“Accommodation has always been more effective than assimilation in managing the minority problem.
” How accurate is this assessment of independent SEA? Accommodation has been proven to be more effective than assimilation throughout the process of managing the minority population in Southeast Asia through its various successes. Accommodation recognises ethnic differences of minority communities through the integration of minority differences into the majority dominant culture.On the other hand, assimilation ignores ethnic differences of minority communities through the enforcement of minority groups to conform to a majority dominant culture. Accommodation has resulted in a more successful management of minority problems by having few or almost no frequent or intense conflicts and absence of political splits or divisions within government along ethnic, ideological or religious lines.However, there are scenarios present whereby accommodation has proven not to be the most effective in managing minorities as they could potentially expose vulnerable parts of the government and Though it cannot be forgotten that accommodation strategies have been wildly successful and are the reason for the racial harmony present in many Southeast Asian states of today. Accommodation has resulted in the absence of frequent conflicts breaking out following Southeast Asia's independence.
Through the consideration of minority races needs into the state's imagining of a nation, this allowed for minorities to be placated and thus reduced hostilities and thereby reduced the frequency of conflicts as well. For example, in Singapore, the nation's concept of multiculturalism, based on the principles of equal treatment and respect of all ethnic groups and the reinforcement of ethnic identities. Through various efforts such as public housing and national service which inculcate a sense of nationhood via shared experiences and interaction with various races.This allowed for minorities to be taken care of as well which proved effective as Singapore has not experienced a racial riot since the 1960s. Alternatively, assimilation has not had such success as can be observed from Malaysia's scenario, whereby assimilation strategies such as the withdrawal of government assistance from Chinese-language schools in order to foster Malaysia as a strictly Malay homeland resulted in racial riots and demonstrated attempts at failed effective management of minorities.Therefore, accommodation has been more effective at managing minorities as demonstrated by the absence of frequent inter-ethnic conflicts.
Accommodation tactics have also resulted in the absence of intense and violent conflicts across the region as well. Through the successful understanding of differences and needs of the various minority races, were conflicts that were to break out able to be successfully contained and suppressed in order to avoid further harm and inter-racial tensions.Hence, intensified conflicts did not occur as often and violent inter-ethnic conflict was minimized. For example, in Indonesia, policies were implemented that focused on responding to the interests of indigenous minorities such as the large annual government grants that were granted to areas and centrally-directed infrastructure improvement programmes were undertaken to improve economic conditions in the Outer Islands.
In spite of this, racial riots that broke out due to dissatisfactory integration of races were suppressed by military forces and thereby violent conflict was contained.However, in Burma, the act of forced assimilation of the non-indigenous races led to a series of ethnic insurgencies and wars against the Burmese government that lasted until 1997. Therefore proving that accommodation was more effective at managing minorities as compared to assimilation, henceforth resulting in the sparse contrast of violent and intense conflicts across Southeast Asia. Accommodation strategies have also proven to be effective as demonstrated by the absence of divisions and political splits in government.The act of successfully cultivating minorities into a larger scope of the nation's races, have been reflected in the success of a government working together efficiently as well. Political legitimacy and cohesiveness was well established due to the successful managing of minority races.
For example, in Singapore, a direct link between the government and its electorate could be formed when the People's Action Party (PAP) conducted weekly meet the people sessions which allowed for an outreach to the most basic levels of society and encouraged inter-racial interactions which hence helped to build on relations between the different races.As a result, the government was able to cement their position as a strong one-party state and obtain political homogeneity and therefore the absence of divisions and political splits. In contrast, in Burma, U Nu's political structure which cemented Burma as a forefront Buddhist state and henceforth ignored other ethnicities failed to resolve already existing clashing interests between majority and minority populations which resulted in the demand of a separated state altogether by the Karen National Union.Which such ethnic splits occurring as an act of assimilation strategies, it can be said that they are not as effective as accommodation ones whereby the willing inclusion of all races resulted in a politically legitimate and credible government, one that could function well together as a result of the successful and effective handling of the minority problem. However, the strategy of accommodation was not perfect either, there were cases whereby it proved ineffective as well.
In certain scenarios, limited success would be met as accommodation tactics would sometimes work against the implementers by exposing the government to too many vulnerabilities which henceforth could result in their weakening. For example, in Vietnam, minorities were given a stake in the state and political process, by actively encouraging minority participation in national institutions and minorities were represented at every government level.However, this soon opened a can of worms as this further increased competition between the various Vietnamese races as they now had an avenue to bargain for greater leniencies for their own race, for example the resettling of the Kinh upland increased competition for scarce jobs and resources between the different races and hence, this provided more opportunities for hostilities and as such, gave more chances for increased and frequent conflicts to arise. Therefore, accommodation was not always foolproof either and could in fact further deepen the divide between minority races and as such not be very successful or effective.
Furthermore, assimilation has been proven to be effective as well in attempting to integrate the minority population into society. In certain scenarios, assimilation has resulted into the successful acceptance of the minority into the majority population, without having the majority feeling threatened with a new entity about their own position in society. As such, ethnic tensions were able to be quelled and stability was attainable. For example, in Thailand, the Chinese minority was integrated into Thai society successfully.
This can be attributed to thoughtful Thai nationalism, whereby how one should perceive themselves to be Thai was entirely flexible and up to their own discretion and were not forced to conform to a particular identity. As such, many Chinese migrants changed their names to more Thai-oriented ones. To add on, in spite of the various restrictions placed on Chinese schools, there were a lack of protests hence indicating that the minority population were generally agreeable with the policies implemented.Such tactics can be seen as effective as conflict was able to kept at bay and at low frequency.
Therefore, assimilation, when executed with careful consideration and sensitivity towards minority races can indeed be successful and as effective as accommodation as well. In conclusion, accommodation has generally been more effective than assimilation at managing the minority problem in more instances than not. When effectively carried out, accommodation policies have prevented and dialled down the frequency and intensity of conflicts.Additionally, divisions and political splits within governments over ethnic, ideological or religious lines have been absent. Although there are scenarios whereby accommodation has failed by opening up vulnerable spots and assimilation has succeeded in keeping minority problems at bay.
However, accommodation can be seen to be the preferred option whereby if astute foresight is used to execute its strategies well, minorities and majorities can both have their needs taken care of and differences understood and respected as demonstrated from favourable outcomes of previous policies.Accommodation has carried many Southeast Asian states until present day to the successful formulation and implementation of policies that have prevented violent inter-ethnic contention. Therefore, accommodation has been more effective at managing the minority population as compared to assimilation and can be said to the reason for the general political and societal stability across Southeast Asia.
