Which Has Been More Successful at Creating National Unity in Independent Southeast Asian States: Assimilation or Multiculturalism?

...

of territorial fragmentation. Due to the intensified marginalisation of minorities by the dominant culture and the pressure to assimilate into the dominant culture, the minorities felt a stronger need to separate from the state. This is evident in Burma, where U Nu’s attempts at Burmanization led to a major Shan uprising in 1960 and a Kachin uprising in 1961. Likewise, in Thailand, the Hmong rebellion was staged because the Hmong people wanted autonomy from the state. The assimilative approach meant that the governments attempted to establish mono-ethnic states in multi-ethnic societies, causing the marginalisation of minorities as they were forced to assimilate in order to belong the the state. This means that their specific needs were not met, leading to dissatisfaction. The various ethnic groups greatly disintegrated, instead of being united, leading to the rise of secessionist movements. This is a problem that the countries which used the multicultural approach did not face, meaning that the countries which used the assimilative approach were much less successful in achieving territorial unity in the short-run.

The assimilative approach was also unsuccessful at achieving territorial unity in the long-run. Firstly, there was economic marginalisation. In many countries, the Chinese, a minority group, owned the majority of the country’s wealth, leading to resentment of this particular minority group by the majority group. This was evident in Indonesia, where anti-Chinese sentiments were the cause of sporadic anti-Chinese violence, including that which was sparked by the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997. The lack of assimilation of the Chinese into society, exacerbated by the Chinese community’s disproportionate economic success, was the root cause of the anti-Chinese sentiments. This lack of assimilation was because Indonesia was not capable of forging territorial unity in the short-run, intensifying the disintegration of the ethnic groups in the long-run. Similarly, in the Philippines, there were repressive policies aimed at the Muslims, a minority group, such as the relocation of Christians to Mindanao, a Muslim-populated area. The Muslims were no longer the majority in Mindanao, in addition to having their land taken away for resettlement projects. This led to an intensified sense of alienation of the Muslims from the state. These repressive policies were a continuation of colonial policies, indicating that not only were the Muslims marginalised in the short-run, but the government chose to do so in the long-run as well. Once again, the lack of territorial unity achieved in the short-run leads to unsuccessful territorial unity in the long-run as well, intensifying tensions greatly. Since territorial unity was not achieved by the countries who used the assimilative approach in both the long-run and the short-run, it is safe to say they completely failed at achieving territorial unity, an important aspect of national unity.

In conclusion, Singapore and Malaysia, the two countries which used the multicultural approach were far more successful at achieving national unity. This was because the multicultural approach was able to ensure peaceful coexistence, an inidcator of territorial unity, by meeting the needs of minorities. Although it was rather shallow, they were far more successful than countries who used the dominant culture as their territorial unity was almost non-existent. This can be seen in the numerous uprisings and rebellions across the region. Hence, it is clear that the multicultural approach was better in achieving national unity as it prevented minority uprisings and allowed the masses to live together in harmony, although the ethnic groups were not very integrated.