At independence, Singapore had harsh ethnic tensions with both religious and racial differences among its population. They chose the first option, and opted for broadbased prosperity for all citizens irrespective of them being muslim malay, buhdist chinese, hinudu tamil or cacs . Rather than all the ethnicities balkanizing within one dysfunctional country , Singapore took the path of actively stopping ethnic enclaves and stopping power concentration within any groups. The end result was one prosperous country which amalgamated into a single, unique culture. It's to the extent that all four ethnicities areWhen dealing with people from their motherlands. But they are ecomically whole and in better shape than motherlanders.
but this isn't a like for like comparison.
singapore was forging a new identify at its independence that required the conformity of all ethnic groups. in addition, as you mention, if there was an imbalance of power, or if certain ethnic groups had a monopoly of power, that power had to be relinquished in the name of this new identity. everyone had skin in the game. if all groups want prosperity and equality, all groups have to forego a consolidation of power in the name of equality.
in scenario one, black people are assimilating into the "in group" who has an established identity and a monopoly on power. the "in group" loses nothing while we lose our leverage.
Last edited: