The challenge of cohesion: Lessons from Singapore for South Africa's diverse tapestry
Held in a city-state widely recognised for its success in managing multiculturalism, the conference offered profound insights, not only into global best practices, but also into the quiet struggles and aspirations of nations grappling with identity, cohesion and belonging.
The address by His Excellency Tharman Shanmugaratnam, the president of Singapore, was particularly arresting. He spoke of diverse nations as being like quilts, composed of many distinct patches, each representing a different community, sewn together to create something both beautiful and meaningful.
Yet, he cautioned, when storms rage, be they economic, political or social, the quilt may fray, its seams come apart, its integrity tested. Perhaps, he mused, we must begin to weave new cloth, stronger, more resilient, where the threads of our many identities are not merely stitched side by side, but entwined in a shared fabric of common purpose.
It was a metaphor that struck deep, not just for its elegance, but for its resonance with the South African condition.
South Africa, too, is a patchwork nation. We are black, white, coloured, Indian and many other shades in between. We are Zulu, Xhosa, Afrikaans, English, Tswana, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Christian, African traditionalist and secular. Our diversity is immense. It is beautiful. But it is also the source of some of our deepest tensions.
The fundamental question we face is this: Are we, first and foremost, South Africans, a single people forged in shared destiny, or are we, still, primarily members of our separate communities who just happen to coexist within the same borders? Put another way, are we one nation regardless of race and culture, or are we still proud white, black, coloured and Indian South Africans, united, working together to forge a nation for all that live in it?
The central challenge of our democratic project
This is not merely a question of semantics. It is the central challenge of our democratic project. The Freedom Charter's enduring promise that 'South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity,' is an aspiration that has yet to be realised.
In Singapore, I observed a nation that has answered this question with quiet determination. Rather than erasing cultural identity, it has built systems, policies and symbols that reinforce shared citizenship while celebrating difference.
Civic identity takes precedence, but not at the expense of personal heritage. They have found, in many ways, a formula for unity without uniformity.
For South Africa, the road is more complex. Our history is more painful, our inequalities more entrenched, our wounds more recent. Yet that does not absolve us from the responsibility to forge a stronger social compact, one in which we weave new cloth rather than simply mending the old quilt.
What might that cloth look like?
It would be woven from threads of shared values, non-racialism, mutual respect, ubuntu and justice. It would draw strength from the fibres of local languages, customs, histories and rituals, but bind them into a fabric of common purpose. It would move us beyond coexistence into co-creation. Beyond tolerance into solidarity.
Importantly, this new cloth does not require us to shed our cultural identities. Rather, it asks that we bring them to the loom, consciously, willingly and in the spirit of building something that transcends each of us individually.
In this way, we do not become less coloured, less African, less Indian, less white — we become more South African together.
Of course, weaving new fabric requires leadership, trust and a willingness to act with moral courage. It demands that we interrogate our education system, our media, our political discourse and our civic rituals.
Difficult questions
It means asking difficult questions: Why do so many still feel excluded from the national story? Why do young people in townships and suburbs grow up worlds apart? Why do we default to racial categories rather than civic ones?
At the conference, I saw nations grappling with these same questions, each in their own context. Yet the most successful examples, Singapore among them, demonstrated one truth repeatedly: cohesion is not an accidental by-product of democracy. It is a deliberate act of national imagination and political will.
For South Africa, the time has come to reimagine our social fabric. The old quilt, stitched together in 1994, was a powerful start. But it has been weathered by time, torn by inequality, frayed by neglect. Now, we must begin to weave anew.
Let us not be afraid to dream of a cloth that is stronger, more resilient, more inclusive. A cloth where every thread matters, but where what binds us is even stronger than what differentiates us.
A cloth we can call South Africa, not as a collection of patches, but as a single, purposeful, living nation. DM
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Citizen
26 minutes ago
- The Citizen
Dirco slams report SA collaborated with Hamas to attack Israel
Dirco was responding to journalist Paula Slier's blog post published in the Times of Israel on Friday, July 11, 2025. The International Relations Department (Dirco) says assertions that the South African government knowingly collaborated with Hamas ahead of the October 7 attacks on Israel are a 'misstep, granting oxygen to demonstrably unverified assertions.' Dirco was responding to journalist Paula Slier's blog post published in the Times of Israel on Friday, July 11, 2025. 'SA collaborating with Iran' In the post, Slier writes about a $400 million lawsuit being prepared in the United States (US) against President Cyril Ramaphosa, accusing the South African government of knowingly collaborating with Hamas ahead of the October 7 attacks on Israel, attacks in which at least 47 American citizens were killed or taken hostage. 'The case, built on recommendations by UK-based consultant Justin Lewis, claims to have uncovered new material evidence of coordination between South African officials, Hamas, and Iran in the months leading up to the massacre. It's a staggering allegation: that South Africa's diplomatic support for Hamas wasn't just rhetorical solidarity, but active complicity,' Slier wrote. 'Bemusement' In an open letter to Slier and the Times of Israel on Sunday, Dirco spokesperson Chrispin Phiri said he observed with a 'degree of bemusement Slier's recent forays into the blogosphere of the Times of Israel.' 'On July 11, 2025, you saw fit to amplify the extreme, dangerous, and unsubstantiated assertions of one Justin Lewis. A mere two days later, you claim that this is 'a lobbying and advocacy effort based on unverified allegations'. 'However, instead of apologising to your readers for violating the most basic tenets of ethical journalism, and taking steps to mitigate the damage you have caused, you chose once again to amplify these reckless allegations, vowing to pursue them, notwithstanding the lack of evidence!' Phiri wrote. ALSO READ: Israel strikes Catholic church in Gaza, killing three [VIDEO] Litigation In the blog post referred to by Phiri, written by Slier two days late, wrote that while Lewis had said he submitted recommendations, 'he is not personally involved in any litigation process and cannot confirm that a lawsuit is being filed. He advises third parties who may be considering such action.' 'This does not negate the seriousness of the questions raised, nor the significance of South Africa's diplomatic posture toward Hamas and Iran, which continues to generate global concern. But it does shift the emphasis: this is not yet a legal case; it is a lobbying and advocacy effort based on unverified allegations,' Slier wrote. 'Almost all the responses to my previous blog post were positive. But I've also heard from concerned colleagues and friends in the media, urging me to look again at the man behind these claims. And they're right'. False claims Phiri said the claims against Pretoria are untrue. 'For the record, to say that these claims are unverified and baseless is a perfectly rational response to someone, like Mr Lewis, who clearly has a penchant for misinformation and lies. 'What is not rational is to ignore a growing body of evidence and information from experts in search of non-existent evidence that South Africa could not have possibly conceived on its own, the interpretation of upholding international law by invoking the provisions of the genocide convention,' Phiri said. ALSO READ: Hague group announce steps to hold Israel accountable at Bogotá Summit [VIDEO] Research Phiri outlined desktop research points from LinkedIn that he claims could have been used to verify similar sensational claims made about the First Minister of Scotland by Lewis, who is a non-lawyer but a farmer and entrepreneur by profession. 'The 'information' you are referring to is an email to an organisation referred to as the Media Research Council (MRC) in which Mr. Lewis commenced his missive with a litany of pronouncements'. 'He proceeded to tell the MRC evidence exists confirming that the SA government, led at that time by its main political party the ANC knew about Hamas' intended attack on the state of Israel before it happened in October 2023 and that elements within the SA government, the Department of Foreign Affairs (DIRCO) (sic), actively encouraged and enjoined its support of Hamas political strategy by acting as its agent for access to the ICC and the ICJ, which access to the court (ICJ), Hamas did not have as a non-signatory, as alleged.' SA ICJ case According to Phiri, further details in the email state that as part of a political strategy, preparations were made prior to the October 7 atrocity against Israel, to put in place mechanisms to approach the ICC and ICJ for protection from the state of Israel's anticipated response. 'As a layman, the example I use is that of assisting a neighbour to burn his house down, then rushing to court to claim insurance protection from your insurer (as your neighbour is a non-signatory).' 'Tea One might reasonably be surprised that a mere email from a third party, clearly well-versed in the art of name-dropping luminaries—some, like Archbishop Desmond Tutu and former Chief Justice Arthur Chaskalson, no longer with us, alongside the rather incongruous mention of British royalty and former Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng—could trigger a media inquiry,' Lewis wrote. ALSO READ: Israeli strikes kill children collecting water in Gaza 'Gaping holes' Phiri said his own 'rudimentary desktop research swiftly illuminated the gaping holes' in Lewis's narrative and credibility, including that Lewis styles himself a 'non-lawyer' yet claims to have 'worked with two Chief Justices' of our Republic. 'In what capacity? South African judges, by the very nature of our judicial system, do not conduct investigations, let alone work with members of the public directly on legal matters.' 'Misstep' Phiri said Slier's July 11 blog entry in the Times of Israel 'regrettably mirrored this precise misstep, granting oxygen to demonstrably unverified assertions.' 'You further compounded the error by endorsing Mr Lewis's contention that the South African media had, in some grand conspiracy, ignored his 'information'. In doing so, you effectively impugned the integrity of our media as a whole, suggesting it functions as a purveyor of misinformation or propaganda.' ALSO READ: Israel accused of starving Gaza 'by design' — South Africa addresses ICJ No politics Phiri added that South Africa's case against Israel has nothing to do with politics, nor with religion or ethnicity. 'It is about the conduct of a State that has signed the UN Charter, the Genocide Convention and numerous international instruments and manifestly and repeatedly violated them. It is about the equal application of international law. 'Our support for the right of self-determination of the Palestinian people is predicated on the enduring need to address the manifestation of an illegal settler colonial occupation,' Phiri said. Mandela month However, Slier has continued to ask whether Pretoria knew about Hamas' attack. 'The broader question: what did South Africa know about Hamas's intentions before October 7, and what role has it played diplomatically since? – remains valid and urgent. But it must be pursued through verified facts, credible sources, and balanced reporting. 'I intend to continue reporting on this story. In the coming days, I'll be speaking to a range of analysts and legal experts to assess both the claims and the implications. If evidence surfaces of collaboration, foreknowledge, or financial consequences, I will report on it. But I will do so transparently and carefully,' Slier said. ALSO READ: Israel bombs café during children's birthday party in Gaza — 39 killed
IOL News
an hour ago
- IOL News
Why Trump's 30% blow to South Africa is a wake-up call for a new economic order
On August 1, 2025, South African exporters will wake up to a 30% tariff on all goods entering the United States, a decision announced by the administration of President Donald Trump. Image: File On August 1, 2025, South African exporters will wake up to a 30% tariff on all goods entering the United States, a decision announced by the administration of President Donald Trump. This is not a sector-specific sanction, nor the outcome of any formal trade dispute. It is a sweeping penalty imposed on all products, citing trade imbalances and regulatory barriers imposed by South Africa. But this is not the end of trade. It is the beginning of South Africa's trade adolescence, the moment we decide to grow up or continue being disciplined by our 'partners.' The justification provided by the US administration rests on the claim that South Africa runs a trade surplus with the United States. In truth, South Africa exported around R170 billion worth of goods to the US in 2023 (Stats SA, 2024), largely in automotive components, citrus and minerals, while importing just over R100 billion in return. The surplus exists but it is relatively small in the context of overall bilateral trade. Trade imbalances are also not inherently unfair; the US itself enjoys surpluses with many countries. What this tariff reveals is not a fiscal grievance but a display of geopolitical leverage, an assertion of economic power with limited regard for multilateral process. The tariff appears partly aimed at appeasing domestic political interests ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, particularly in states where trade unions are concerned about foreign competition. However, the consequences for South Africa's economy will be profound and immediate. South Africa is already under pressure to reindustrialise and this penalty could not come at a worse time. The automotive industry alone accounts for over 4% of GDP and more than 110 000 jobs (Naamsa and Department of Trade, Industry and Competition, 2024). With the US as a key destination for vehicle parts and assembled models, this tariff will deal a serious blow to sectoral stability. Reports indicate that companies relocating production to the US may receive expedited regulatory approvals. In effect, this risks incentivising capital flight and weakening local value chains. This policy shift is taking place while South Africa holds the presidency of the G20 (G20 Secretariat, 2025). That irony is difficult to ignore. We are presiding over a global forum committed to equitable development while being subjected to unilateral economic pressure by one of its most powerful members. This is more than a diplomatic discomfort; it is a direct challenge to the credibility of multilateralism. If the G20 cannot protect developing economies from arbitrary market exclusion, it must ask itself what kind of influence it truly holds. While this move falls outside the scope of Agoa, it nonetheless underscores how preferential trade access can shift at the stroke of a pen. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Past threats to South Africa's participation in Agoa, such as the poultry trade dispute of 2015 (USTR, 2016), highlight how even codified benefits remain vulnerable to political shifts. Critics of South Africa's trade policy may point to the use of technical regulations and local content rules. However, these are allowed under World Trade Organisation (WTO) guidelines, as outlined in the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement (WTO, 2020). Developing countries are within their rights to protect and promote industrial growth through policy instruments that stimulate domestic value addition. The United States also protects its own industries through farm subsidies, defence procurement and steel tariffs. To frame South Africa's approach as uniquely restrictive is not only unfair; it reflects a double standard embedded in the global trade architecture. This situation reflects a deeper structural issue in South Africa's trade exposure. Our economy remains disproportionately dependent on the EU, the US and China. Even beyond the US, our exposure to external shocks is growing from the EU's carbon border taxes to shifting Chinese demand. Diversification must be structural, not just diplomatic. There is also a domestic reckoning to be had. South Africa's industrial policy remains constrained by loadshedding, underinvestment in ports and rail and persistent skills mismatches. If we are to reposition ourselves globally, these internal constraints must be addressed with equal urgency. A resilient economy cannot rely solely on favourable trade preferences beyond its control. It must be built on a foundation of functional infrastructure, competitive inputs and policy certainty. South Africa faces a choice. It can wait out the Trump presidency in the hope that future leadership will reverse course or it can act decisively now. This is not a call for isolationism. South Africa should not abandon global trade nor retaliate blindly. However, we must negotiate from a position of design rather than deference. We must ensure that this is the last time our national strategy is disrupted by external political cycles. Our trade strategy must pivot. Already, trade with BRICS+ partners has rivalled that of individual Western blocs in recent quarters, accounting for more than 22% of South Africa's exports in 2024 (SARB, Q4 2024). This is a foundation we can build upon. The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) remains our continent's most ambitious economic project. While its infrastructure is still maturing, its potential cannot be deferred any longer. Trade corridors, payment systems and regulatory alignment must be fast-tracked in practice, not just policy. The World Bank estimates AfCFTA could lift 30 million people out of poverty by 2035 (World Bank, 2020). Parliament and the economic cluster must now take this seriously not as a trade spat but as a strategic inflection point for the country's long-term development path. The legality of this tariff under WTO rules remains debatable, especially given its blanket nature and lack of arbitration. However, legality aside, the message it sends is unmistakable. The global playing field remains unequal and South Africa must protect itself accordingly. This is not an argument for withdrawal. It is an argument for resilience. We cannot afford to build a 21st-century economy on the hope that global goodwill will prevail. We must design for volatility, prepare for shocks and root our trade agenda in real production, regional depth and economic clarity. US President Donald Trump may eventually give way to a different leader but the conditions that made this tariff possible are not tied to any single administration. The unpredictability of external markets, the asymmetry of trade power and the fragility of our supply chains are structural issues. They will not be resolved with the next election. The tariffs may be American but the decision before us is South African. Do we keep asking permission to grow or do we take the blows and build something of our own? Nomvula Zeldah Mabuza is a Risk Governance and Compliance Specialist with extensive experience in strategic risk and industrial operations. She holds a Diploma in Business Management (Accounting) from Brunel University, UK, and is an MBA candidate at Henley Business School, South Africa. Image: Supplied Nomvula Zeldah Mabuza is a Risk Governance and Compliance Specialist with extensive experience in strategic risk and industrial operations. She holds a Diploma in Business Management (Accounting) from Brunel University, UK, and is an MBA candidate at Henley Business School, South Africa. *** The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of Independent Media or IOL. BUSINESS REPORT
The South African
an hour ago
- The South African
WATCH: Julius Malema returns to court for firearm discharge case
Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) leader Julius Malema and his bodyguard, Adriaan Snyman, will return to the East London Magistrate's Court in the Eastern Cape for closing arguments in their public firearm discharge case. Initially, the closing arguments were set for December 2024; however, the matter was postponed as the magistrate fell ill and will now take place on Monday, 21 July. As previously reported, in a video that was widely circulated on social media, EFF leaders could be seen dancing and singing on the stage and then Malema allegedly is seen firing the rifle into the air before he hands it over to his bodyguard Adriaan Snyman. Thereafter, Malema give's EFF then-chairman Dali Mpofu a high five. Roughly one month after the shooting incident, Malema denied ever having discharged a firearm. Having an explanation for video footage, he said the sounds of gunshots happened to coincide with fireworks. Julius Malema and security company director Adriaan Snyman are charged with unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawful possession of ammunition, discharge of a firearm in a built-up area, failure to take reasonable precaution to person or property, and reckless endangerment to person or property. Malema and Snyman have pleaded not guilty to all charges. The firearm that Malema allegedly fired at an EFF rally in Mdantsane in 2018 belongs to a company where Synman is the director. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1. Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X, and Bluesky for the latest news.
