The ICCS Interlude conference in Singapore (September 1-2, 2026) took place at a moment when the world seemed “wilder in all directions, more dangerous and bitter,” yet also “more extravagant and bright” (Annie Dillard). International norms have frayed, fierce floods were destroying whole ways of life, diseases seemed to spread without check, and conflict seemed everywhere. Yet we were also reminded of progress and potential, with lucid and honest presentations of challenges and creative and promising policy tools. It was indeed a timely occasion to reimagine pathways towards the diverse and cohesive societies we know are possible.
The conference was part of the continuing International Conference on Cohesive Societies process, led by Singapore’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), with the government of Singapore’s active support. Launched in 2019, it represents “a long-term strategic effort to engage global intellectuals, senior academics, and civic-faith community leaders on how to foster stronger, more cohesive and resilient societies.” ICCS’s focus is largely regional, especially the ASEAN countries, but the conference keynote speaker, Helen Clark, who exemplifies national and global leadership, highlighted global perspectives and a broad sense of urgency to build new multifaith and multicultural platforms. She posed a pointed question: “How many more tragedies do we have to see before we act?” and called on all to “stand up and step up.”
This note reflects comments in my concluding keynote, and my continuing role on the ICCS Advisory Council.
The Interlude highlighted two faces of pluralism—its opportunities and its dangers—at a time when concerns about polycrisis, polarization, inequality, and weakening trust loom large. The central, continuing ICCS theme is that multiculturalism is not, as some have indicated, dead, but is both inescapable and a largely positive force. But positive intellectual and policy measures are needed to ensure that pluralism is understood to move beyond demographic diversity and “grudging tolerance” towards forms of integration that recognize legitimate differences within a positive and shared sense of the common good. The challenge of “reimagining” is to focus on this collective good while grasping more effectively the obstacles in the path. It also calls for proactive efforts to focus always on those most at risk of being left behind.
Three broad areas of reflection were woven through the discussions: intellectual challenges of ideas about multiculturalism, challenges of perceptions, and the imperative of translating these insights into policy and action.
A central intellectual thread was the exploration of various indices of social cohesion. Policymakers and wonks yearn for meaningful “dashboards,” for example with indicators showing social, economic, and even political tensions as well as progress. The conference featured presentations of several national, international, and more local indices aimed at tracking progress towards what can broadly be termed human flourishing, including Australia, Canada, Germany, Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Korea. The “dashboard” challenge takes on heightened importance with today’s many varieties of conflict, challenges to democratic norms, populism, the rise of nationalist right movements, and weak (and weakening) social compacts. Contexts, of course, vary widely and demand nuanced analysis and tools, but so do broader trends that changing times and circumstances suggest. My own experience illustrates the need for constant adaptation and vigilance about the effectiveness of even well-worn measures. During both the 1997-1999 East Asia crisis and the 2020-2002 COVID-19 pandemic, available indicators often gave limited information on where needs were most acute, so policymakers lacked timely tools to identify those most severely affected. In short, the presentations of different tools and possible directions for enriching them provided a robust foundation for the discussions about “reimagining multiculturalism.”
The conference had also demonstrated how difficult definitions remain: concepts such as pluralism, multiculturalism, and integration carry ambiguities and different meanings across contexts. Ambassador Ong Keng Yong saw a collective journey by bus as a helpful analogy: a bus can carry people from very different backgrounds on a common route towards a shared destination. A comparable metaphor emerged during the COVID-19 era. It was often said that humanity was “in the same boat,” yet the pandemic demonstrated that people were not experiencing the same journey under equal conditions: some were effectively on rafts or driftwood, while others travelled in very fancy yachts. Pluralism is much more than demographic diversity, and understandings of integration need to involve respect and care across boundaries while remaining attentive to unequal circumstances Drawing on Rawls’ idea of “reasonable pluralism,” free societies naturally produce divergent religious, moral, and philosophical views. It is essential that persistent disagreement be regarded as legitimate, not simply a temporary defect that can ultimately be eliminated through education or political victory. Plural societies require institutions and norms capable of making disagreement governable while protecting rights and sustaining a legitimate social contract.
A distinctive set of questions arise where religious pluralism is concerned. The ICCS process has explored from the outset how far religion should be regarded as a distinctive component of policies focused on cohesive societies. Lived religion can be almost inseparable from culture, yet religion also involves specific challenges, often related to truth claims and communities shaped by particular histories and inherited identities. Globalization increasingly brings communities into more direct encounter. Pluralism can weaken inherited monopolies over identity and create greater freedom, but it can simultaneously unsettle certainty and established forms of belonging. People can exercise such freedom positively where they possess voice, security, social recognition and meaningful associations. Where they instead experience dislocation and powerlessness, authoritarian identities can offer certainty, community and relief from responsibility. A recent Berkley Forum series, “Religious Pluralism in an Age of Crisis,” highlights that pluralism is not simply the coexistence of different religions, but a difficult political, theological, and social achievement. Pluralism requires societies to reconcile universal truth claims, individual equality, collective identities, institutional authority, and national belonging. It offers important benefits, but creates dilemmas that cannot be resolved through tolerance or legal protections alone.
A second major theme woven through the conference concerned perceptions. The distinction between the ideal and the actual comes to mind: societies’ understandings of themselves do not necessarily correspond to empirical realities. Like the parable of the blind men encountering different parts of an elephant, individuals often perceive only part of a larger picture, or one distorted by various factors (including deliberate misinformation). The gaps are especially stark where immigration and approaches to immigrants are concerned. Public perceptions of migration and of immigrants can diverge significantly from evidence about its scale or consequences, including its benefits in terms of cultural enrichment and economic progress. Many societies have genuine demographic and economic needs for immigration, yet governments still encounter opposition. Understanding and tracking perceptions raises broader questions about communication, leadership, narratives, the internet, and, increasingly, factors linked to artificial intelligence.
The conference also focused on policy implications and ideas for positive action. Social cohesion requires bottom-up participation, beginning in families and schools, but it also requires state leadership and action, nationally and through regional and multilateral institutions. The G20 Interfaith Forum has emphasized social cohesion, including Indonesia’s pioneering Cross Cultural Religious Literacy Program, which focuses on secondary schools. Ideally, policymakers would have some forms of dashboards that could signal emerging social problems—for example declining educational outcomes, localized conflicts, changing mortality patterns, or suicide rates—before they become crises. While there is no ideal system in sight, indices and other measurement tools provide important starting points.
Religious and cultural literacy are among the practical instruments societies can strengthen. The conference discussion of “mamakisation” (for example, everyday mixing at open, informal mamak eateries) in Malaysia illustrated how everyday social interactions and social transactions can offer some bridging functions among communities. Both indicators and well adapted forms of community and state support are needed precisely because societies are changing rapidly. Policymakers cannot assume that tools developed for previous crises will adequately anticipate the next.
Insights from the ICCS Interlude must ultimately translate into policies and positive action, involving families, schools, states, and regional and multilateral institutions. Religious and cultural literacy, better indicators, and continued examination of what works—and what does not—are important tools. Communication is vital, to make the issues come alive, through data and narratives. An experienced and savvy Singapore diplomat highlighted an admirable “Singapore principle”: officials always ask, “What can we do better?” which well reflects the ICCS spirit of a continuing journey. Singapore’s ASEAN chairmanship in 2027 presents an opportunity to bring issues such as education and social cohesion more firmly onto regional agendas. The G20 and United Nations provide further avenues for action. Moving forward demands efforts to examine not only policies that succeed but also those that do not. These represent the heart of ICCS’s challenge and its opportunity looking ahead.
The ICCS Interlude underscored that social cohesion is not a condition that societies achieve once and for all. It requires continuing attention to changing realities, honest assessment of what works and what does not, and institutions capable of responding before tensions become crises. Singapore’s deceptively simple question—“What can we do better?”—captures both the challenge and the promise of reimagining multiculturalism in uncertain times.
