It was an innocuous and short paragraph in TODAY’s newspaper, yet it became an overnight sensation. It was reported, a family who just moved to Singapore from China could not stand the smell of curry that their Indian neighbours cooked, and took the matter to the Community Mediation Centre (CMC)
The Indian family had already taken measures to reduce the spread of the curry smell by closing windows, but the situation was not resolved.
Quoting what was reported on TODAYonline:
“The [Chinese family] said: ‘Can you please do something? Can you don’t cook curry? Can you don’t eat curry?’,” said Madam Marcellina Giam, a Community Mediation Centre mediator. But the Indian family stood firm.
In the end, the Indian family agreed to cook curry only when the Chinese family is not around, while the CMC had said this was proposed by one of the parties, and not Mdm Giam. But the crux of the matter is that the case should not even be brought to the CMC.
As immigrants, they had relinquished privileges from their home country, and should make attempts to assimilate into their new society, beginning with toleration of different cultures.
Or rather, this is a case that the CMC should not have entertained because curry is a local dish, and part and parcel of the Indian culture. The intervention by the CMC suggests its tacit agreement to the sensibility of the issue: that cooking curry is a problem. It is equivalent to asking the Chinese not to burn incense, joss paper, and papier-mâché during Hungry Ghost Festival. Practicing one’s culture should be categorically legitimate, unless, in accordance with J.S Mill’s harm principle, it is detrimental to others.
Analyzing the issue in its entirety, the reason why the media, both alternative and mainstream alike have picked up this issue is the newsworthy-ness of the piece. This reflects, unfortunately, an undercurrent of xenophobia within the society, or perhaps, the rise of it.
It takes two hands to clap – toleration should be a norm adopted within society, and practiced by both immigrants and locals alike. The ethos of restraint will cultivate a climate of sensitivity, where interaction between groups of people takes into consideration their different cultural dispositions. This is in part a way of respecting basic human dignity of members of the community that far surpasses practical concerns for social stability. With an increase in foreigners entering into Singapore’s society it is critical at this juncture to adhere to the value of tolerance.