the rate of ethn~c ~ntermarr1age that was noted 1n Table 2 ~ 2 during the two years when S1ngapore was forced to define

- 14 -

itself as a supra- ethnic entity. Although this conclusion is difficult to confirm in the absence of other supporting data, there is a sufficiently marked tendency to suggest Lhat if future investigations into interethnic marriage pay attention to the effects of larger social and political events at the national level, their results may prove fruitful .

- 15 -

3:

TYPES OF INTERETHNIC MARRIAGES

In their studies of kinship and marriage in Singapore , Freedman and Ojamour discovered that the most common types of interethnic marriages were those which involved either Chinese females and European, Eurasian, and Indian males, or Chinese males and Eurasian females. According to their findings, the number of Chinese-Malay , Malay-Indian, and Malay-Arab intermarriages was extremely low.l Another investigation which was based on historical evidence disagreed with one of the above points. Concentrati~g on intermarriage and Chinese assimilation , the inquiry suggested that Chinese males and Malay females intermarried frequently in eighteenth and nineteenth century Malaya.2 Discrepancies such as the above would seem to justify our intention in this chapter to determine to what degree the findings of Ojamour and Freedman are still valid. To this end we shall examine the extent to which the various ethnic groups intermarry in contemporary In addition, we shall review intermarriage Singapore. types according to ethnic affiliation and sex. Intermarriage by Ethnic Classification Table 3.1 describes the most common types of interethnic marriage in Singapore between the years 1962-70. Its data show the largest number of intermarriages to have taken place between Malays and Indians. Of the total . 4,626 interethnic marriages, 25.5%, or 1,178 were Indian-Malay. The second most frequent type involved the Chinese and the European. The 681 Chinese-European marriages accounted for 14.7% of all interethnic marriages in the period examined in the table. The third most frequent type of intermarriage jointed Malays and Chinese. The 661 Malay-Chinese marriages constituted 14.3% of the total unions during the years 1962-70. A closer analysis of the Table 3.1 data shows that until 1967, however, MalayChinese marriages were in fact the second most frequent Only since 1968 have Chinese-European marriages type. assumed the second place position. This resulted from a marked increase in this category of union which corresponded to a marked decline in the Chinese-Malay marriages. The fourth most frequent type of intermarriage was between Chinese and Eurasians. They represented 455

Table 3. 1 :

Intc-rmarr iage by Cthnic Class i f icatloo, 196 2-70

Type of Marriage

1962

196 3

1964

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

Total

Percent.lge

O'll..reSe""' Ind.1.ans 1 0\inese-'\alays Chinese-Eurasians 0\inese-Europeans Chinese-Others Ind.lans-Malllys

19 51 42 51 26 82 5 0 15 13 2 13 2 7 15 16 0

27 98 49 44 15

34 82 46 47 16 llO 5 8 9 9 1 8 0 12 6

36

39

45

39

40

24 133 13 5 15 10 4 6 6 13 9 26 2

59 134 43 151 9 19 29 21 3 6 14

20

0

1 8 1 13 5 21 2

100 45 72 17 118 9 7 18 21 0 6 4 5 15 21 3

43 55 52 71 28 142 12 10 22 24 0 9 9 11 15

60

10 7 53 64 23 127 8 7

35 89

7. J 14. 3 9. 8 14.7 5.1 25. 5 2.1 1.6 3. 7 3.2 0. 4 l.b 1.1 2.1 2.7 4.6 0 .2

423

507

500

529

100.0

Ind.i.ans-Eurasians Indians- Europeans Indians-others Eurasians-Europeans EurasiaN~ -Malay Eurasians -others Europeans-+\alays Europeans-others Mlll.ays-thers 2 Malays-Arabs

Others-others 'n:>tAl

359

U2

13 2 18 17 0 8 2 6 12 16 1 450

~

20 11

53 86

34

4

-

56 112 41 193 23 15 23 24 7 8 13 21 25 29

-

338 661 445 681 238 1 ,178 97 73 169 150 18 72 51 99 126 213 12

527

656

675

4,626

11

24

Souroe:

Departnent of Statistics, Rep.i:>lic of Sinjapore.

Notes :

1 "Indians" include Pakistanis. 2 "Others" do l'X)t incltd:! Arabs ; Malay-Arab m:uriages are given separately . In the case of all other referenoes to the "Others• category 1.n thl..s table , it incl\rles Ceylonese, Arabs , Filipinos , 'Ihais, Vietnarrese, Japanese, J~, aro. other s rr•a llergroups (See Table 2.1).

...... C7\

- 17 -

(9.8%) of the total intermarriages. This group was followed by Chinese-Indian unions numbering 338 (7.3%)$ The other significant figures pertain to the following: Chinese and "Others" (mostly Ceylonese and Arabs) - 238 (5.1%); Malays and Arabs- 213 (4 . 6%); Eurasians and Europeans150 (3.2%); Indians and "Others" (mostly Ceylonese and Arabs) - 169 (3.7%); Europeans and "Others" - 99 (2.1%); Indians and Eurasians - 97 (2 ~ 1%); Indians and Europeans 73 (1.6%); Malays and "Others" (mostly Ceylonese) - 126 (2.7%) . The lowest number of intermarriages in the period 1962-70 were Malay-Eurasian, Malay-European, and "Others"-"Others." The data contained in Table 3.1 show clearly that Malay-Indian, Malay-Chinese, and Chinese-Indian interethnic marriages had taken place far more frequently than the studies of Freedman and Djamour would lead us to expect. In view of the facts presented in Table 3.1, it seems obvious that Freedman and Djamour were not rigorous enough in their observations about marriages among the major ethnic groups in Singapore. Or it may be that changes which have occurred during the last two decades have considerably lowered the barriers to intermarriage among the members of Singapore's three main ethnic groups. If the latter supposition is true, then one can conclude that a greater degree of structural assimilation 1s taking place in Singapore than in the past. Although Table 3.1 seems to show that Malay-Arab intermarriages are more frequent than Djamour's study had indicated, our data do confirm Freedman's assertion that a considerable amount of intermarriage takes place between the Chinese and Europeans, and the Chinese and Eurasians. But besides yielding information which coinc~des or disagrees with Freedman's and Djamour's, the table reveals a rather significant pattern of its own. With the exception of Eurasian- "Others " marriages, all other classifications (and particularly those involving the major ethnic groups) registered steady and substantial increases between 196 2 and 196 3. Two groups, the Chinese-Malay and the Indian-Malay, abrupt increases in the number of intermarriages in the 1962-63 period. In 1963 there were 98 Chinese-Malay unions compared with 51 in 1962 . The largest number of Chinese-Malay marriages (107) was recorded in 1965 . After that year, however, their numbers declined steadily until they reached only 40 in r~gistered

- 18 -

1970. It could be that the sudden rise in Chinese- Malay; Malay-Indian and Chinese-Indian intermarriages in 1963 (and in 1965 in the case of the first group) may offer further evidence of the impact of the socio- political events of 1963 on Singaporean intergroup relations. (This point was first raised in Chapter 2). Table 3.1 also indicates that whereas Chinese and Malays married with increasing frequency between 1962 and 1965, Chinese and Europeans married less often with each other during the same period. Nevertheless, Ch~nese - European intermarriages began to increase steadily after 1965 until they reached 112 in 1970 . Today this category of intermarriage is the second most frequent type in Singapore. Compared with the increase 1n Chinese-Malay unions between 1962- 65, intermarriages between the Malays and the Indians showed similar trends, ris1ng from 82 in 1962 to 122 in 1963 o Malay - Indian marriages continued to inc~ease in the years following 1962 until they numbered 193 in 1970. Intermarriage by Ethnic Affiliation and Sex In this chapter we have so far examined only the extent to which members of various ethnic groups intermarry. As Table 3.1 includes no control on the sex of the persons intermarrying, it is not possible to draw any conclusions from its data regarding the extent to which males and females of var ious ethnic groups intermarry with each other. This section will focus, therefore, on types of intermarriage by ethnic affiliation and sex of the individuals involved in the marital contracts. The data are presented in Table 3.2 and deal with the 1nterethnic marriages which were registered between December 1966 and January 1969 . The patterns revealed ~n the tab le are more or less representative of the years between 1962 and 1970 as well. Table 3 . 2 shows immediately that the most common type of Singaporean intermarriage takes place between the Indian male and the Malay female. This is followed by the European male/Chinese female and Malay male / Indian female groups. In subsequent order we find the follow1ng: Malay male/Chinese female; Eurasian male / Ch1nese female; "Others" male (mostly Ceylonese and Arab)/Ch1nese female; and finally, Ind1an male/Chinese female. It is possible to study the rank order of the

-

Table 3. 2:

19 -

Interethnic Marriage by Ethnic Affiliation and Sex, Deism Confucianism Hinduism Sikhism

181

X

178

X

X

X

X

3

X

Judaism

7

X

X

X

X

X

X

5

2

"Other Religions"

1

X

1

X

X

X

X

X

X

28. 5

"No Religion"

8, 997

8 , 936

5

X

7

X

X

2

48

0.5

2.0

"Residual"

4, 403

3,688

105

X

23

X

X

7

580

13.2

24. 2

49,713

37 , 356

2,195

973

6 , 546

46

87

2 ' ?1)7

4.8

100. 0

Total

Source:

124

Depart::nent of Statistics, Republic of Singapore.

w

Vl

- 36 -

marriages were interethnic, while only one Taoist marriage was an intermarriage. In view of the large size of both religious groups and of the time period of four years which the table's data represent, these numbers are quite insignificant.4 The other two major religions in Singapore are Hinduism and S1khism. In the case of the latter, there was no interethnic marriage; of 1,302 Hindu marriag~es, 32 or 2 . 4% were interethnic. 5 But over half of the Hindu unions were between Indians and Ceylonese . As has been pointed out earlier, the Ceylonese are included in the "Other" ethnic group category . It is also of interest to note that the final grouping, that of "No Religion," indicates that those included in this classification tended to marry others from the same group. As shown in Table 5.1, the Chinese made up almost the entire "No Religion" category. Similarly, intermarria ge among the Jews tended to be confined to those who adhere to Judaism. Table 5 . 1 also includes figures which relate to 4,403 "Residual" intermarriages. This category includes marriages in which the parties involved were either from d i fferent reliqious backgrounds or in which one or both of the partners left blank the column indicating religious affiliation on the registration form o Generally, "Residual" marriages are of the latter "interfaith" sort, in which one of the spouses had no religious affiliation . Of a total of 4,403 marriages in the "Residual" category, 580 or 13.2% were interethnic. In other words, 24 . 2% of all intermarriages in Singapore between 1967 and 1970 were not only interethnic but also "interfaith." These types of interethnic marriages are the ones which are likely to be more heterogeneous than those which are simply interethnic and not interreligious as well. Such marriages are likely to generate more cultural conflict for the parties involved as well as for their children than are other types . In view of these additional complexities, a closer examination of at least selected aspects of intermarriages which are both interethnic and interreligious seems called for . The table's data offer another noteworthy point : persons who marry-out tend to contract interreligious marriages three times more frequently than the popu.lation at large. For example, these 1967-70 facts show that whereas 4,403 out of the total 49,713 (8.8\ of the total)

- 37 -

marriages were interreligio us, 24.3% of the interethnic marriages of that period were interethnic. This means that persons to marry across ethnic lines are also more likely to deviate from the other norms of society as well. This point is clearly substantiate d by the data presented in Table 5 . 1 Tables 5.2 . and 5.3 summarize the main trends in interreligio us and interethnic marriages in Singapore between 1967 and 1968. In these. years, 71% of all intermarriages were interethnic only, while 25% were both interreligio us and interethnic. The data in Tables 5.2 and 5.3 supplement each other. Table 5.2 shows the number of Muslim brides and grooms marrying-out to be about equal, while Table 5.3 shows that an overwhelming number of Muslim women married Muslim men - Among the Hindus, almost two and a half times more males than females married-out. This evidence further substantiate s the cla1m made in Chapter 4 that the propensity to marryout is greatly influenced among the Hindus by traditional socio-cultur al factors such as family organization , kinship, and caste. With respect to other categories, it should be noted that among Buddhists, Catholics, Protestants, and persons of "No Religion," it is the women who marry-out more In addition, women of these frequently than the men. marry outside their respective to likely are s denomination us marriages occur interreligio Interethnicreligions. most commonly between the following: Catholic females and Protestant males, Catholic females and males with no religious affiliation; Buddhist females and Catholic males; and finally, Protestant males and females with no religious affil1ation. These marriagesocc ur least frequently between Muslim females and non-Muslim (particularly Hindu and Catholic) males. This phenomenon 1s understandab le in v1ew of the fact that Muslim females are not permitted to marry a non-Muslim under Islamic law. The data in Table 5.2 also substantiate an earlier observation that Islam and Christianity (Cathol1c1sm and Protestanism ) have a multi-ethnic following in Singapore, whereas the other major religions are confined primarily to one or the other ethnic groups. This fact should help exp~ain our previous assertion that both Islam and Christianity usually act as "melting-pot s" for ethnic assimilation as well as meeting-grou nds for interethn1c marriage. The patterns mentioned above may be considered as being more or less representati ve of the whole period between 1962 and 1970 .

Table 5. 2: '

Distnbutioo o f Re ~21.on o f Brl.de arrl Groan ~ Race o f Bn.de and Groan, 1967-68

BueHl1st

Jle ligl.oo

Total

' Chinese Malays

Irdians Eurasiarw Europeans ~la1ese

"Others ..

Tot4l Total (\}

Sourat:

618 484 442 205 290 57 131 2,226

catholic

Protestant

Total

(%)

Rare

H1Mu

Mus~

27 . 8 21.7 19.9 9.2 13.0 2. 5 5.9

100.0

Sama aa Table 3. 2.

Groan

Br1de

17

65

-

-

Groan Bride

-

19 260 158 3

1 1 6

1 3 10

1 3 18

205 137 4 14 3 15

26

81

462

1.2

3.6

20.1

1

-

2

"No Reli2ion"

"Others "

Groan Bride Groan Bride Groan Bride GroCin Bride

U.2

l

4

-

-

31 2

~

10

46

-

-

2

85

47

11

4

11

-

-

20

500

44

18

242

22.5

2.0

0.8

11.0

147 21 2 1 16 11 83 10 13 168 7 5 21 16 289

232

13.0 10.4

57 1 7 16 17 7 7

Groan Brl.de

-

1

9 1

92 9 5 2

9

1

19

4

1

41 4

w

OD

2 3

1 9

5

1

112

79

122

15

4

5.0

3.5

5.5

0.7

0.2

- 39 -

Table 5. 3:

Distribution of Religion of Bride and Groan Wlo Intennartled,

196 7-68

Religion

No.

Peroenta;Je

Buddhist/Buddhist Buddhist/Islamic Buddhist/Hindu Buddhist/Catholic Buddhist/Protestant Buddhist/Others Islamic/Islamic Islamic/Hindu Islamic/Catholic Islamic/Protestant Islamic/Others Hindu/Hindu Hindu/Catholic Hindu,/.l?rotes tant Hindu/Others Catholic/Catholic Catholic/Protestant Catholic/Others Protestant/Protestant Protestant/Others Others/Others

15 7 10 22 34 10 464 3 4 13 8 13 6 9 8 178 82 59 64 74 31

1.3 0. 6 0. 9 2.0 3.1 0.9 41.6 0.3 0.4 1.2 o. 7 1.2 0.5 0.8 o. 7 15.9 7.4 5. 3 5.7 6.6 2. 8

1,114

99 . 8

Total Sour~:

Sane as Table 3. 2.

- 40 -

Soc1o- Econom1c Status and Intermarriage The marr1age reg1strat1on forms supply only the occupac1ons of br1des and bridegrooms. Even this informat1on 1s l1m1ted pr1mar1ty to the grooms , as a large proport1on of brides fail to state their occupational status. We therefore have no alternative but to rely on data perta1n1ng to occupac1ons 1n order to gather 1nformation concern1ng the soc1o- economic status of brides and grooms. This data 1s reported 1n Table 5. 4 which covers the years t967 and 1968. As shown 1n the table, no occupat1on was reported for 735 of 1,114 br1des who intermarried 1n these years . Of those women who did specify the nature of the1r work, the following marr1ed- out frequently : teachers , stenographers, nurses , cler1cal workers 1 shop ass1stants, and bar wa1tresses.6 Among the grooms, the marrying- out rate was h1ghest for cler1cal workers , teachers , managers and execut1ves , self- employed bus1nessmen , engineers , pol1cemen,labourers, drivers , army off1cers , sold1ers, JOUrnallsts, and art1sts. In order to determ1ne the 1nfluence of the socloeconomic var1able upon the propensity to intermarry, the occupational data was reclassif1ed 1nto the prlnclpal econom1c categor1es , and ranked accord1ng to the occupat1ona1-educat1onal ranking procedure previously developed by the author in his study of class, ethn1city, and occupat1onal structure 1n Singapore . 7 Th1s ranking is shown 1n Table 5 oS . These pr1ncipal occupational categor1es were then collapsed 1nto five social statuses ranging from soc1al status I (the h1ghest category) to social status V (the lowest category) . The d1stribut1on of brides and grooms in these f1ve soc1al statuses is shown 1n Table 5 . 6 . The data presented in these Tables reveal no sign1f1cant pattern except that none 1n Class v Intermarr1age took place (farm workers; 1ntermarr1ed. in all the other four classes. F1nally , 1n order to know the relat1ve soc1oeconom1c status of the spouses , the occupational data of the 1ntermarry1ng couples were exam1ned by f1ve ]Udges . 8 These JUdges dec1ded the relat1ve status and prest1ge of the br1de and br1degrooms' occupat1ons, and whether the br1des and grooms came from d1ffering soc1oeconom1c status levels or not - Only those cases for wh1ch occupat1onal data concern1ng both the br1de and the groom were ava1lable came under the JUdges ' scrutiny " Altogether

- 41 -

Table 5 . 4:

Occupation of Bride and Groan Who Intennarried, 1967- 68

Occupation

Grcx::m

Bride

Ardlitects

3

0

Engineers

23

3

Surveyors

3

0

Draughtsmen

4

0

21

1

Olernists

2

0

Ibctors

11

2

Dentists

0

1

Phanna.cists

1

0

Nurses

2

49

Eng.1.neering T.e dmicians

Midwives

3

Dispensers

Professional Medical Tedmicians

8

3

8

1

48

75

9

1

24

6

4

2

20

2

1

0

Govemment Acini.nistrative Officers

12

2

Directors

44

9

so

2

6

1

114 17

49

Shop Assistants

26

15

M:lrine Officers

17 28 16

0 0

4

58

&

Lecturers (in institutions of higher learning) Teadlers Acoountants Journal.1.sts , Artists

&

Musicians

lawyers and Ju:iges Social \"i'orkers , Social Scientists & Research W-orkers Religious workers &

Managers of Plrivate Firms

Businessnen (self--errployed) Foreign Consuls Clerical Workers Office Boys

Sailors Aircraft Pilots, Navigators Secretaries ( stenografhers)

&

Flight Engineers

0

4

-

42 -

(Table 5. 4 ccntinued) Bride

Occupaticn

38

1

~rators

4

16

Annotmoers

6

0

Seamstresses

0

5

Packers

5

0

Postn:en

4

0

Firerren

6

0

Police Officers

23

0

Policerren

52

2

Waiters - Waitresses & !Eoepticnists

10

21

2

6

42

4

Plurrbers

4

0

Electricians

7

0

Sports

5

1

136

2

Students

8

13

Anny Officers (local)

9

0

Soldiers (local)

53

3

British Army Officers

16

0

116

2

DaTestic Servants

2

12

Hospital Attendants

5

0

Storekeepers

8

0

cashiers

0

2

Watduren

11

0

Trishaw Riders

2

0

Ccntractors Bus Ccnductors Bill Collectors Hawkers Occupations Not Available

2 2 2 2 6

0 0 0 0 735

Drivers Telephcne and Telegraph Radio-T.V.

~rators &

Hairdressers ~chanics

&

!Ecreaticn Workers

Labourers

British & Other Foreign Army Soldiers

Source:

Sane as Table. 3.2.

-

43 -

Rank lic of Singapore and for the bridegroc:rcs who married-out, the sarre as Table 3. 2 .

AverC9e h]e at Marriage of All Brides and GroclrE & of Brides arrl Groc:m; who Interrrarried, 1967-68

Ethnic Group

All Ethnic Groups Cllinese Malays Indians Eurasians Europeans Other Ethnic Groups Sourre:

"Deoembe~ _l96~?January

(%)

6.2

Total Sourre:

Bridegrcx::ms Who Married-out

Average Age at Marriage of all Brides and Groans

Average Age at Marr1.age of Br1.des and Groctrs who Intermarried

Groclrs

Brides

Gr6crrs

Brl.des

28 28 27 29 30 26 30

24 24 22 22 25 23 26

29 29 28 30 32 29 31

26 26 25 23 25 25 28

For all marriages , Departnent of Statistics , J:Epli:>lic of Singapore, and for interethnic marriage, the sarre as Table 3. 2.

- 47 -

With the exc e p t ion of Euras1an brides , the average age at marr1age o f brides and g r ooms who married- o ut 1n 1967 and 1968 was h1gher than the average age at marr1 ag e o f a ll br1des and g r ooms i n Singapore 1n the same per 1od. This would suggest that those who intermarry tend to be more "mature" - at least in age - than tho se who marry persons fr om wi t hin their race. Many in S i ngapo r e , partic ularly amo ng the Chinese and the Indi ans , do no t approve of 1ntermarriag e becaus e they bel1eve that those who 1nterrnarry are more " inunature " a nd " too y o ung t o know wha t is right . " Suc h b eliefs o b viously do no t refle c t obJeCt1ve reality. The analysis o f the ages o f b ride s a n d gr ooms intermar ry 1ng b e tween 1967 and 19 68 r eveals the f o llowing 1n 850 o r 77% of intereth ni c ma r riages the grooms facts: were olde r than t h e brides; in 49 o r 4.4 % th e grooms were the same a g e a s the brides; and in 207 o r 19% the bride was older than the groom. Table 5.9 describes the d1fference s in age bet ween b r1des and bridegrooms in marr i ages in which the groom was the older of the two s po u ses: Table 5 . 10 shows age differences in marriag e s 1n wh ich brides were o lder than the bridegrooms. Fo r 50 % of t he grooms who were older t han the1r marriage partners, the age difference was fr om five to fourteen years; about 40% were less than f ive yea r s older than their brides; and 9% were fifteen t o twe nty In intermarri ages f1ve years o lder than their mates. in which the brides were older than the bri degr ooms , about 62% were o l der by less than five years; 34 % by five t o fifteen years; and about 4% by more than fifteen y ears. These data emphasize the considerable differences i n age I n mo st between par t ners who are intermarryin g couples. , br1des he t than older are grooms g cases intermarryin of quarter ne o In years. fifteen to ve i f ome s often by mes somet1 , husband her than older is the marriages the bride by three to n1ne years. An ana l ys i s of the relative socio-ec onomic status of spouses involved in intermarriag e s ho ws that when the bride was the o lder partner, she tende d t o marry within her own social status level more o ften than she However , might have had the groom been the older partner. hyper e r we ases c both in marriages of jor1ty ma a large r olde were who br1des that suggest garnous. Th 1s would than their gro oms were mot1vated less by conce r n f or t he social status of their mates than by fear o f no t ma r ry1 ng before they g ot too o ld.ll

- 48 -

Table 5.9:

Distribution of Differenre i n h]e i f Groan is Ol der , 1967- 68

Age Differenre less than . l l year - l 2 years - 2 3 years - 3 4 years - 4 5 years - 9 10 years - 14 15 years - 19 20 years +

year year years years years years years years

No .

4 11 ll 11 11

rronths rocnths rronths

rronths

44 35 259

D. N ~ A.

Rejected card

l

Total Source:

79 93 91 86 310 11 2

1,114

Percentage 0. 4 7.1 8.3 8. 2 7. 7 27. 8 10.1 3.9 3. 1 23. 2 0. 1 100. 0

Sarre as Tab 1e 3. 2 .

Table 5.10:

Distribution of Differ ence in Age if Bride is Ol der , 1967- 68

Pqe Differenre

No.

Percentage

D. N . A.

44 38 21 22 47 21 6 2 913

3. 9 3. 4 1.9 2.0 4. 2 1. 9 0. 5 0.2 82. 0

Total

1,114

lOOcO

less than l year l year - 1 year 2 years - 2 years 3 years - 3 years 4 years - 4 years 5 years - 9 years 10 years - 14 years 15 years - 19 years 20 years +

Source:

11 ll ll 11

rronths

rronths rronths rronths

Sarre as Table 3. 2.

- 49 -

Table 5.11:

Distribution of Itltenna.rriage by Previous Marital Status of Bride and Groom, 1967- 68

Marital Status

No.

Bachelor/Spinster BachelorjWicbN Bachelor /Divorcee WicbNer/ Spinster WicbNer;WicbN Widower/Divorcee

906 9 73 18 2 9

Divorcee/ Spinster Divorcee;WidcM Divorcee/Divorcee

61 4 28

Married/Spinster MarriedjWidcM Married/ Divorcee Rejected cards

1

0.8 6.6 1.6 0.2 0.8 5. 5 o. 4 2. 5 0.1

3

o. 3

1 , 114

lCO.O

Total Source:

Pera:mtage 81.3

Sarre as Table 3. 2.

The data about the previous marital status of the intermarrying grooms were also studied and analyzed. The data are presented in Table 5.11 . The figures indicat e that 81 % of intermarriages were between bachelors and spinsters . Of the remainder , 6.6% were between bachelor and divorcee, 5.5% between divorcee and spinster , and 2 e 5% between divorcees. Only one marriage took place between a married male and a spinster . Such marriages are alloweA. in Singapore only when the parties are Muslim; these marriages are not permitted under the Women's Charter. Such unions can be seen to be rare among Muslims , despite their considerable involvement in interethnic marriages .

- so The evidence also shows that in 19% of the total interethnic marriages, the marriage was the second for at least one of the persons involved. Compared with the data for all marriages, this is a considerably higher figure. For example, in 1968, only 6% of all marriages were second marriages for at least . one of the partners o Therefore, this comparison clearly shows that among persons who marry more than once, there is a greater likelihood of interethnic marriage than among those marrying for the first time. We may consider it a plausible explanation of the above finding that persons .who marry more than once tend to be more independent and mature. It is also possible that the individual entering into marriage for the first time is subject to strong socio-cultural pressures pressures which are exerted in order to ensure that he or she marries the " right" person, that is, a person from the same ethnic group . These pressures tend, however, to weaken by the time an individual considers marriage for a second time, thereby allowing that person a greater freedom in mate-selection (including the freedom to marry across ethnic lines). Our evidence tends to substantiate this observation. In closing, we may sum up the findings of this chapter in the following manner. Our analyses of the sociological factors affecting intermarriage show that the religions with large multi-ethnic followings exert a considerable influence on the tendency of their members to intermarry. Intermarriage across ethnic lines takes place frequently, but tends to limit itself to the Islamic and Christian faiths. The data on socio- economic status show that intermarriage takes place in all classes with some frequency. The available evidence also shows that the majority of brides marrying- out select men from higher socio-economic brackets. Figures dealing with the ages of marrying spouses show that those who marry outside their ethnic groups tend to be older than those who remain within . In addition, bridegrooms tend to be older than brides in the majority of intermarriages. As for the previous marital status of the men and women who marry~out , in about 81% of the cases, interethnic marriages tend to be first marriages for both spouses. There is also evidence in the data of the fact that there is a greater likelihood that the second marriage will be an interethnic union rather than one within the same ethnic group. It may also be ' noted in conclusion that persons who marry-out tend to marry across religious lines more frequently than does the population at large.

- 51 -

6: ASSESSMENT OF FINDINGS AND RESEARCH POSSIBILITIES The discussion in this chapter will limit itself to some of the issues which have been raised in the previous chapters. Both the theoretical import of the issues and their relevance for future sociological research were used as criteria in thei r selection . The topics to be interethnic marriage considered include the following: as an index of structural assimilation , interethnic marriage as an indicator of cultural change , the variation in the interethnic marriage rates within a society over time, and the paradox of interethnic marriage in a "multi - racial" society . Interethnic Marriage As an Index of Structural Assimilation Using Gordon's definition of structural assimilation as a process involving the entrance of the members of one ethnic group into the social organization, institutional activities, and general civic life of another ethnic group, we may make a general conclusion with respect to 1 the intermarriage data presented in the previous chapters . The figures would seem to indicate a moderate degree of structural assimilation in Singapore.2 This conclusion is further supported by other studies of the process of structural assimilation and integration in Singapore. One such study by Chiew focuses on Singaporean national identity.3 In it he found that Singapore enjoyed only a moderately low degree of "social structural integration." Chiew used a number of social-psychological indicators to measure "psychological integration " in Singapore . He concluded that 90% of the electorate called themselves Singaporeans, and 74% preferred to be called Singaporeans rather than Chinese, Malay, Indian, Eurasian , or European. He also noted that "social integration from work to friendship was low . Communal exclusiveness in language and education is breaking down . The electorate perceived and endorsed equal treatment for all 4roups, but rejected the government's language policies." In Chapter 1 we referred briefly to the Singapore Government's specific nation-building policies. In view of the empir~cal evidence presented in investigations like Chiew's, we may conclude that to a large extent the desired results have accrued from the measures adopted .

- 52 -

Given the government's emphasis on national integration through common shared values and attitudes, .we could expect that these would lower the barriers towards what Gordon terms "structural assimilation." In Chiew's study evidence was collected about integrative attitudes towards community centres, neighbourhood desegregation and interethnic marriage (see Appendix A) . The findings show a higher degree of integrative feeling with respect to multi-ethnic membership in community centres, neighbourhood desegregation, and relatively low or mixed attitudes towards acceptance of members of other ethnic groups as neighbours and towards interethnic marriage . 5 With respect to the moderately low degree of "social _ structural assimilation" in Singapore which we have mentioned earlier in this chapter, Chiew's study also showed that various ethnic groups in Singapore varied in their degree of structural assimilation. He used six indicators of "social structural integration": (1) communal composition at work, (2) communal composition in the neighbourhood, (3) chatting with neighbours, (4) attending birthday and marriage celebrations of other communities, (5) having relatives from other communities, and (6) intercommunal friendships . His findings show that 51% of Singaporeans worked in a multi-communal situation; 45% of those ~'lho had friends found them in all three major ethnic groups (Chinese, Indians and Malays); 36% attended parties hosted by members of other groups; 35% lived in multiethnic neighbourhooili?; 26% chatted a few times a week with neighbours belonging to other ethnic groups, and 7% had relatives from other communities. It is interesting to note Chiew's illustrations of his finding that considerable differences in the degree of "structural integration" existed among the major ethnic groups. At work, for example, the Indians were the most desegregated, the Malays intermediately desegregated and the Chinese the least integrated. Of those who worked in multi-communal situations, 83% were Indians, 7 1 % Malays, and 46% Chinese. In residential neighbourhoods the Indians were the most desegregated and the Chinese the least: 77% of the Indians, 48% of the Malays, and 30% of the Chinese lived in multi-communal neighbourho-o ds. In neighbouring in~eraction the study shows that only 18% of the Chinese compared with 48% of the Malays and 68% of the Indians had contacts with beighbours belonging to other ethnic groups .

- 53 -

The data on participation in socia l and cultural functions indicate that Singapore ' s minority communities were accepted by the Ch inese more than they accepted the Chinese: 51% of the Indians and 31% of the Malays were invited to b1rthday and marriage celebrations of another community or of other communities , while only 14 % of the Chinese were s o invited . Another 20% of the Indians, 23% of the Malays and 16% of the Chinese were invited to either celebration by members of other ethnic gro ups. Combining both figures , we may conclude that 71 % of the Indians, 5 4% of the Malays , and 30% of the Chinese were invited to one or both celebrations by members o f another or other ethn1c groups. With respect to relatives, the data indicate that 5% of the Chinese , 12% of the Malays, and 23% of the Ind1ans had relatives from another ethn1c group or from other ethn1c groups . A compilation of data pertaining to Ch1ew's s1xth ind1cator , communal composition of fr1ends , shows aga1n that the Indians were the most integrated and 87% of the Indians, 69% of the the Chinese the leas t: Chinese had multi - ethnic the of 39% ~nly and , Malays friendships. As has been said , the six general indicators of " soc1al structural integration" generally reveal that the m1nor1ty ethnic groups tend to be relatively more integrated than the majority group. This pattern is not altogether unexpect ed. Since the Chinese constitute the largest ethnic group (about 78% of the total population), it is likely that they can carry on their daily rounds of socio-cultural activities within the Chinese community itself , whereas other ethnic groups cannot. Because of their size and socio-economic position , the other groups are more l1kely to come into contact with the Chinese in the course of their day-to-day social , cultural and econom1c activities.

Stud1es of interethnic dating among Universi t y of S1ngapore students also tend to reflect the same ge n e ra l pattern. Hamidaba1 and RaJmala found , for example , th a t of the 74 % of th~ir sample (N=79) who dated , 34% dated In a similar investigation , Charlotte interethnical ly. Wong traced a corresponding pattern and added the follow1n g qualificatio n . She claimed that Chinese students dated less frequently across ethnic lines than did Malays, 8 Indians (including Pakistanis and Ceylonese), and Eurasians . The s1milar1ties between the interethn1c marriage trends observed in our study and those trends revealed by

-

54 -

the above works tend to support the gene ral sociological proposition that interethnic marriage i s usuallg a va lid indicator of t he degree of ethnic assimilation. Indeed, bo t h the pattern and degree of "structural i n t egration" revealed by Chiew ' s examination of variou s Singapore a n e t hni c groups coincide with the fi~d i ng s of our study based on i n t erethnic marriage a As meas ured by his six i ndicat ors, Chiew • s find i ngs point t o a moderate to l ow degree of s tructural assimi lation o In the present study , we too have argued that interethni c marriages in Singapore also betoken a moderate degree of soc1al i n tegration among the various ethni c groups. In th e same way , Ch1ew 's affirmation of t he relatively high degree o f social integration characteri stic of minori t y g r oups is corroborated by the present investigation . I t too p r oposes .xhat t he proportion of grooms and brides who marry outside their ethni c groups vari es i nversely w1 th the ~elative size of that group a s compared wi th the ent1re populat1on. In our exami nation of interethnic marriage 1n Singapore we have s1ngled out religion as one of the most important determinants in the decision to 1ntermarry . Reviewing what has been sai d previously , we see that in over two- th i rds of the mar r iages i n question, the partners shared the same rel i gion o Chri sti anity and Islam tended in particular t o encourage i ntermarry1ng . S1ng aporeans from these t wo re ligious denominat i ons marr1 e d - out three times as f r equentl y as other Si ngaporeans. Although they are not as signifi cant as rel1g1on, two other factors - compleme~tary occupat1onal roles and education - should not be overlooke d . The r e 1 s, in fact, a need for more research i nto the actu al influence o f religion, occupati on , and e ducat1on on i nterethnic marri age o Through more de tailed case stud1es of i n t ereth n ic mar r iages we should attempt the following : t o discover whi c h uni ons a r e i ntere t hn1c but not i nterrel i gious; to trace t he extent t o wh1ch common reli g i on really acts as a c at alyst or meeting ground f o r inte rmar r i ages; a nd t o deci de on the e xtent to wh1ch intermarr i age i t se l f o r even the deci s ion to 1ntermarry causes common rel i gion olO Unfortunate ly , t he dat a p r esented 1n this study cannot provide def i ni tive answers to t he above questions . Si milar ly, i t has been i mpossible t o undertake more than a superf i cia l exam1nat ion of the r oles played by other factors suc h as educ a t 1on, occupation, and soc~al clas s .

- 55 -

These points merit a more serious investigation than the scope of this study can permit . Interethnic Marriage As an Index of Cultural Change In Chapter 4 we compared Malay, Eurasian, Indian and Ch~nese family organizations in an attempt to find explanations for the way in which sex differences in marrying-out rates reflect the different authority patterns typical of the traditional socio-cultural The conclusions organization of the groups concerned. drawn from our own comparison have received indirect confirmation in a recent sociological study of family organization which was made in neighbouring West Malaysia . The area under study differs from Singapore only in the larger proportion of rural dwellers its populatio n encompasses.ll goals which differed considerably from those of this study, the Malaysian investigation provides adequate evidence to support the following claim - that in various aspects of family organization, a patri-virilateral bias is still of consequence among the Chinese compared with the uxori-matrilateral bias found among the Malays. Among the Indians the inclination is only slightly viriloca l , at least as regards extended household residen ce . l2 This is precisely the distribution that would be expected on the basis of the familial-organization theory of differential interethnic marriage rates that we put forward in Chapter 4. Desp~te

The data gathered on interethnic marriage in Singapore suggest that a large section of the population combines contemporary patterns of behaviour and traditional ethnically-based ideals within the domestic domain. This observation holds true despite the tendency of Singaporeans to explain their social behaviour in ethnic terms (to a greater degree than is warranted by the facts ) . This tendency is probably reinforced by the current official policy of "multi-racialism."l3 We are not entitled, however, to make suppositions about behaviour in the extra-familial domain - "society at large" - on the basis of this result, as there is every reason to expect a fair degree of disjunction between the intra- and extra-family domains in a rapidly changing society, whether or not the people involved are themselves aware of it. To illustrate this phenomenon, we recall the figures quoted in Chapter 5 which deal

- 56 -

with the Muslim sector of the population. The data indicate a degree of convergence which is high enough to suggest that the non-ethnic factors outweigh ' the ethnic in influencing the behaviour of a sizeable minority section of the population . In the present chapter, we have summarized certa~n analyzes and arguments discussed already in Chapter 4 . our goal has not been to claim definitive explanations or conclus~ons pertaining to the problems in question ~ We intend, rather , to let the study serve as an example of how to measure rather than me rely describe certain elements of socio- cultural change so as not to overlook the cultural aspects of the situation. Needless to say, our investigation represents only a tentative beginning in this regard. Until detailed comparative figures and full cultural data are made availab le for a wide range of societies, we can only ach~eve some kind of scale measure. Similarly, we are not yet in a position to deal with the equally interesting problem of the absolute values of the figures presented in Chapter 4 . For example, it is not yet possible to say why fi ve times more Chinese women than Chinese men marry-out in Singapore. In addition to these proposi tions, there is another factor implic~t in intermarriage which deserves further treatment . This ~s the consequence of ethnically mixed marriages for the transmission of culture. As a un~t, the family ~s often viewed as a culturally homogeneous phenomenon. The principle of homogamy which is well established universally in the mate - selection process tends to support this view. Yet by its very nature interethnic marriage generally brings together persons who are culturally different from each other o This characteristic introduces a series of soc~ological impl~cations touching on family sol~dar~ty , cultural transm~ss~on , and cultural identity of the offspring of ~ntermarriage . Much is said concern~ng the relative sol~darity of marriages . Most people who tend to disapprove of such unions usually do so by pointing out and emphasizing the real as well as the imaginary problems of intermarriage which are likely to affect the spouses as well as the offspring . They refer specifical ly to the high divorce rates for interethnic marriage as well as the cultural marginality of the offspring of such un~ons. There is, however , very little empirical evidence to support these views . There are undoubtedly divor ces among people who intermarry, but the fact remains that the majority of interinterethn~c

- 57 -

married couples rema~n together. Similarly, there is little ev~dence to indicate that interethnic marriages differ qua litat~vely from those which are ethnically homogeneous . It should also be mentioned that the concept of "marginal man" commonly used by sociologists to describe either the cultural identity or the cultural involvement of children of mixed marriages cannot be universally applied. In fact, a large number of offspring belonging to intermarried couples are quite clear about their own cultural identity . If we are to know what interethnic marriage implies with respect to cultural change , we must know what types of persons are involved in the ethnically mixed marriages. Various sociological studies have already established the fact that contracting individuals in intermarriag e do in fact vary in their amount of cultural involvement within their respective ethni c groups . l4 In the section which follows, we shall attempt to ill ustrate that the intermarrying partners ' degree of cultural involvement can have a direct influence on the furthering of cultural change within a society. In his study of socially mixed marriage, De Jager has used a scheme to differentiat e between types of unions.lS He described the degree and intensity of cultural involvement by referring to the well- known distinction between full , peripheral , and n ominal members of a particular ethnic group.l6 Table 6. 1:

A Typology of Interethnic

Marri~e

Husband' s Ethnic Rootedness Naninal ~r

fll

gJ .§

~ 0

j Ul

~ ·~

3:

Peripheral

Full M:mber

~r

Aca::mroiaticn (2)

Ass~lation

Accatm:xiaticn (4)

Acooom:xlation (5)

Ass~latioo

Assimilaticn (7)

Assimilatioo

Cooflict

Naninal r.enber

Accararodat~cn

Peripheral Merrber Full Merrber

(1)

(8)

( 3)

(6)

(9)

- 58 -

At the time of marriage, each of the marriage partners can be assigned one of these preceding titles. Theoretically, nine possible marital combinations can result . Table 6.1 illustrates these nine types of inte re thnic marriages according to the strength of cultural affiliation or involvement of each of the partners both in his respective ethnic group and its culture . It should be noted that the scheme of Table 6.1 is a tentative one. Reviewing the groupings quickly, one can argue that categories (2}, (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), and (8) w1.ll tend towards cultural homogenization. The inclination would be even more pronounced in types (3), (6), (7), and (8) in which one partner is willing to adopt the cultural patterns of the other. Although these marriages are indicative of cultural change in society, they are not likely to be a source of change in the general social system. In types (2) , (4), and (5), complete cultural homogenization would be less likely; cultural compromise, however, would probably occur in which both partners make concessions. Where this pattern of compromise (called "accommodation") takes place over a period of t i me, a new culture may arise to occupy a pos i tion between the two original ones . l7 It is possible that categories (2), (4) and (5) contain the germs of a latent conflict situation . But the question of whether this situatl.on would influence cultural homogenization or cultural change, needs to be further investigated.l8 In Table 6.1 , marriage type (1) involves partners who are both only nominal members of their respect1.ve ethnic groups. By this is meant that they do not have any strong affiliation with the cultural patterns of the1r respective groups. Individuals in this category are called " non-culturally involved." Their marital unions represent a form of cultural adaptation in which ,.consensus by distance .. has been achieved. Thus, "the partners agree in not caring about their own cultures and these marriages can really no longer be called mixed." 19 Marriage type (9) occup1es a posit1on at the opposite end of the scale from (1). In th1s matching of persons who are 11 Consciously culture-l.nvolved," there may be total and cont1nuous conflict . Th1s conflict comes about as a result of the fact that partners unite who are full members of their respect1ve ethnic groups. To be a full member sign1fies that an individual is strongly attached to the cultural patterns of his ethnic group.

- 59 -

From the above discussion we can see that the implication of interethnic marriage for cultural change depends on the combinations of different types of partners In some types (as described 1n the preceding Table 6 . 1) . (8) , where and , (7) , of intermarriag e such as (3) , (6) o ne partner is willing to adopt the cultural patterns of the other, there will be a general tendency towards cultural homogenizati on and such marriages will lead to assimilat1on . The offspring of these four types of intermarriag e would adopt and perpetuate the cultural In types (2) , (4) , patterns of one or the other parent. and (5) , the compromise cultural mixture achieved by the p arents will be transmitted to the offspring. Normatively, the children of these marriages will feel this culture to be less binding than will the children of the former groups mentioned above, for the cultural elements w1ll present themselves as alternatives to be selected (at least in part} at their discretion. Within marriage type (1) whose partners are only nominal members of their respective ethnic groups, the children are likely to owe little allegiance to the cultural patterns of their parents. Like them, the offspring may be "passively non- culturally involved . "20 Within the contrasting category (9) whose spouses are full membe r s of their respective ethno-cultur al groups, we have stated that conflict will probably arise due to individual commitments to different cultural patterns . With or without the support of their respective relatives , both parents in such situations may try to win the child to their own culture. A similar struggle may arise as well in marriages (2}, (4} , and (5) which are grouped under "accommodati on. " Its appearance, however , will probably be 1ncidental and moderate . In contrast , group (9) will produce more frequent and more extreme parental contention over the child ' s cultural aff1liations . These influences exact contrary cult u ral patterns from the child , the result of which may be a sett1ng-up of a process of stress. Under these " cross-pressu res" of two mutually exclusive cultural systems, the child will be motivated to meet both sets of expectations in order not to d1sappoint either parent . In such a situation , he may ult1mately accept neither cultural system and will become instead one who is nonculturally involved.2 1 In other words , the offspring will select what psychologist s call the "apathetic solut1on" by attempt1ng to avoid making a painful solut1on , by identifying himself with neither cultural

- 60 -

, and even by denyinq that there ar differences between systems.

ayat

import nt

In this section which has deal t with the 1nflucnoo o f 1nterethn1c rriaqe on cultural chanqe, two qcner 1 conclusions seem appropriate. Although as a 9~ nomenon 1nterethn1c marriage may be 1ndicat1ve of cultural chanq , not all such marriages actually do contribute to such change. Obviously , different types of intermarriage contribute to cultural chanqe in society in 4 1ffor nt vaya . In addition to this, the discussion has indicated that not all offspring of interethn1c marriages are likely to bece~~De rqinal human beings. The probability of marqlnaltty increases , however , when both parents re deeply involved 1n their respective cultures. Offspri ng o f other aorta of intermarr iaqe tend to perpetuate the cultural patterns of one or the other parent. Both of theae ooncluatons requi r e validation, but at present there 11 little empirical d ta available ln Sinqapore f o r audh • t at. Until auch time aa we have adequate emplrteal e•ldenee to v.rtfy these assertions, they muat r tn as tentative qeneraliz tiona . Vartattona ln Interethnic Marr1aqe Ratea In •~ atudiea of interethnic marriage very little attontton 11 pald to the aoc1olog1cal signlticance of the varlatlon 1n interethnic marriag e r tea over a given per1od o f tl • Socloloqtcal reaearch into this asp ct ot 1nterethnlc aarr1age haa cona tderable scope and should 1ncreaae our understandlng of the social tactors aftectinq the aoc1al ayatem. Our preaent study provides two uaetul •U99 st1ons pertalnlnq to thia q uestion of the socioloql c l ~19n1f1cance o f var1able 1nterethnic rates As ..,.. have already pointed ou t 1n ChapteD 2-4, the 1nteraarr1a9e ftqures presented 1n Tables 2 2, 3.1 , 4.1, and 4.2 show two peaks 1n the marry tng - out rates ot major ·1nd1qeno us• ethnic groups ln 196J and 1965. The peaka are s1qn1f1cant in that ~hey seem to occur without any apparent reqularl t y. As haa been said , these two years . . rk 1aportant events 1n Singapore'• history which affected all levels of l1fe . In 1961 Singapore JOlned the nevlyto~d Federa~1on of Malaysia, a nd 1n 1965 it aeceded from ~e Federation to for. an independent aovere1qn republ1e. At th1a tl 51Dqapore vas also faced with the continued threat ot Indonea1a'a pol1ey ot •confrontation• against M.alaya1a.

- 61 -

As suggested in Chapter 4, these events might have had the effect of strengthening the sense of solidarity between the main ethnic groups in Singapore. If so, this could well have led to the marked increase in the rate of interethnic marriage that we have noted for the two years when Singapore was faced with its greatest need to defend itself as a supra-ethnic entity. Though this effect is not entirely uniform for all ethnic groups and sexes, the general tendency is sufficiently marked to suggest that future studies on interethnic marriage should be aware of the effects of larger sociopolitical trends at the national level on intermarriage patterns. There is a further point. The variation in intermarriage rates may also be a function of the general state of social and cultural change in society, and particularly of the impact of this change on youth. The attitudes of youth towards class and cultural phenomena may also cause the interethnic marriage rates to vary. Other factors such as diminishing parental authority, the increased possibility of interethnic contact in heterogeneous Singapore, and the growing acceptance of more individualistic standards of behaviour all play a role in an individual's decision to intermarry. Some studies seem to offer indirect support for the preceding observation. Heiss, for example, chose to concentrate on premarital characteristics of religiously intermarried couples. He found that couples entering a marriage wh1ch was religiously mixed had often cut loose from the1'r ~arents or had had unsatisfactory relations Furthermore, De Jager went so far as to with them.2 suggest that "intermarriage is, or will become, a form of youth protest."23 Intermarriage does have a certain degree of symbolic value representative of defiance . And as protest has become a common trademark among the world's youth, it may well be that intermarriage will increase in the future. Paradox of Interethnic Marriage In a "Multi -Racial" Society An ethnically heterogeneous society which officially sanctions the ideology of "multi-racialism" in order to promote and ensure harmonious interethnic group relations, also creates and by implication sanctions conditions whereby each of its constituent ethnic groups is encouraged and expected to maintain its ethnic boundaries

- 62 -

and socio- cultural institutions. In such a society , interethnic marriage 1s a problematic phenomenon and a sociological paradox. Too many interethnic marriages would threaten the 1deology of "multi-racialism;" too few would indicate strong ethnocentrism which is undesirable because it generally indicates strong ethnic antipathy. It would be interesting , for example, to compare Singapore ' s interethnic marriage rates with those of a similar society which does not subscribe to the philosophy of "multi-racialism .. " Such a comparison should provide us with useful theoretica l insights into the dynamics of interethnic group relations as they are influenced by the presence or absence of public policies such as "multi - racialism. " Another related investigation wh i ch future research could examine is that of an anthropological study of persons participating in interethnic marriage in a "mult1-racial" In this way one could ascertain the individual' s society . socio-economic, political, and cultural positions within the society so as to determine whether or not members of economically , culturally , and politically marginal groups within such a society ten d to marry-out more frequently than others . Theoretically , one can argue that members of such groups should marry- out more frequently because of the differential internalization of the norms implicit in the cultural policies of the society. Having touched upon the areas mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, we may now say in conclusion that there are still several other possible research areas related to interethnic marriage . OWing to the limited nature ·~f the marriage registration data presented in this study , we have not been able to generalize about topics of interest such as reasons for intermarriage, acceptance by friends and relatives of such marriages, the 1mage that off~pring of such marriages have of themselves, sources and resolutions of social and cultural confli ct , and other similar questions n In o rder to find answers to these queries , 1t is imperative that more sociological and socio-psycholog1cal data be obtainep from detailed case studie~ of persons In add1t1on , the entering 1nto interethnic marriage . ways 1n which these persons adapt and adJUSt to the c1rcumstances of such marriages must be observed . Until the necessary information is made available , the questions raised must e1ther remain unanswered, ox at best be replied to in a manner which is subject to correction 1n the l1ght of further empirical evidence .

- 63 -

NOTES Chapter 1:

Interethnic Marriage

1

Some of the significant studies of ethnic intermarr iage are: Margaret A. Parkman and Jack Sawyer, "Dime nsio n s of Ethn1c Intermarrige in Hawaii," Ame r iaan Soa i o~ogiaa l Review , XXXII (1967), pp. 593-60 7; C.A. Price and J. Zubrzyck1, "Immigrant Marriage Patterns in Aust ra li a, " Po pu lation Studie s, XVI (1962), pp. 123- 133; La rry D. Barnett, "Interracial Marriage in Californi a ," Marr1.-ag e and Famil y Living, IV (1963), pp. 424-4 27; Milton L. (Syracuse : Syra c use Barron, People Who Inte r marry University Press, 1948); John H. Burma , "Int ere thni c Marriage in Los Angeles, 1948-1959," So aial Foraes , XLII ( 1963 ) , pp. 156 - 165; Ruby Jo Reeves Kennedy, "Single or Triple Melting-Pot? Intermarriag e Trends in New Haven, 1870-1940," Ameriaan Jou rna l of Soaiology , XLIX (1944), pp. 331- 339; David M. Heer, "Negro-Whi te Marriage in the United States," New Soaiety , (Augus t 26 , 1965 ) , pp. 7- 9; Louis Rosenberg, "Intermarria ge in Canada: 1921- 1960," in Werner J. Cahnrnan, ed., Inter marriage and Jewi s h Life (New York: Herzel Press and Jewish Reconstruct ionist Press , 1963), pp. 57 - 81; Betram Hutchison, "Some Evidence Related to Matrimonial Selection and Immigrant Assimilation in Brazil," Population Studies , XI (1957), pp . 149-156; Riaz Hassan, "Interethnic Marriage in Singapore: A Sociolo gical Analysis," Soaiolo gy and So aial Researah , LV ( 1971 ) , pp. 305-323. For a summary of various studi es of ethnic intermarriag e and interfaith marriage see George E. Simpson and J. Milton Yinger, Raaial and Cultu r al Minorities {New York: Harper and Row, 1965), pp. 365- 38 7 ; and Hyman Rodman, Marriage ~ Family ~ and Soaiety (Ne w York: Random House, 1966) , pp. 48- 65.

2

For a discussion of endogamy and homogamy fac to rs in mate selection, see Robert R. Bell , Marr iage and Famil y Inte r aation (Homewood: Dorsey Press, 1967 ) , pp. 136-159; also Rodman, op . ait . , pp. S0 -5 2.

3

Andrew W. Lind, An Island Community: Eaologiaal Suaae s s1.-on in Haw aii (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1938), p. 304; Brewton Berry, Raae and Ethnia Relations (Boston: Ho ughton Mifflin Co., 1958), pp . 2 6 1- 2 6 7 •

4

Ju l 1us Drachsler, Demoar aay and Assimilation (New Yo rk: MacMillan Co., 1920 ) , p. 87.

- 64 -

5

The question of structural assimilation is of particular importance for the Singapore Government o Faced with the marked ethnic heterogeneity of its population , the post-independence Singapore Government has relentlessly pursued policies aimed at inculcating a sense of national identity in its citizenry. Th1s nat1onal feel1ng is intended to be suffic1ently inclus1ve and grat1fying to transcend communal loyalty, mult1 - rac1al1sm , and mult1l1ngualism - factors which have been trad1t1onally held as bas1c values. The creat1on of a sense of nat1onal identity has been accompanied by the attempt to promote cultural tolerance ; to accept differe nces in religious practices , customs , a n d traditions belonging to var1ous ethnic groups ; and finally, to accord members of each ethnic group both equality before the law and equal1ty of opportunity for social , cultural , and econom1c advancement. By fostering these values the government has attempted to overcome , or at leas t m1nimize, the divisiveness of culture , language, and religion. In order to evaluate current nation-bu1 lding policies enforced by the government a nd to determine their influence on structural assimilation, it is necessary to collect adequate data of a "behav1oural" or "structural" nature. It will be through the present study of ethnic intermarriage in Singapore that we will collect and analyze the requir ed data.

6

Milton M. Gordon, "Assimilation in America: Theory and Reality , " Daedalus , XC (19 61) , pp. 26 3- 2 85. Although I subscribe to Gordon ' s concept1on of structural assimilation , there is nevertheless one weakness implicit in it which needs ment1oning . Gordon's conception would be applicable in so far as the members involved perceive structural differences as real and sign1ficant . In such cases entrance of the members of one ethn1c group into the social structure of another would constitute structural assimilat1on. However , 1f the members involved do not perceive differences in the social structur e as significant and real, or when members of one ethnic group simply adopt the cultural patterns of another ethnic group and start part1cipat1ng in that group 's social stru cture as full members , th1s would obviously n ot have any s ignif1cant consequences for the society at large. In such cases , social structure of ethnic groups would perpetuate without any change or redefin1tion . This point is also raised in Chapter 6 1n connect1on with the relat1onsh1p of different types of interethnic marriage to cultural change . The problem needing further investigat1on

- 65 -

which is beyond the scope of this study is the meaning assigned to the structural variables by partners involved both in ethnic .intermarriag e as well as in interethn1c group relations . 7

Note for example, the numerous studies dealing with social distance scales initiated by Emory s. Bogardus in "Race Friendliness and Social Distance," J ourna l o f Applied Sociology , XI (1927), pp . 272-287.

8

George A. Lundberg and L , Dickson, "Selective Association Among Ethnic Groups in a High School Population," American Sociological Review , XVII ( 1952) ' pp. 23-35.

9

Chapter 9 of Berry's book Berry, op . cit . , p. 256 . deals rna1nly with the b1ological and soc1al consequences of miscegenatio n.

10

Andrew W. Lind, "Interracial Marriage as Affecting Divorce in Hawaii," Sociology and Social Research , XLIX (1964), pp. 17-26. Quoted in Rodman, op . c~t . , p . 45 .

11

See Png Poh-Seng, "The Straits Chinese in Singapore: A Case of Local Identity and Socio-Cultur al Accommodatio n," Journal of Southeast Asian History , X (1969), pp . 96 - 115; J. Edmonds, "Religion, Intermarriag e and Assimilat1on : The Ch1nese in Malaya," Race , X (1968), pp . 57-67; Maurice Freedman, Chi nes e Family and Marriage in Singap o r e (London: HMSO, 1957), pp . 123-126; Judith Djamour, Ma la y Kinsh ip and Marriage in Singapore (London: Athlone Press, 1965), pp. 11-13; Guy Hunter, South-East As~a: Race ~ Culture and Nation (London : Oxford University Press, 1966), pp. 45-57; Victor Purcell, The Ch~ne s e in Ma laya (London: Oxford Un1vers1ty Press, 1967); L A. P . Gosling, "Migration and Assimilat1on of Rural Ch1nese in Trengganu," in John Bastin and R. Roolvink, eds , Ma lay an and Indonesian Studies (London: Oxford Un1vers1ty Press, 1964), pp. 203-221; Hua-Kuo Yeh , Ch~nese Mar r ~ ag e Patte rn s in Singap ore , Ph.D . dissertat1on , Department of Soc1ology, New York University, 1969. Chapter 8 of this study deals with Chinese 1nterracial marriages 1n The analysis 1s limited to e1ghty-s1x Singapore. interracial marriages registered in Singapore 1n 1962 in which one partner of each pair was non-Chinese.

12

Edmonds, op . cit ., p. 57.

- 66 -

13

Djamour, op.cit., pp. 11-13.

14

Freedman, op . cit . , p. 124.

15

Ibid . , pp . i24-125. On p . 124 the table gives statistics of Intermarriage by ~iv il and Christian Marriage, January 1941 to August 1949. The reference in the quotation cited refers to that table.

16

Ibid., loc.cit.

17

T. H. Silcock, "Connnunal and Party Structure," in T.H. Silcock and R. Fisk, eds., The Political Economy of Independent Malaya (:Canberra.: Australian Nat-iona-l· · Uni ve·:r;.si't::y· ··P,ress. , "'].96 3) , p ·. 3> Others ··who ·support this V'i..ew are:_. oF·ree'droqn ;··· op . cit ; , ·. qnd Edmonds , op . cit .

Chapter 2:

Interethnic Marriage in S ingapore

1

For discussion of the concept of plural society see MeG. Smith, "Social and Cultural Pluralism," Annals of the New YoPk Academy of Sciences , LXXXIII (1959-60), pp. 763-777; and Leo A. Despres, "Anthropological Theory, Cultural Pluralism and the Study of Complex Societies ," CuPPent Anthropology, VIII (1968), pp. 3-26. For a more detailed analysis of the demographic change and development of ethnic diversity in Singapore, see Riaz Hassan, "Population Change and Urbanization in Singapore," Civilization , XIX (1969), pp. 169-186; R.N. Jackson, Immigrant Labour and the Development of Malaya~ I786 - I920 (Kuala Lumpur: Government Press, 1961); You Poh Seng, "The Population of Singapore 1966: Demographic Structure, Social and Economic Characteristics," Malayan Economic Review , XII (1967), pp. 59-96; K.G. Tregonning, "The Historical Background," in Ooi Jin-Bee and Chiang Hai Ding, eds., Modern Singapore (Singapore: University of Singapore, 1969), pp . 14-19.

2

Registrar-General of Births and Deaths, Report on the Registration of Births and Deaths and Marriages (Singapore: Government Printing Office) & Annual reports, 1962-70 .

3

A "non-Muslim" marriage in this study tneans a marriage which has been registered under the Women's Charter. Until 1967, no marriage in which one party or both parties were Muslim could be registered under the Women's Charter. After 19~7 the Women's Charter was

- 67 -

amended to provide for registration of a marriage i n which one party was Muslim (Amendment 9, 1967 Women's Charter) . But if both parties were Muslim, then the marriage can only be registered under the Muslim Ordinance. For purposes of convenience I have used the term "non-Muslim" marriage to refer to a marri age wh~ch has been registered under the Women's Charter, but it is possible that in some marriages a fter 1967 one party was Muslim and the marriage was regis t e red under the Women's Charter. 4

For a brief description of the procedures of r e gis t ration of marriages under the Muslim Ordinance and under t he Women's Charter see the annual Reports on the Registra t~ o n of Bi r ths and Deaths and Marriages (9arts pertaining t o registration o f · :\tu~ l i m· ~1arr i·ages ·and · Registratrort of ~ . larriage s ) .

5

Simpson and Yinger, RaaiaZ an d CuZt u raZ Minorities , p. 371. However, comparison between the int erethnic marriage rates of Singapore and the United States would have to be qualified in view o f the t ype s of ethnic groups involved . I would think that i n order to compare Singapore's interethnic marriage rate with that of the continental United States one should use only the Black-White intermarriag es, since these two groups approximate the types of ethnic groups involved in interethnic marriage in Singapore. The other American interethnic marriage data should be compared with considerable caution to those of Singapor e.

6

C.K. Cheng and Douglas s . Yamamura, "Interracial Marriage and Divorce in Hawaii," SoaiaZ Fo r aes , XXVI (1957), pp . 77-84. See also Parkman and Sawyer, "Dimensions of Ethnic Intermarriag e."

7

Chiew Seen Kong, S ingapo r ean Nation aZ Identity , M. Soc. Sc . thesis, Department of Sociology, Uni versit y of Singapore, 1971 . This study was based on a random , proportiona l quota sample of 990 persons drawn from the 1968 Electoral Register. Riaz Hassan, "Class, Ethnicity and Occupational Structure in Singapore," Civili z atio n s , XX (1970), pp. 496-513; Joe Khatena, "Relative Integration of Selected Ethnic Groups in Singapore," So aiotogy and Soai a Z Re s e arch , LIV (1970 ), pp. 460-465.

8

It is also possible that the intense and extensive campaign by Singapore for merger with Malaysia (from

- 68 -

1961 onward) may have also contributed to cementing a sense of solidarity among Singapore's multi-ethnic population. · I am indebted to Professor Kernial Singh Sandhu for suggesting this possibility to me. Chapter 3:

Types of Interethnic Marriage

1

Djamour, MaZay Kinship, pp. 11-13; Freedman, Chinese FamiZy in Singapore, pp. 123-126.

2

This is suggested by the studies of L. A. P. Gosling, "Migration .of Rural Chinese," and Png Poh-Seng, "The Straits Chinese in Singapore . "

3

Simpson and Yinger, RaaiaZ and CuZtural Minorities , pp. 371-373; Milton L. Barson, People Who Intermarry (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1948), pp. 188-190; Eric Cohen, "Mixed Marriages in an Israeli Town," Je~ ish JournaZ of SoaioZogy, XI (1969), pp. 41-50 . Simpson and Yinger suggest the following factors for the tendency among men of minority groups to marry-out more frequently than the women: (1) The women in minority groups have less opportunities for meeting men of other groups than do the minority men of meeting outside women; (2) Religious and other institutional controls may exert a stronger influence on minority women than on minority men; . (3) Men take initiatives in dating and courtship; and (4) Marrying a woman in the majority group or a woman in the minority group whose appearance and manners closely approximate those of the' majority group women is a symbol of success, prestige, and acceptance into the larger community.

Chapter 4:

The Traditional Socio-Cultural Organization and Ethnic Marrying-Out Rates

1

This chapter was co-authored with Dr. Geoffrey Benjamin. A revised and enlarged version of this chapter will appear in the JournaZ of Marriage and the FamiZy, XXXV (November 1973).

2

Simpson and Yinger, RaciaZ and Cultural- Minorities, pp. 371-372; Rodman, Marriage, FamiZy ·and Society , pp. 54-55 .

3

See for example, Freedman, Chinese Family in Singa'pore, pp. 125-126.

- 69 -

4

In the ensuing discussion, the category "Other" has been excluded from consideration as i t does not constitute one cultural entity, but many.

5

Djamour , MaLay Kinship ; W. Wilder , " Socialization and Social Structure in a Malay Village," in P . Meyer, ed. , SociaLization: The Approach from SociaL AnthropoLogy (London: Tavistock , 1970) , pp. 215-268.

6

Djamour , op.cit. , pp. 79 - 81 and p . 142 .

7

M. Young a n d P. Willmot , FamiLy and Kinship in East London (Lon don: Routledge and Kegan Paul , 1957) ~

8

Wilder, op.cit . pp . 238-239 :

9

However , some good partial studies exist in manuscript See Nalini Schooling, A Studies of Caste Prac t~ces form .

and Att itudes towards Caste among TamiL -H indu Labourers in Singapore , Social Studies Diploma academic exercise , University of Singapore , 1960. 10

S . Arasaratnam , Indians i n MaLaya and Singapore {London : Oxford University Press , 1970) , p. 66.

11

For a comprehensive account see H. N. Stevenson, "Status and Evaluation in the Hindu Caste System,"

JournaL of the RoyaL AnthropoLogicaL Institute , LXXXIV (1954) , pp. 45-65. 12

The stan dard stud y is that of Maurice Freedman , Lineage Organi zation in Southeastern China (London : Ath l one Press , 1 958) . A good summary account may be found in R. Fox, Kinship and Marriage (Harmondworth: Penguin Books, 1967), pp . 116 -119 .

13

Freedman, op . cit. , p. 132 .

14

Stephen H.K. Yeh , "The Size and Structure of Household i n Singapore , 1957- 1966 , " MaLayan Economic Review , XII (1967} , pp. 97- 115.

15

Freedman, op . cit . , Chap ter 3.

- 70 Chapter 5:

So c ~ological

Factors In Interethn ic Marriages

1

Kennedy, "Intermar riage Trends in New Haven," pp . 331-339 .

2

Ibid .

3

Freedman, Chi nese Fami ly i n

4

It should be pointed out that many Chinese in Singapore use the label "Buddhist " although they are not Buddhists in the religious sense, but followers of various "Ch~nese Tradition al Beliefs." In fact, among the Chinese who describe themselve s as "Buddhist s" only a small minority probably are Buddhis t s in the sense that they follow Buddhist religious practices . It is therefore possible that in the c atego ry "Buddhist " in Table 5.1 a large majority of people are followers of "Chinese Tradition al Beliefs" and not of Buddhism. In view of this it is not possible t o asce r tain the role of Buddhism in interethn ic marriage in S ~ ng ap o re . For a more detailed discussio n of how real the labe l "Buddhist " is in Singapore , see J o seph B. Tarnney, "The Real~ty of Religious Labels: A Study of Relig ion Among S~ngapore Universit y Students, " ~n the Proceed~ngs of the Conferenc e Internatio nale de Sociologi e Rel~g~euse (Rome : 1969), PP ~ 197-225; see also Allan S . A. Elliott, Ch i nese Sp i r i t-Medi um CuLts i n S~n g apore (Singapor e: Donald Moore, 1964).

5

The author, however, personall y knows of several marriages between Sikh males a n d European / Australia n females which were contracte d between 1967 and 1970. But all these marriages were solemn~zed outs~de Singapore , usually at places where the husband was staying or studying. These marr~ages were obviously not re-registe red ~n Singapore upon the arr~val of the couple . My conclusio ns here , however, are b ased only on marriages registere d ~n S~ngapore during 1967-70 , and not on marriages contracte d outside s~ngapore .

6

Here it seems that occupatio nal contacts (particula rly people who work together in complemen tary occupatio nal roles) are an important factor influenci ng the tenden c y towards intermarr iage . For example, an analys~s of 1968-69 occ upational data for br~des and grooms who intermarr ied shows a greater tendency among teachers to marry fellow teachers, nurses to marry doctors, secretari es to marry executive s and waitresse s to marry army personnel (mostly Brit~sh soldiers) .

I

p . 332. S ~ n gapore ,

pp. 124-125 .

- 71 7

Hassan, "Class, Ethnici ty and Occupational Structure."

8

The judges included the author and four undergraduat e research assistants, who helped the author in extracting the occupational data from the 1968-69 marriage registration forms .

9

Bell, Marriage and Family Interaction, p. 149.

10

Robert c. Schmitt, "Age Differences in Marriage in Hawaii," Journal of Marriage and the Family, XXVII (1966), pp . 59-60, quoted in Bell, loc.cit .

11

It is of course also possible that this tendency is due to the differential social mobility rates for men and women. It takes longer for women to go up the mobility ladder: thus, ih the marriages in which the spouses have the same socio-econom ic status, women would generally be older than the grooms .

Chapter 6:

Assessment of Findings Research Possibilitie s

And

1

Gordon, "Assimilatio n in America," p. 279.

2

As pointed out in Chapter 4, from a comparative point of view the ethnic intermarriag e rates for Singapore fall into the middle of the world-wide figures.

3

Chiew, Singaporean National Identity, p. 96.

4

Ibid . , p. 7.

5

Similar findings have also been study of students in attitudinal another in reported Singapore; see Khatena, "Relative Integration in Singapore," pp. 460-465 .

6

See Chiew, op.ci t., pp. 86-96, and his Tables 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, 4 . 11, 4.12, and 4.13 .

7

Hamidabai Abdeali and Rajmala Vaithilingam , "Attitudes towards Inter-Racial Dating among Students at the University of Singapore," Unpublished student paper, Department of Sociology, University of Singapore, 1970.

8

Charlotte Wong, "Attitude Towards Interracial Marriages," Unpublished term paper, Department of Sociology, University of Singapore, 1970.

Ibid . , pp. 120-121.

- 72 -

9

Gordon, "Assimilation in America;" Lind, "Interracial Marriage in Hawaii," Berry, Race and Ethnic ReZat io ns .

10

In studies of religious affiliation of husband and wife it has been found that one partner generally converts to the other partner's religion . For example, a study by Lenski shows that 85% of the couples he interviewed were of the same religion, but only 68% had been brought up i n the same religion. For reference see N. Babchuk, H. J . Crockett and J . A. Ballweg, "Change in Religious Affiliation and Family Stability," Socia l, Fo rces , XLV (1966), pp. 551-555 .

11

J . A. Palmore, R.E . Klein and Ariffin bin Marzuki, "Class and Family in a Modernizing Society," American Journal, of Soc~oZog y, LXXVI (1970), pp. 375-39 8.

12

Ibid . , Table 1, p . 383.

13

The importance of "multi-racialism" and cultural pluralism is frequently emphasized by the national political leaders. For example, Mr . Lee Kuan Yew, the Prime Minister of Singapore, is reported to have defined a Singaporean in the following terms: "An emotive definition, a qualitative not quantitative test, of a Singaporean, is: a person who either by birth or upbringing or residence in Singapore fee ls conuni tted to upholding this society as it is .- mult ~­ racial, tolerant, accommodating, forward-looking and prepared to stake his life for this conunun1ty . " Uuoted from the text of Mr. Lee's speech entitled "The Test of a Singaporean," and reported in The Mirror , (September 16, 1968), p. 5. The policies of multi-racialism and cultural pluralism are vigorously advocated by the Singapore leaders and by and large, widely accepted by the populace at large c It is, however, worth mentioning that very little attention is being paid to the latent consequences of these policies [by students of cultural pluralism] such as ethnic fragmentation and reinforcement of the ethnic element in the da1ly activities of the population. Though ~here can be little doubt that manifest functions of these policies are high l y desirable for fostering a sense of national community with some common parameters of nat1onal identity , the latent functions of these pol1cies also

- 73 -

need closer exam1nat1on and analysis. My colleague Dr . Geoffrey BenJam1n re c ently exam1ned these aspects i n a sern1nar on "Mult1-rac1a l1sm as a Cultural System. " We hope that when he has completed his investigatio ns, it will prov1de some useful 1nsights into this aspect of the problem. A recently published article a l so exarn1nes some of the latent consequences of the cultural and soc1al pluralism in the Un1ted States and Canada; see Mar1an C. McKenna , "The Melt 1 ng-Pot : Comparat1ve Obser vat1ons 1n the Un1ted State s a nd Canada," So c 1. vl. ogy and Soatal. Researoc h , LIII