Name:

Module No. /Tutorial Group

Assignment Submitted
Purpose
Date of Submission
Number of Words

Kok Chin Wern Aloysius

UWC2101S/ Group 1
Paper 3
Final Submission
16th November 2014
2613 Words

Singapore is a highly diverse society consisting of many races. Given such a

diverse population consisting of many races, it is imperative that a common
ground be built among citizens of Singapore so as to ensure that harmony is
maintained across the various races. Indeed, the Singapore government has
historically spent a lot of time constructing a multiracial discourse through
events such as Total Defence Day, which stress religious harmony as well as
further reinforcing this discourse in several government campaigns. In order to
build up a strong and cohesive society, the government emphasises on the need
for mutual tolerance and respect from the different races. Multiracialism built
upon the principles of mutual tolerance and respect for difference has created a
sense of belonging in which solidarity among Singaporeans could be forged. The
success of multiracialism as a state policy in building solidarity amongst
Singaporeans is evident from how no racial riots have occurred since the 1960s
till present day. Solidarity built from multiracialism can be drawn from 2 media
campaign, namely the 2004 Total Defence Commercial as well as the 2013 AntiDengue Campaign poster. In the 2013 poster, the poster clearly depicts the
Singapore multiracial community unified together against a common enemy
which is dengue. Similarly found in the last scene of the 2004 commercial, the
scene depicts a Singaporean community filled with many different races coming
together to defend the nation. This suggests how multiracialism has translated
into a form of solidarity amongst Singaporeans in times of crises. Yet closely
observing these two texts, solidarity existent within the Singaporean community
cannot be accounted for by the principles of multiracialism alone. Referring back
to the commercial, the first scene does not highlight solidarity in the form of
multiracialism, but rather focuses on how individuals who are from the same race
are uniting together to serve their community. In the third scene, an individual is
portrayed as alone, void of any form of multiracialism. Similarly, in the Antidengue poster, although the multiracial community is recognizable, the
greyscale colour given to characters within the poster undermines multiracialism
and de-emphasizes it. This suggests that the characters within the poster are not
individuals from different racial backgrounds who are united together, but rather

racially non-distinct individuals who unite as being a part of the Singaporean

community. These hints of evidence suggest that solidarity in Singapore is not
solely about individuals of different racial backgrounds coming together as one
community. I thus claim that solidarity within the Singaporean society as
represented by these 2 texts, is not attributable to multiracialism alone. In order
to support my thesis, I will draw references to secondary texts within my essay
which serve to enlighten readers about how other elements of solidarity other
than multiracialism, exists as well within these 2 texts.
Multiracialism is an important component of solidarity within the Singaporean
community found in these 2 texts. The principle refers to how different races are
aware of each others differences and accepts these differences as well. As
multiracialism places emphasis on the acceptance of different races within the
Singaporean society, individuals are made to realise and acknowledge that they
are dependent on different races within their community hence, uniting them
together. Such a form of solidarity arising from multiracialism is what Goh
classifies as organic solidarity. Organic solidarity according to him, is developed
when individual citizens who come from various social groups having different
practice and values are aware of their dependence on each other for
individual and collective survival (Goh 563). With reference to the
commercial, evidences of organic solidarity arising from multiracialism can be
observed. In the second scene, the Singaporean community is depicted in unity
dealing with a car on fire. The key feature of the Singaporean community in this
scene of the commercial is the multiracial element within it. An Indian Man works
alongside his Chinese counterpart who is a lady to put out the car fire. More than
just being together, it is noticeable how the Indian man as well the younger
Chinese lady are mutually dependent on one another to put out the fire. This can
be observed from a segment towards the end of the scene, where the Indian
man is juxtaposed alongside his Chinese counterpart to suggest how they work
alongside each other to extinguish the car on fire. It is thus evident in this scene
how 2 different racial groups come together, generating a sense of solidarity due
to the need to deal with an imminent threat such as a car fire which proves to be
threatening. The mutual dependence formed between these racial groups
validates Gohs point on multiracialism being a form of organic solidarity. As
represented by the scene, people from different racial backgrounds are
dependent on one another to deal with a threat which threatens their survival
and hence unite together. Hence, Gohs point here on organic solidarity proves to

be useful in giving us a clearer idea of how multiracialism exists in the form of

organic solidarity within Singapore.
Although multiracialism contributes to solidarity in Singapore when we note
Gohs point on organic solidarity, solidarity within Singaporeans is built from
mutual interdependence of people of different societal classes as well. Towards
this point, Gohs definition of organic solidarity in Singapores context notes how
social groups from different economic spheres are similarly mutually
independent on one another as well for their survivability (Goh 563). Goh thus
provides us with a different perspective of solidarity, which is not solidarity in the
form of multiracialism but one where different social classes realise that they are
dependent on one another for survivability as well. This is evident from the Total
Defence Commercial. The Total Defence Commercial provides an illustration of
how members of different social classes are dependent on one another to deal
with various threats, highlighting organic solidarity clearly. The commercial
segments society into 2 distinct social classes but yet portray them in unity at
the end. Noticeably in the first scene, the posh slick hotel environment draws a
reference to the upper class society within Singapore. More than that, the attire
of the man who enters with a suitcase is representative of the typical
businessman, complemented alongside the female staff who is dressed in a
formal black and white suit at the counter fits in our preconceptions of an
environment where only people of a higher social status belong. Contrasting
towards this first scene is the second scene where a typical void deck of the HDB
housing scene is depicted, suggestive of an environment belonging to the middle
and lower social classes of Singapore. The characters within the scene of the
void deck are not dressed formally and casted with home clothes instead, clearly
hinting they do not belong to the professional upper class society. The video also
provides a visual description of how these 2 social classes react against very
different threats, from the upper class having to react against bomb threats while
the middle and lower class reacting against a car fire. This suggests that the
different nature of threats require different social groups to deal with. Although
there is much distinction between social classes and the nature of threats they
face, the video ties these 2 social classes together as one single group at the end
where they are portrayed in unity. In order to do so, the video relies on special
effects in the form of a vanishing sequence, where individuals disappear towards
the end of each scene but reappear again together in the last scene. The
message delivered here is suggestive of how, despite coming from different

social backgrounds, members of the Singaporean community still unite together,

as they are reliant on one another to react to different forms of threat. Gohs
point on how organic solidarity can also take root in the form of different social
classes instead of multiracialism, uniting individuals together due to
interdependence is thus validated here as well, supported by scenes within the
Total Defence Commercial.
While Gohs point on organic solidarity proves to be well validated in the Total
Defence Commercial, it is inapplicable towards accounting for solidarity within
the Anti-Dengue Campaign Poster. The poster represents individuals with
ambiguous racial backgrounds as well as no clear distinction between social
classes. The ambiguity of race is illustrated by the greyscale background where it
is hard to distinguish races as skin colour is not immediately apparent. In terms
of social class, the characters appear dressed in rather non-formal attires, nondistinctive of any formality or societal status. This is evident through how the
males within the poster are wearing polo T-shirts, and the females casted with
blouses. The clearest evidence signifying a singular social class amongst the
characters in the poster is suggested through the window of a HDB flat, this
suggests that characters within the posters all belong to the middle social class.
Thus Gohs point on organic solidarity appears to be limited here where
characters within the poster are portrayed as having similar social class and only
slight traces of racial distinction exhibiting no signs of organic solidarity. Yet Goh
proposes another form of solidarity which is different from organic solidarity
present in the Singapore society.
Mechanical solidarity instead of organic solidarity, as noted by Goh seems to fit
the type of solidarity being displayed in the Anti-Dengue Poster. As he notes,
mechanical solidarity refers to the collective sentiment and affection that is a
result of shared rituals and common practices. Here Goh argues that in
mechanical solidarity, differences in terms of race and social class found in
organic solidarity are not of concern anymore but rather unity being bred out of
common practices among individuals (Goh 563). Viewing the Anti-Dengue
poster from Gohs perspective of mechanical solidarity, Gohs point appears to
be validated. Within the Anti-Dengue Poster, it is noticeable how the actions of
each individual to pour out water from various household objects in red
resembles a drill with military precision. This seems to support what Goh
mentions about common practices where individuals are carrying out a form of

similar action. This is distinct from organic solidarity as well where individuals are
adopting different practices in each scene of the commercial. Apart from that,
we notice how the eyes of the characters within the poster appear to be
transfixed towards a certain direction. This is a subtle illustration of what Goh
mentions as a collective sentiment and affection, where individuals are
portrayed as having a common goal with respect to their gaze at a fixed position.
Thus mechanical solidarity as contributing towards solidarity in Singapore is
found in the Dengue poster as well, apart from organic solidarity, where
individuals are seen to unite together due to their collective sentiment and
common practices.
While Goh has enlightened us on how multiracialism falls under organic solidarity
in the commercial and accounts for unity within the poster as a form of
mechanical solidarity. His points appears to be limited when we wish account for
solidarity among Singaporeans found in these 2 texts simultaneously. Goh does
not provide a link between organic and mechanical solidarity which limits our
attempt to address solidarity amongst Singaporeans within these 2 texts
collectively as a whole, hence restricting our discussion on solidarity found in
these 2 texts independently.
Towards addressing the limitations within Gohs point. I refer to Sammuts paper
on Civic Solidarity: the negotiation of identity in modern societies. Sammut
proposes that civic solidarity is a more befitting description of todays society
instead of mechanical or organic solidarity. Civic solidarity, according to him,
sustains collaborative relations within and between different social groups, in as
much as it represents individuals interests (Sammut 4.16). Sammuts idea of
civic solidarity is where the individual as a citizen has the freedom to unite with
different social groups of which they have shared interests with.
Civic solidarity clearly accounts for the senses of solidarity among Singaporeans
as a whole represented by the two texts. Civic solidarity emphasises on shared
interests, thus suggesting how, different social groups ranging from societal
classes to racial groups as well as individuals can unite together as one in these
texts. With reference made to the commercial, the common shared interest of
Singaporeans is to defend their nation against external threats. This thus
accounts for why Singaporeans can be segregated across racial lines as depicted
by the second scene, as well as social class lines in the first and second scene,
but yet ultimately unite together. The idea of civic solidarity is found in the

second poster as well, where Singaporeans, despite coming from different

home as highlighted within the poster, are coming together to face a common
enemy which is dengue, hence the desire to eliminate dengue has become a
shared interest of these different homes uniting the characters who may be
from different home to fight a common enemy.
Viewing these 2 media from the perspective of civic solidarity also enables us to
notice how mechanical and organic solidarity is found in both media as well. With
reference to the Anti-Dengue poster, individuals are adopting a common
practice of pouring water away from household items as they have a common
interest towards defending against dengue. But yet if we observe closely, we
notice that these household objects are different from each other, ranging from
the bucket to the flower vase. In addition to the common practice, adopted as
part of mechanical solidarity, characters within the poster are responsible for
specific areas where water is to be poured out as well. This goes to suggest that
characters within the poster are also mutually dependent on one another to
empty water from certain areas, as they are only able to ensure a specific
household item is not filled with water but rely on others to empty out water
from other household items. The mutual interdependency displayed here hence
exhibit signs of organic solidarity on top of the mechanical solidarity as well
where social groups are found to be interdependent on one another for their
survival. This unity being bred out of interdependence and common practices
hence arises from civic solidarity where they have a shared interest in dealing
against dengue. Similarly in the Total Defence Commercial, organic solidarity, as
accounted for above, is exhibited through different social groups and racial
groups relying on each other to defend the nation against a specific form of
threat, hence being mutually interdependent and forging organic solidarity. Yet
deeper observation reveals how this is a form of mechanical solidarity as well.
This is evident when we view the commercial from the perspective of an
individual Singaporean. The individual has to adopt a common practice when
encountered with these 3 threats specifically. This is where in the first scene, the
individual must inform a staff should he notice someone suspicious, in the
second, the individual is expected to form up alongside other races to put out the
fire. In a sense, this suggests a routinized way of dealing with threats which
unites Singaporeans together and hence building mechanical solidarity as well.
Thus, in light of Singaporeans shared interest to defend themselves against

threats externally, they have to be mutually interdependent but yet adopt a

routinized way of dealing with situations as well.
In conclusion, it is notable how multiracialism, is not the main component of
solidarity in the Singaporean community found within these 2 texts but falls as a
subset under organic solidarity. Civic solidarity, or rather the shared interest
built around individuals who share a common purpose, provides a better
overarching concept which accounts for solidarity existent within these 2 texts.
Civic solidarity also deepens our understanding of how mechanical and organic
solidarity are simultaneously found within both texts.

Text A: 2013 Because Every Home Needs A Dengue Fighter Anti-Dengue Poster

Text B: 2004 Singapore Total Defence Campaign, TV commercial, Without You

List of References Cited

Goh, P.S Daniel. Multiculturalism and the Problem of Solidarity. In Management of
Success: Singapore Revisited. Singapore: ISEAS Publishing, 2010. Print.
Sammut, Gordon. Civic Solidarity: the negotiation of identity in modern societies. Papers
on Social Representations 20.1 (2011): 4.1-4.24. Online.

UWC2101S: WRITING AND CRITICAL THINKING DANGER AND NATIONAL SECURITY

PAPER 3 (SUBMISSION REVIEW)

Please ensure that this document is completed and attached to the copy of the final
paper you will be uploading. You can only upload one file so this document will have
to be in the same file as your paper.

1. Please briefly describe what revisions you have made to this paper since you attended (1) the
conference and (2) consultation session at the Writing Centre (if applicable).

I have managed to amend my thesis to a frame of argument which is relevant to

these 2 texts. The structure of my essay has also improved, with a clear flow of
development towards how I address the problems within these 2 texts with
secondary sources. A rather great improvement I feel was that I was able to
point out limitations of secondary sources used to analyse these 2 texts and
provide a solution towards this limitation. This was a skill which I have decided to
practice during this essay, where previously I did not due to a lack of confidence
regarding the validity of limitations pointed out.
2. In the space below, briefly specify your motive and thesis, and list the major
claims (claim 1s) made by each of your argument (please ensure that the
items in this list are numbered).
Motive- Yet closely observing these two texts, solidarity existent within the
Singaporean community cannot be accounted for by the principles of
multiracialism alone.
Thesis- I thus claim that solidarity within the Singaporean society as represented
by these 2 texts, is not attributable to multiracialism alone.
1) Multiracialism is an important component of solidarity within the
Singaporean community found in these 2 texts.
2) Although multiracialism contributes to solidarity in Singapore when we
note Gohs point on organic solidarity, solidarity within Singaporeans is
built from mutual interdependence of people of different societal classes
as well.
3) Mechanical solidarity instead of organic solidarity, as noted by Goh seems
to fit the type of solidarity being displayed in the Anti-Dengue Poster.
4) Civic solidarity clearly accounts for the senses of solidarity among
Singaporeans as a whole represented by the two texts.

3. In what ways do you think that the paper you are now submitting is an improvement over the
version you submitted for peer review and conferencing?

For the previous drafts, I felt that I wasnt able to draw out a clear idea about
how I wish to view these 2 text from a macro perspective. In a sense that I was
going way too broad and thus clearly not focusing on these 2 texts but
developing an essay resembling more towards a discussion based theme.
However for this paper, I was finally able to develop a frame of argument which I
feel is relevant towards addressing issues within these two texts. I was also able
to draw out more evidences from the text to support my argument based on the
revised frame of reference.

4. Were there additional changes you would like to have made for your final paper but werent able
to do so? What were these and why werent you able to do so?

I would have adopted a much more specific thesis and brought in more
secondary sources. Although I did went through many articles, I was not able to
draw out relevant ideas which could contribute to the essay and hence limited
my secondary sources to 2 sources. The purpose of adopting a broader thesis
instead of a more specific one was due to the fact that I faced much of a problem
trying to support my thesis when I amended it and hence left it on a broader
scale.