Power and Politics: Racial Discrimination in Singapore

This essay delves into the multifaceted concept of power, exploring its definition and various forms, including legitimate and illegitimate power, as well as the dynamics of hierarchy and influence. It examines Max Weber's and Habermas's perspectives on power, emphasizing the interplay of social relations and coercion. The core of the essay revolves around Steven Lukes' 'three faces of power' theory, which dissects power into decision-making, agenda-setting, and ideological dimensions. The essay then applies Lukes' framework to analyze the issue of racial discrimination in Singapore, a society that, despite its egalitarian facade, grapples with underlying racial tensions. The analysis examines how the three dimensions of power manifest in Singapore's context, considering the government's approach, minority pushback, and the deeper, often invisible, levels of power affecting ethnic identities and political discourse. The essay highlights the complexities of power dynamics and their impact on social and political issues.

Running head: POWER AND POLITICS
Power and Politics
Student’s name
University
Author’s note

1
POWER AND POLITICS
Definition of Power
Power, as a concept, encompasses a broad area and varied types of powers. In the course
of political sciences, power generally indicates the ability to influence or dictate the behaviors of
others or the course of events. Although the general sense of power often involve the aspect of
force or coercion, in a social context power can be described as a capacity to persuade another
entity to act in a certain way. In any case, the notion of power always involves a sense of
hierarchy, where the flow of influence transmits downwards1. The subjects of such influence
look up to the individual who incites the change of actions or conducts. Hence, in a more
particular sense, power can be defined as a means to assert authority over others. In this way, the
definition of power encompass both legitimate and illegitimate forms of power, while retaining
the aspect of hierarchy embedded in the notion. Such authority can be exercised with or without
the consent of the individuals concerned, indicating the control of the person or group of persons
holding the power.
The aforementioned definition of power can be fortified by Max Weber’s proposed
definition of power. Weber maintains that power as a chance emerging within the social
relationship, which enables an individual to achieve his or her will over others, even going
against the general consensus or resistance. Weber’s definition further narrows down to
dominance, asserting power as a social relation involving voluntary obedience or compliance,
referring to the legitimacy provided by the social sanction2. Further, Habermas distinguished
legitimate and illegitimate power in his critique of social systems. He maintains that legitimate
power is related to reason, and is free from coercion3. Extracting the concepts of legitimate and
1 Goddard, Stacie E., and Daniel H. Nexon. "The dynamics of global power politics: A framework for analysis."
Journal of Global Security Studies 1, no. 1 (2016): 4-18.
2 Olsen, Marvin E., Martin N. Marger, and Valencia Fonseca. Power in modern societies. Routledge, 2019.
3 Baynes, Kenneth. Habermas. Routledge, 2015.

2
POWER AND POLITICS
illegitimate power from both Weber and Habermas’s definitions, the current definition of power
emphasizes both the aspect of social relation and coercion.
Steven Lukes’ Three Levels of Power
Steven Lukes’ theory, known as the “three faces of power” suggests that power is
exercised in three major ways within the social setting—decision making power, non-decision
making power and ideological power. According to Lukes, decision making power is the most
public form of power. Referring to Robert Dahl’s concept of power, the first dimension of power
can be regarded as the one-dimensional, pluralist view of power. He opines, such form of power
focuses on behavioral attributes applicable to individuals to an extent up to which they can
transform the behaviors of others involved in a decision making process.
In the second dimension, i.e. the non-decision making power, is introduced by Lukes
himself to refute the one-dimensional power. He describes such power as an aspect that sets the
agenda in social and political debates, instead of weighing in on existing consensus. Such power
provides a two-dimensional view of power.
The third dimension, i.e. the ideological power facilitates an individual to influence
others irrespective of their own interests or choices, and often persuades them to act against their
own self-interest. The third and the deepest level is viewed as the most powerful, for it enables
the researchers to incorporate both the observable and latent conflicts in the critique of power.
Along with the subjective interests, the third dimension also include the actual interests of
subjects who are otherwise excluded from the political process. Thus, this dimension also enable
the common people to weigh in within the ongoing political discourse by considering and

3
POWER AND POLITICS
accounting for their interests. As their interest change, so does the nature of political conflicts
and power relation within the political discourse4.
Applying Lukes’ Theory in Analyzing Racial Discrimination as a Political
Issue
Apparently, Singapore might seem as an egalitarian state, respecting diversity and
promoting inclusive policies, the issue of racial discrimination lies as an undercurrent in the
social and political context in Singapore. The ethnic diversity of Singapore includes the Malays,
Chinese, Indians and some other racial identities, it is a long standing objection that the people
with Chinese heritage enjoy an apparent preferential treatment over others.
The racial tension, as observed in the Singaporean context can be analyzed through the
three dimensions of power. In the pluralist, one-dimensional phase, the government’s approach
reveal the multicultural, egalitarian aspect of the national as well as regional policy making
process. The pluralistic approach reveal the process of interest keeping of various interest
groups, and the relation of power among people. The behaviour of people hailing from different
ethnic backgrounds are expected to be governed by the power exerted by the authority, which
essentially advocates multiculturalism.
On the other hand, the minority pushback sets the agenda of political discourse,
confirming the two-dimensional approach to discuss about the existing Chinese privilege in the
common social life. The interest groups consisting Malay and Indian ethnicities, through a
substantial use of media, object to the preferential treatment, extending the debate of racial
discrimination on the face of an apparent egalitarian system.
4 Hathaway, Terry. "Lukes reloaded: an actor-centred three-dimensional power framework." Politics 36, no. 2
(2016): 118-130.

4
POWER AND POLITICS
At a deep level of power exertion, the minorities of Singapore are not only complaining
about the preferential treatment of the Chinese community, they also report that they are not
comfortable with their own ethnic identity. This includes the ethnic classes beyond Malays and
Indians, those who are usually absent in the given discourse.5
5 SIM, WALTER. 2015. "The Race Issue: How Far Has Singapore Come?". The Straits Times.

5
POWER AND POLITICS
References
Baynes, Kenneth. Habermas. Routledge, 2015.
Goddard, Stacie E., and Daniel H. Nexon. "The dynamics of global power politics: A framework
for analysis." Journal of Global Security Studies 1, no. 1 (2016): 4-18.
Hathaway, Terry. "Lukes reloaded: an actor-centred three-dimensional power framework."
Politics 36, no. 2 (2016): 118-130.
Olsen, Marvin E., Martin N. Marger, and Valencia Fonseca. Power in modern societies.
Routledge, 2019.
SIM, WALTER. 2015. "The Race Issue: How Far Has Singapore Come?". The Straits Times.
https://www.straitstimes.com/politics/the-race-issue-how-far-has-singapore-come.