Multiculturalism is a phenomenon that has only recently been in the limelight: it is becoming fashionable and politically correct for nations and peoples to support multiculturalism. Many western governments have avowed their endorsement of the policy of multiculturalism. Canada and Australia, among others, are notable examples. However, not everyone fully comprehends what multiculturalism entails - and different people will have different perceptions of this idea.

Malaysia and Singapore, two close neighbours in South-east Asia, are both multiracial, multi-religious and multicultural nations. Citizens of these two countries comprise of peoples mostly of the same ethnicities: thus you find ethnic Chinese, Malays, Indians, Ceylonese (Ceylon is the former name for Sri Lanka, an island nation south of India ), Eurasians, in both Malaysian and Singapore. In fact, Malaysian is even more multicultural and multiracial than Singapore: in the East Malaysian states of Sabah and Sarawak are many ethnic groups like the Ibans (Dayaks), Melanaus, Bidayuhs, Penans, etc, in addition to Chinese and Indians. Thus you will find various cultural elements and norms being practised and manifested by different ethnic groups, existing side by side in both these two countries.

Before one compares the multiculturalism that exists in Malaysia and Singapore, it is expedient to examine the racial composition of the two countries. In Malaysia, the population is dominated by the Malays who form about 60% with about slightly over 20% ethnic Chinese Malaysians and the rest ethnic Indians and other racial groups, whereas ethnic Chinese forms about 70% of the population of present day Singapore with the Malays and Indians being the clear minorities. A look at the cabinets of the governments of the two countries is instructive and revealing: the Malaysian cabinet is dominated by ethnic Malays whereas the Singapore cabinet is Chinese-dominated. Only when we are armed with this background knowledge that we can understand that these two countries practise distinctly different ‘brands’ of multiculturalism.

In Malaysia, the official stance is that multiculturalism is accepted but one might argue that it is a much ‘watered-down’ or ‘restricted’ version. Of course each ethnic community is free to perform their cultural practices, eg. the Chinese are not stopped from worshipping their forbears, Indians are not prevented from celebrating their festivals, and no ethnic group has been forbidden from pursuing their cultural activities. However, the policies and actions of the ruling government sometimes appear to favour the culture ( and by extension, the religion, because for the Malays, religion is part of their being; their identity ) of the dominant community - the Malays. Policies that have a strong Muslim and Malay flavour have been implemented - sometimes affecting the non-Malay and non-Muslim communities. For instance, in many government schools, and state-run colleges and universities students and staff have to dress ‘decently’ - in line with the precepts of Islam - girls or ladies are banned from wearing short-sleeved blouses and hemlines must get lower than the knee; boys and even men are more or less compelled to wear longs and track bottoms all the time during physical education lessons. There are many instances of such cultural insensitivity on the part of the ruling, dominant community - practices that do not lend credence to the avowed stance of the government on multiculturalism.

Singapore, by contrast, is a very open society, being an important city-state that thrives on entrepot business and activities and its leaders are driven by typical Chinese pragmatism; they will not allow parochialism or religious fanaticism (stemming from any faith) in any form that might destabilize the fabric of nation, thus jeopardizing its important geopolitical position as a major trading and financial hub of Asia, if not the world. It is fair to remark that the Singapore government has not followed some of the antics of its Malaysian counterpart by introducing ethnocentric policies in the fields of culture, education and politics in general. Each community is treated quite equally, from a cultural stand-point. In fact, if I may digress a little to discussing politics - Singapore uses English as the only medium of instruction in its schools and universities (except language subjects like Chinese, Malay and Tamil ) whereas in Malaysia, the main medium of instruction in secondary schools and universities is Malay. What I would like to emphasize is that Singapore leaders do not force its citizens to, for instance, follow a particular dress code: Malays are not forced to dress like the Chinese or the Westerners. In fact, in Singapore, Malay ladies are allowed and do don clothes that are in accordance with Muslim precepts but Malay school-children are indeed banned from wearing uniforms or dresses that are not officially sanctioned.

It will take a long treatise to discuss in detail the forms of multiculturalism practised by the two nations. This article only skims the surface and I do not tend to take sides - I am not criticizing any of the two governments for doing whatever they are doing. It is my view, however, that even in the developed nations - nations that openly support and avowedly encourage multiculturalism - the implementation of the multiculturalist policies is not free from objection and criticism. For instance, in Australia and Canada, the general public and even some educators have questioned the wisdom of introducing mother-tongue education to minority ethnic groups. Specifically they are not in one voice as to whether school curriculum should cater for say, Chinese- or Vietnamese-speaking communities: should languages other than English be the medium of instruction? Or should these languages be taught at all? After all, these are Australians and Canadians first and foremost.