Essay — Integration vs Assimilation (24/30)

Was multicultural integration more successful than assimilation in the independentSoutheast Asianstates’ attemptstoachievenational unity? Every nascent state strives to achieve national unity, characterised by territorial integrity,social stability and common identity. Across Southeast Asia, two general approachesemerged: assimilation sought to impose adominant cultureontominorities, whileintegrationpromoted a multicultural social fabric that embraced diverse identities. In most countries,neither approach achieved national unity in its entirety: while assimilation fared better atcreating a central national identity, integration proved better at averting minority challengesto social stability and territorial integrity, the bedrock of unity. Ultimately, integration was themore successful strategy because it was inevitably more accommodative in implementationandwasprimarilyusedinconditionswhereunitywasinherentlyeasier toachieve. Integrative approaches were not alwaysmoresuccessful: integration’sattempt toprotect thecultural spaces of diverse groups counterproductively reinforced ethnic differences.Comparatively, assimilation—with its heavy emphasis on establishing one dominantculture—more successfully forged a shared national identity. In Malaysia, accommodatingdifferent communities led to ethnic compartmentalisation: vernacular private schools wereallowed which protected Chinese and Indian culture but reinforced ethnic segregation ineducation, limiting opportunities for inter-ethnic interaction. Hence, a2000Universiti Malayasurvey found “very little inter-ethnic mixing” among students, precluding any commonMalaysian identity. Comparatively, Thailand’s populace was firmly assimilated under thenational ideology of “Nation, Religion, King”: King Bhumibol was so universally revered thathe successfully forced leaders Thanom and Suchinda to step down in 1973 and 1992,demonstrating his central place in Thai identity. Further, the promotion of Buddhism to hilltribes under the Thammacarik and Thammathut programmes in the mid-1960s successfullyconverted many to Buddhism, with nearly every province in the region beingmajority-Buddhist by 1970, indicating a shared Buddhist identity. Similarly, the Javaneseconcept of gotong royong was successfully established as national culture inIndonesia—both Sukarno and Suharto attached the phrase to key policies (e.g. the 1957Gotong Royong Cabinet, 1960 Gotong Royong Parliament and 1968 BIMAS GotongRoyong), demonstrating popular buy-in. Further, Bahasa Indonesia—widely considered astrategy to facilitate acceptance of the dominant culture by avoiding overt Javanesedomination—enhanced Indonesianidentityasit becamespokenbyover 80%of Indonesiansby 1990. Thus, assimilation’s strong focus on creating a dominant culture has forged a

national identity—a key marker of national unity—while integration often reinforced ethnicdividesinstead. Further, integration often incited backlash and resistance frommajoritieswhentheyfelt theirdo