An examination of the lived experiences of malaysian chinese in singapore and the functional importance of their diasporic spaces

1

Chapter One
Introduction and Background


2
1.1 Illuminating the Malaysian Chinese in Singapore
Malaysian Chinese are numerically the largest among all of Singapore’s
varied transnational ethnic groups. Existing literature on Malaysian Chinese migrants
in Singapore has often presented these Malaysians as sharing a similar cultural and
historical background with their Singaporean counterparts as both are united not only
geographically but have also collectively undergone a common colonial historyi. The
influx of Malaysian Chinese to Singapore could be observed since the island-state
gained independence in 1965. This may be attributed to both the “push” factors for
Malaysian Chinese in the rise of Malay nationalism in Malaysia and “pull” factors of
better employment and educational opportunities in Singapore (Iredale, 2003).
Singapore has often been perceived by many Malaysian Chinese as a nation
which can offer them the opportunity to break-free from the constraints of their
“state-imposed” and “sanctioned national traditions” (Kritz, 1992; Leventman, 1982)
formed out of Malay culture in their native Malaysia (Nonini, 1997)ii. The idea of
examining the concept of identity and adjustments of Malaysian Chinese in Singapore
has often been considered as “superfluous” primarily because they have been
assumed to be “culturally similar” to Singaporeans and not just Singaporean Chinese,
mainly because these Malaysian Chinese have garnered knowledge in certain
languages iii , consumption habits and values (Chong, 1993). Another reason why
Malaysian Chinese have been considered to be “attached” to Singaporeans is that
many have married Singaporeans or have been awarded the status of permanent
residency in the island-state, thus depicting their status as “eventual Singaporeans” or
as “Singaporeans in waiting” (Chong, 1993: 15).

3
However, I propose that the Malaysian Chinese iv in Singapore have to be
problematized as a “diasporic community” as just like other migrants to the islandstate, they are essentially characterized by “purposive and predominantly reluctant
dispersal away from their homeland” and possessed a collective “diasporaconsciousness” in which they identify themselves as migrants with a “common
memory” of their homeland v (Cohen and Vertovec, 1999: 293). Migrants in host
societies that are culturally similar to their own have often been perceived to be more
successful in adjusting to residing in a new environment (Cohen and Vertovec,
1999:294). However, they are nevertheless predisposed to a sense of “diaspora
yearning” whereby they are inclined to conceive of the desirability of returning to
their homeland (Clifford, 1999:21) which constitutes their place of birth, citizenship
and in which their primary kin are located (Tan, 2005:120). Moreover, it is also
imperative to examine if the Malaysian Chinese in Singapore are fundamentally
“localized” and have perceived themselves as an undistinguished segment of the
populace of their host society (Lam, 2000: 2). It may also be imperative to ascertain if
they are essentially actualizing the “counter resistance” of transmigrants who are both
adamant in not conceiving themselves as being a part of their host societyvi and
subsequently refused immersion in the culture of a nation in which they do not
identify with (Lam, 2000: 3).
The issue of identity for these migrants must also be examined in conjunction
with their respective lived experiences and their negotiation of a possible “collective
identity” (Heidt, 1987: 70) with their fellow counterparts or the possibility that they
may organized themselves as “non- amalgamated” groups of migrants with


4
differentiated identities which are open to “permanent revision” in that they will
almost certainly undergo constant change in their sense of self (Heidt, 1987: 6).
1.2 Objectives of thesis
The initial goal of this thesis is to investigate how Malaysian Chinese in

Singapore construct their identity and perceive of the values and ways of life of
Singaporeans. This illumination of the manners in which Malaysian Chinese conduct
their lives in Singapore may also facilitate the uncovering of their internal valuation
and up-keeping of their identity and values so as to articulate their uniqueness and
accentuate their dissimilarities with a society often perceived as no different from
their homeland.
The results of these investigations will be expected to guide the researcher to
the next goal of the research, which is to examine if there is a presence and existence
of a Malaysian Chinese diasporic space in Singapore, initiated and maintained by
these migrants. This is because existing literature on the importance of diasporic
spaces have largely dealt with the importance of these spaces for migrants with varied
abilities to adjust to their host society and with different levels of identification with
their host’s society. It may thus be useful to investigate if these different levels of
identification and coping amongst these migrants may lead to their different levels of
attachment to any potential diasporic spaces for Malaysian Chinese in Singapore.
1.3 Highlighting the concepts of “diasporic space”
The concept of diasporic space, in this case, would entail all the “possible
arenas of congregation” (Radhakrishnan, 1996:41) in which the members of the
particular migrant group may come together and interact with each other in a platform


5
which is segregated and enclosed with restrictions to outsiders. While research on the
functional importance of diasporic spaces frequented by migrants is extremely scarce
in Singapore, research on diasporic spaces in other societies has mostly described the
significance of these diasporic spaces as crucial arenas for migrants who have
problems adjusting to their host society, who cannot identify with the fundamental
values and cultures of their host nation, who are keen to preserve their identity and
culture amidst the influence of cultural elements from their host society and for
migrants who have been marginalized or stigmatized by members of their host society

(Dijker, 2007: 26). The spaces thus offer a platform for the migrants to shield
themselves from the “glare of the host society” (Dijker, 2007:30), as an outlet for
them to share their collective experiences with their compatriots facing the same
problems, as an arena where the migrants may offer support and launch certain
projects and activities for the diasporic group to achieve their objectives and as an
important area to retain their cultural tenets and continuously engage in activities
synonymous with their nation (Pang, 2000: 185). It is thus imperative to evaluate if
these seemingly “culturally similar” migrants may maintain such diasporic spaces for
the reasons and motives revealed by existing researchers on the functional importance
of diasporic spaces.
1.4 Methodology
For the purpose of this survey, I have chosen to adopt the qualitative method
of semi-structured interviewing in an attempt to elicit free-ranging and potentially
highly descriptive responses from my respondents about their experiences of living in
Singapore. 50 informants were solicited for this survey with an equal distribution of


6
25 male and 25 female respondents, all of whom have lived in Singapore for at least a
yearvii. Purposive sampling was initiated to seek out Malaysian Chinese respondents
who have stayed in Singapore for at least a year and who are holding on to working
permits, students passes and those who have obtained Singaporean permanent
residency status. Face-to-face interviews were selected as an effective form of
interview as it not only produces the highest form of response rate and allows the
interviewer to readily address any concerns and doubts the respondents may have as
compared to other forms of interview methods (Herzog, 1996: 116). My initial
informants were known contacts while subsequent informants were solicited through
snowball sampling from the referrals of these initial contacts.
Attempts were also made to ensure that there is a relatively equal distribution
in the ages of my core respondents with 40% of the informants (n=20) being

teenagers and young adults (ages 15-30), 36% (n=18) being working adults and
middle aged respondents (ages 31-54) and 24% (n=12) of the informants being older
adults (ages 55 and above).
Half of the respondents (n=25) are married and almost half of this group of
respondents have revealed that their spouses are Singaporeans. Most of the
informants are permanent residents (n=31), while those with student passes (n=10)
and work permits (n=9) forming the rest of the respondents. Nine of the informants
have resided in Singapore for between 1-3 years, 15 have been in the island-state for
4-6 years, 13 have been here for 7-9 years while 13 of the informants have been in
Singapore for more than 10 years. In terms of the occupational status of the
informants, 14 are students from secondary schools, junior colleges and tertiary


7
institutions, six are home-makers, four are retirees, eleven are blue-collar workers or
workers in the service industry and 15 are white-collar workers and professionals.
The informants selected were interviewed regarding their identity associations,
their lived experiences as migrants in Singapore, their capacity to adapt and adjust to
living in Singapore and their opinion of Singaporeans and Singapore. The interviews
were conducted in English, Mandarin and Hokkien, with each interview conducted in
the language which the particular informant prefers. Consent was solicited from the
informants to have their accounts recorded on tape. The main difficulties encountered
in the interview process is the translation of certain interview transcripts from
Mandarin and Hokkien to English and the lack of comprehension of certain
informants who may espouse certain phrases in Malay and other Chinese dialects
such as Cantonese which the interviewer is not familiar with. Efforts were thus made
to request the informants to explain these phrases in a language which the interviewer
understood.
Upon the completion of the first stage of qualitative interviews, most of the
informants have revealed their respective engagements in spaces where they could

interact with other Malaysian-Chinese in Singapore. It must be noted that access to a
couple of these arenas was not possible due to their exclusivity to Malaysian Chinese
and also the unwillingness of the informants to lead the researcher into these sites.
While many of the informants have no issues reflecting their experiences and
opinions of these diasporic sites to me (due to my ability to converse fluently in
Mandarin, the language of choice for many of these informants), they have expressed
reluctance in inviting me to these sites mainly because of their expressed lack of trust


8
in a researcher whom some feared may be merely interested in commenting solely on
the negative aspects of their engagement in these sites. Moreover, the revelation of
my identity as a Singaporean Chinese (usually from my clear Singaporean-accented
Mandarin) has led some of the informants to suspect or to be wary of me as what
some deemed as a “Singaporean undercover agent” tasked to opined negatively on
Malaysian Chinese and their lifestyle habits in Singapore.

As a result, information

about these “diasporic locales” are garnered solely from the interviews and anecdotal
accounts offered by the informants. However, access to certain sites was attained
through the help of certain informants and also the personal connection between the
researcher and some of the participants in these sites. It may also be noted that access
to these sites are easier as they are located in the public setting such as the open
spaces near to a temple in Bugis and also in community centres and arcades which
were essential diasporic spaces for some of the Malaysian youths surveyed.
My initial decision as a researcher was to be a “complete observer” and to
shield my identity from the individuals in these arenas and avoid making any forms of
interaction with them to minimize any potential bias that may result from my
presence (Hessebiber and Leavy, 2006: 246). However, I eventually decided to be a

“participant-as-observer” (Hessebiber and Leavy, 2006: 250) in the field sites which
means that I would reveal my identity as a researcher and also interact and engage
with the participants. The main reason I have in not establishing myself as a
“complete observer” is that the role would not be able to “clarify the meanings and
answer questions concerning things that are not readily understood by the researcher”
(Hessebiber and Leavy, 2006: 246).


9
While some of the participants were initially skeptical and suspicious of me
observing their activities and proceedings in the field sites due to concerns over my
agenda as a non-Malaysian observer, the situation improved when I clarified myself
as an observer who was interested in understanding and recording the functions of
their diasporic sites and have no desire to present them in a negative light (a chief
concern for the majority of the informants). While I did not and was not asked to
offer my opinion to any of the issues discussed in these spaces, my request to clarify
the issues being discussed and some of the phrases espoused by the participants
which was not clearly understood was met by either the participants or my known
contact who introduced me to his diasporic group. While tape and video recordings of
these meetings were not permitted, I did manage to record the proceedings on a notebook which was permitted by the participants.

1.5 Review of the literature

1.5 (i) Literature on the concept of diasporic spaces and diasporic spaces of
migrants in Singapore
The fundamental significance offered to the meanings of “spaces” in the study
of migration and diaspora has often centered on the “familiarization of individuals
with a territory in a specific locale and thus finding meaning in the territory” (Leach,
2005: 299). De Certeau (2002: 285) has also contexualized the crucial difference
between “space” and “place” with the articulation that “space is essentially place

made meaningful and awakened by practices that situates it” (De Certeau, 2002:299).


10
The primary features of a migrant diasporic space in a host society is also predicated
upon the ideal that migrants are able to “perform” and “produce” certain forms of
their desired identity in these spaces which are essentially “enclosed” and exclusive
only to migrants with the same nationality (De Certeau, 2002: 301). Cohen (1997) has
also posited that the majority of these migrants have voluntarily migrated, are aware
of their ethnic origins and possess a feeling of “empathy and solidarity” with “fellow
ethnics” in these spaces (Cohen, 1997: 45)
The activities within these diasporic spaces may also be described as
“ritualistic” in nature in that they are often repeated and may even be “processual” so
that the participants may recognize the “functions, proto-cols and expectations of the
spaces and may then achieve a certain attachment to the space” (Leach, 2005: 301).
The functionalities of these diasporic spaces have also been exemplified by certain
researchers. While some have argued that participants garnered a sense of
“belonging” and “group identity” while partaking in the activities within the diasporic
space (Fortier, 1999: 45), other researchers have focused on associating the activities
conducted within these spaces as a “mode of operation charged with a political
efficacy” and which allow the participants to seek knowledge and power within their
own migrant sub-group to cope with living in their host society (Bhabha, 1990:6).
Few studies have been conducted on the functional importance of diasporic
spaces in Singapore and most in-depth studies of these migrant spaces in Singapore
are conducted in the 1980s with few contemporary updates on these areas. One study
which was conducted in the 1980s illustrated the differences between Thai and
Filipinos’ diasporic spaces in Singapore. The study (Wong, 1984) revealed that while


11

the Filipinos gathered in huge groups (gathering of 10 or more Filipinos in a group is
not uncommon) in their “diasporic centre” in Lucky Plaza and are made known of
their meeting place from church contacts, the Thais gathered in smaller groups
(usually just 3-5 individuals in each group) in their diasporic arena in Golden Mile
complex and Golden Mile tower. Newcomers to the Thai diasporic group were also
informed usually by fellow Thais in their workplaces in the factories and on
construction sites (Wong, 1984: 43). The report also revealed that the structure of the
Thais’ diasporic space is build up from the numerous shops and agencies in the
centers such as Thai travel agencies, restaurants, news-stands and music stalls which
are aimed to offer a one-stop location for the Thais in Singapore to fulfill their daily
needs (Wong, 1984: 44). While no study on the Malaysian-Chinese diasporic space in
Singapore has been conducted, studies on these diasporic spaces frequented by other
foreigners in Singapore have establish a key research issue of whether there exist a
“one-stop” diasporic locale for Malaysian-Chinese in Singapore. It is thus imperative
to investigate if the diasporic spaces of Malaysian-Chinese are indeed differentiated
from the rest due to the unique features of these migrants who are often judged to be
almost “culturally similar” to Singaporeans (Lee et. al, 2007).
1.5 (ii) Literature on the concept of assimilation and migrants’ adjustment
The central problem for many migrants has been the dilemma of having to
negotiate the conflicting ideas and values of retaining their national identity and
facing social ostracism in the process or to completely assimilate into their host’s
nation and forgoing the preservation of their traditional values (Breakwell and Lyons,
1996:17). The process of assimilation is also not analogous across all sectors of


12
migrants. While some may be seen as adopting the “cultural forms” of their host
nation and at the same time cloak their ethnic identity underneath this “performative
façade” (Glick, 1980:142), others may follow “the path of least effort” and become
“thoroughly assimilated” not just into the mainstream culture of their host nation but

into the elemental values and norms of the inner city (Vertovec, 1999: 120). Many
migrants have also been observed to forge and multi-stranded social relations with
both individuals from their home nation and also those from their host societies
(Basch, 1994). These individuals have been perceived as adjusting readily primarily
because of their lack of staunch attachment to both their respective nation of birth and
to the host nation.
The social psychologist, John Berry, has also proposed a useful framework to
showcase the possible relationships between migrants and their host society. He
predicts that a migrant may be susceptible to the process of “acculturation” where the
migrant explores relationships with other groups but maintain the cultural identity of
his own ethnic or national group; “assimilation” when the migrant completely
submerged his identity within the dominant society in his host nation; “segregation”
when the migrant staunchly maintain his identity and maintain minimal relations with
other members of his host society and “marginalization” when the migrant group
loses its own identity but does not become part of the larger society (Van der veer,
1995: 5). It may thus be important to elucidate if the Malaysian Chinese in Singapore
merely undergo the process of “assimilation” due to their seemingly comparable
cultural and social characteristics as Singaporeans and undergo a process of “cultural


13
mixing” where they adopt aspects of their host culture and “rework and reform this in
production of a new hybrid culture” (Chambers, 1994: 50).
Research on migration has also continuously pronounced the importance of
“cultural competence” in predicting whether a migrant would be able to be
“integrated” into his host’s society (Vischer, 1994: 18). Taft (1966) used the term to
refer to the “potential ability of migrants to learn new culture and successes in
adopting to the behavioural requirements of his host nation which may be evaluated
by a whole host of abilities including their ability to communicate with members of
their host society” (Taft, 1966, 376). While the central notion of “cultural

competency” is essentially vague, studies have revealed that some of its tenets have
been useful in predicting migrants’ successes in being integrated into their host
society. For instance, a study on the lived experiences of migrants to Australia in the
1970s has revealed that there is a positive correlation between the migrants’ fluency
in English language and knowledge of the Australian slang and their satisfaction with
life in the country (Hitchcock, 1992). While Malaysian Chinese in Singapore may be
able to speak most languages frequently spoken in Singapore, it will be fundamental
to uncover if their accent or ways of communicating may affect their ability to adapt
to living in Singapore.
The trajectory of assimilation may also be multi-faceted in terms of “classadoption” (Xu, 2000:14), with more affluent or the upper-middle class migrants’
potential gradual integration into the upper classes of his host society and the working
class or “underclass” migrants adapting straight into the opposite direction of
connectedness with their associated lower-class counterparts in their adopted nation


14
(Xu, 2000:18). However, there have also been emerging reports which have directly
problematized the notion of migrants’ ascription and adoption of “class’s values” and
norms and instead posit that the concept of “nationality” to be a more salient and
important factor than the precept of class in determining whether migrants are able to
adjust to living in their host society. For instance, a study has illuminated the
problems of affluent and upper-class immigrants from Eastern Europe facing huge
problems in assimilating into the “upper-class” structure of their host society
(Brinker-Gabler and Smith, 1997). These affluent and rich migrants thus face
numerous problems in communicating and socially interacting with the upper class
residents in their host nation due to the notion that they are essentially “non-locals”
and are correspondingly treated as “second-class” citizens (Brinkler-Gabler and
Smith, 1997: 142).
Significantly, the failures of migrants to “assimilate” or adjust comfortably to
living in their host nation have also been attributed to two major factors by scholars

(Wickberg, 1994: 16). They are the migrants’ ethnic identity and the absence or
presence of mobility ladders for these migrants to improve their socio-economic
status in their host society. For instance, researchers have argued that even when
migrants adopt similar racial or ethnic features as the dominant race of their host
nation just like the Malaysian Chinese in Singapore, particular character traits
exclusive to their culture may be a major source of discrimination by the dominant
group in their host society (Wong and Chan, 1998). One example offered by Roger
Rouse (1991) was Mexican migrants from the United States facing huge problems in
assimilating and adapting to the “lifestyles” and “mannerisms” of ethnic Mexicans in


15
Mexico due to the fact that these “American-based” Mexicans are unable to
appreciate and acknowledge certain symbolic and cultural meanings of certain
festivals exclusively celebrated by their counterparts born and bred in Mexico (Rouse,
1991: 68-70) The second factor, with regards to mobility ladders, stipulates that
changes in the host economy may have resulted in the evaporation of mobility ladders
for these trans-migrants who may be relegated to form the “backbone” of what
remains of labor-intensive manufacturing in the cities (Reimers, 1992:180). These are
niches which seldom allow the immigrants to be incorporated into the “core
economy” of their host nation, thus possibly generating a common identity of the
migrants as “second-class citizens” (Reimers, 1992: 185). It will thus be imperative to
ascertain if the Malaysian Chinese who are facing problems adapting to Singapore
may be of a certain profession or educational background which may hamper their
ability to cope well with living in the island-state.
A migrant’s attachment to his homeland has also been found to be staunchly
re-affirmed even when he has resided in his host society for a sustained period of time.
A crucial illustration of this could be witnessed through Hurh’s account of Korean
“old-timers” in America (Hurh, 1980). These individuals who have resided in
America for a period of ten years or more have indicated that fundamental Korean

values such as the strong sense of family priority, ethnic pride and the continuous
maintenance of ties with Korean friends and kin in America are highly crucial in them
retaining the values of their homeland and their ethnic-national community (Hurh,
1980: 456). This affirmation of ethnic identity and connectedness could be seen
through the several “Korean affirming” activities in these spaces with the quest to


16
articulate certain characteristics of Korean culture. Examples of these activities
include the staging of ethnic Korean dances and the “dramatization” of Korean values
through the mini- educational classes conducted in these premises which emphasize
the adoption of certain elemental Korean principles such as “filial piety” and “stern
deference to the commands of the senior members of each institutions in society”
(Hurh, 1980:458). As the Malaysian Chinese are often perceived as being “largely
similar” to most Singaporeans, it will be interesting to investigate if they would
introduce similar measures to dramatize their national identity while in Singapore.
1.5 (iii) Literature on Chinese identity and the Chinese community
The idea of the “Singaporean identity” superceding any staunch ethnic or
racial individuality has been overtly presented by many scholars. For instance, studies
on the identities of Chinese residing in Asia since the 1950s have pronounced that the
traditionally rooted “Chinese community” has gradually disappeared (Cushman and
Wang, 1988). This is attributed to the rise of rapid urban renewal and the
development of ethnically integrated housing policies which have seemingly broken
down the physical boundaries and spatial segregation of the ethnic Chinese races
(Wang, 1991). While the attachment with Chinese from other nations remained strong,
there have been indications that the collective Chinese identity amongst Singaporean
Chinese has been diluted by the advent of “Western cultural invasion” and
“globalization” (Liang, 2004). These have essentially resulted in the Singaporean
Chinese increasingly abandoning or neglecting their collective sense of national
identity in favour of consuming cultural artifacts and engaging in social activities

which considerably different from their forefathers (Liang, 2004: 126). This may


17
include their increasing preference to speak in English, being “less likely” to engage
in Chinese cultural activities and favouring Western commercial and popular
entertainment programmes which promotes the self-serving individual, which is
deemed as contrary to the traditional Chinese “citizen” who essentially “places others
before self” and who is less individualistic (Parker, 1995: 200).
It has also been posited that the continual nation-building project by the
People’s Action Party’s led government has essentially resulted in the majority of the
Chinese and other minority citizens placing their ethnic identities behind their
national identity. The success of this project has fundamentally resulted in the “partial
dissolution” of a fervent and “impassioned” idealization and acknowledgement of
Singaporeans’ adherence and ascription to their ethnic sense of self (Suryadinata,
2007:125). There have also been findings which supported the notion of “nationaltrait enclosures” experienced by migrant groups who are currently attempting to adapt
to living in Singapore. These “trait-enclosures” primarily affect migrants who are not
only primarily “culturally-dissimilar” to Singaporeans but also migrants from
neighbouring nations such as Indonesia and Malaysia who have often been perceived
as closely-related to Singaporeans. These migrants are unable to accustom themselves
to what has been regarded as the “unique Singapore traits” (Suryadinata, 2007:186)
which include speaking in “Singlish” and being fundamentally pragmatic and “overly
competitive” (Han, 1999).
The key ethnic identification of older Chinese Malaysians have predominantly
been derived from their sense of China as a homeland and that traditional Chinese
practices such as observing respects to their ancestors who hailed from mainland


18
China are fundamental in their enactment of their “sense of Chinese-ness” (Nonini,

1997). Younger Malaysian Chinese, however, may be inclined to observe a
“disembedding of place” (Nonini, 1997) in that China and their homeland have
become unimportant in their sense of “Chinese-ness”. The negativity associated with
China viii (Nonini, 1997) may have potentially led these younger Malaysians to
identify with the “uniqueness of Chinese in Singapore”, that is an identification with
an embedding of Chineseness with their national belonging (sense of Malaysian
Chinese or Singaporean Chinese) as opposed to being “China Chinese”. Regretfully,
the dearth of literature on the lived experiences of Malaysian Chinese in past and
contemporary times in Singapore has proved to be an obstacle for current researchers
to delineate the quotidian attitudes of the contemporary group of Malaysian Chinese
migrants from their counterparts who have migrated to Singapore in past generationsix.
Contemporary literature has also claimed that Chinese in the 20th century are
increasingly given the freedom to select their attachment to their “Chinese label” or to
their nationality (Carlier, 2003:156). There have also been reports which posit that
newer “generations” of ethnic Chinese migrants may be awarded more leverage than
their older counterparts in choosing which particular Chinese identity to adopt. They
may be awarded the opportunity to selectively ascribe to the ethnic identity of the
Chinese from their home nation, the Chinese society which they are migrating to or
even adapt to a “hybrid” racial identity of both societies (Carlier, 2003:254). This
ability to achieve a certain sense of “fluidity” in identity’s ascription by these
migrants is often linked to the suggestion that these migrants are “less entrenched or


19
beholden” to the particular ethnic identity either reflected in their “home” societies or
in their “host societies” (Carlier, 2003:260).
This suggestion may also be conceived from the standpoint that a strong or
particular ethnic identity may be superceded by the force of a “global or cosmopolitan
identity” (Chong, 1993) which offers more opportunities for international citizens to
interact to the extent that there is a “significant dissolution and blurring of any fixed

sense of ethnic sense of self deemed exclusive to any group” (Chong, 1993: 254).
Correspondingly, there is also an emerging concern that the “traditional Chinese
practice” of conforming staunchly to the “familial, caste and staunchly male
dominated father-son dyad” in these more “globalized” states in Asia, such as
Singapore, may be impacted by the gradual adoption of the “more Western-centric”
social focus which emphasizes on one placing increasing importance on “external
relations” and also advocating the “husband-wife” dyad which diminishes the
overriding control of the traditional male bread-winner (Clammer, 1985: 60). It would
be interesting to explore if the Malaysian Chinese in Singapore align or detach
themselves from their conceptions of the “Chinese values and traditions” ascribed to
by the different segments of Singaporean Chinese.
1.5 (iv) Comparative studies on the ethnic similarities and differences between
Malaysian Chinese and Singaporean Chinese
Singapore is essentially a city-state of dominantly but not exclusively Chinese
population, while its government is made up of officials from the key racial groups
present in the nation, although there are significantly more Chinese ministers due to
their dominant presence in the island-state (Loh, 1981). The challenge to Singaporean


20
leaders has often been to cope “politically and culturally with not only the significant
presence of Malays and Indians but that of the different varieties of Chinese in the
country” (Loh, 1981). Thus, while the dominant Chinese has often been regarded
almost as an amalgamated whole, the elemental differences between the various
Chinese dialect groups in the nation needs to be illuminated in order to offer a fair
depiction of the variegated distinctiveness of the Chinese community in the nation
(Loh, 1981).
As compared to Singapore, Malaysia is a society where Chinese constitute the
minority instead of majority populace in the nation. However, the two nations shared
distinct similarities in that no singular distinct ethno-linguistic Chinese subgroup but

a plethora of dialect groups is predominant in each state (Loh, 1982). Moreover, the
process of cultural adaptation of these Malaysian Chinese migrants could be regarded
as being facilitated through the notion of “urban-urban” transfer in that the majority
of Malaysian Chinese who reside in urban districts in their homeland may avoid the
pitfalls associated with rural-urban transition to a nation which is hundred- percent
urbanized (Loh, 1982). By migrating to a state which are majority Chinese, the
Malaysian Chinese transnational may also appear to be transiting from a nation in
which their comparative economic success and entrepreneurial drive may provoked
resentment among the dominant group in the nation which are the Malays x (Kee,
2005) to a nation which often cite these very ostensibly Chinese traits as the
fundamental attributes which ensure the success of the nation and its development to
a first-world enterprise (Kee, 2005).


21
The central structure of the Chinese diasporic space in a migrant land has
often been associated and linked to the “Chinatown business system” (Levy, 1996) in
that this arena is often the “go-to” place for new Chinese migrants and most have
stayed within this “central base” to conduct their business activities and to build up
their community networks (Levy, 1996). The Malaysian Chinese migrants to
Singapore historically constituted a broad spectrum of individuals with a majority
arriving in Singapore to seek employment and education instead of being solely
entrepreneurs (Nonini: 1997). Moreover, as the majority of the individuals in the
nation are Chinese, there is little need for these migrants to source out a particular
arena or diasporic space whereby migrants who have various problems of adjustments
are prone to congregate in.
The need to maintain the essential Chinese linguistic and cultural identity
have been a perennial pre-occupation for Chinese migrants who emphasized the strict
maintenance of ethnic “principles” (Iredale, 2003:17). The concern has often been
centered on young Chinese migrants who are increasingly perceived as readily

accepting the economic opportunities awarded to them by their host nations and in the
process, gradually increasing their social relations with non-Chinese (Iredale,
2003:148). While the Malaysian Chinese migrants to Singapore will predominantly
interact with the dominant Chinese in Singapore, it is important to uncover their
response towards the “Western-centric and the perceived cultural adoption of Western
values” by Singaporeans as a whole (Lee et. al, 2007: 18).
Most Chinese residing in Malaysia have often been lauded for their staunch
upholding of particular Chinese dispositions such as ambition, diligence and


22
enterprising spirit (Ling, 1988: 125). While Malaysian Chinese are often conscious of
their adoption of universal Chinese traits which include the tolerance and pugnacity
displayed by their forefathers in their survival quests in foreign lands xi (Ling,
1988:90), many have also advocated the ostensibly Malaysian Chinese trait of the
“moderate and non-extreme individual” which emphasizes the “exercise of selfcontrol to a proper degree without being overly ambitious or proud” (Ling, 1988:
119).
The political influence of the MCA in Malaysia, as part of the ruling coalition
of ‘Barisan Nasional’, has also attempted to shape Malaysian Chinese consciousness
to primarily adopt their national identity, rather than their ethnic identity, as evident
from the support of then Prime Minister, Dr. Mahathir Mohammed’s vision of Bangsa
Malaysia which advocated a “collective sense of communal language ascribed to by
all the races in the nation” (Ling, 1988:91). This goal of ensuring all Malaysians,
including Malaysian Chinese, in identifying primarily with their nation is supported
through the philosophical principle envisioned by the Malaysian government which
stresses the need to build up a meritocratic system that promotes creativity,
excellence and hard work (Alattas, 1998). The creation of national pride and emotions
by the Chinese community in Malaysia has been astutely manufactured by projecting
the ruling authorities as catering to the fundamental needs of the Chinese community.
The government has promised that there would be “complete freedom in their

religious practices” and the continual maintenance of Chinese schools from the
Primary level to tertiary levelxii (Alattas, 1998).


23
Language has also been espoused as a key national identity marker for
Malaysian Chinese, particularly in response to the often-perceived notion of their
similarities to Singaporeans. The majority of Malaysian Chinese are well-versed in
Bahasa Malaysia due to the compulsory learning of the language in most government
schools while the majority of Singaporean Chinese are unable to understand the
language (Nonini, 1997:124). Moreover, certain terms of address and phrases are also
exclusive to the knowledge of Malaysian Chinese and together with their accent, have
been acknowledged to be fundamental in them “differentiating” from Singaporean
Chinese (Kee, 2005:126). However, there has been a general dearth in literature
exploring the usage of language and collective accent as an important source of
identity-marker for Malaysian Chinese in Singapore.
A major difference between the Chinese in Malaysia and Singapore is the
potentiality for Malaysians to be more “community-centered” than Singaporeans and
to possess a “stronger sense of loyalty to their ethnic community” as their sense of
national identity has been hampered by their perceived lack of equality rendered to
them as citizens of Malaysia (Wang, 2004:18). Singaporeans, on the other hand, may
possess a “clearer sense of national identity with reference to a globalizing world”
and its seemingly more successful nation-building policies may have ensured that the
“local” and the “national” may be less “distinguishable” for Singaporeans and thus
result in Singaporeans being less reliant on their adherence to “Chinese-based
traditions” (Wang, 2004: 22). In short, it can be argued that Singaporean Chinese are
more disposed to identify with their nation ahead of their ethnicity due to their greater
beliefs in their government’s ability to secure equality for all races in the nation as

24
compared to Malaysia, where there is a greater need for the Chinese to exert their
racial and community identity in the quest to elevate their current “secondary” status
as Malaysian citizens behind the dominant Malays (Suryadinata, 1997: 181). The
Malaysian Chinese cultural and social attributes are also thought to be more
variegated than their Singaporean counterparts which have often been labeled as a
“homogeneous group” due partly to the state-led initiatives to prevent the polarization
of the Chinese by advocating the “Speak Mandarin’s Campaign” and for banning the
use of dialects on the majority of local media programmes. Besides being more
heterogeneous due to a greater capacity to actualize their dialect identities, the
Malaysian Chinese are also citizens of different Malaysian states which may have
vastly different customs and “localized norms” (Okposin and Cheng, 2000: 84).
1.5 (v) Literature on transmigration and transmigrants
Transnationalism has often been defined as a process through which
immigrants develop and maintain multiple social relations that link together their
societies of origin and of resettlement (Jackson et.al, 2004: 126). The daily life of
these transnational migrants is often based on multiple and constant interconnections
that transcend international borders. There have also been arguments which state that
the term “transmigrant” should only apply to people who actually commute across
national borders on a regular basis, chiefly for professional or political reasons
(Jackson et al, 2004:128).“Transnational migration” has also been depicted as a
pattern of migration in which persons, although they move across international
borders settles and establishes social relations in a new state, maintain social
connections within the polity from which they originate (Jackson et al, 2004: 130).


25
Thus in terms of transnational migration, individuals literally live their lives across
international borders.
According to Glick Schiller (Schiller, 1997), the term “transmigrant” should

only apply to “people who claim and are claimed by two or more nation-states, into
which they are incorporated as social actors, one of which is widely acknowledged as
their state of origin” (Schiller, 1997: 158). Transnational migration has also been
implied through the continuing participation in the economy, politics and social
organization of one’s state of origin while, at the same time, being more or less fully
involved in one’s country of adoption (Schiller, 1997: 160). There have been
suggestions that those migrants who travel to states in close proximity to their home
nation, such as Malaysians who travel to Singapore, would be awarded more
opportunities to be “successful” trans-migrants in that while contributing to the
economy and industrial development of their host society, the close geographical
linkages with their home societies have often been regarded as crucial in them being
kept informed with the contemporary happenings in their home nations (Nonini,
1997). It must be contemplated if the migrants from Malaysia are essentially
experiencing a form of “international migration” where they experienced “marked
shifts in culture and relatively permanent separation from friends and family” (Nonini,
1997: 3) as many literature has already showcased that Malaysians and Singaporeans
shared many similar cultural values and Malaysian migrants in Singapore have been
known to regularly travel back to their hometowns due to the close proximity
between the two nations (Lee et. al, 2007: 67).