Taken from here: http://www.aussiepete.com/2008/05/ang-mo-in-singapore-and-lao-wai-or.html
13 May 2008
'Ang Mo' in Singapore and 'Lao Wai' or 'Gweilo' in China - Offensive to Westerners?
I promised I would write a blog on this one, so here it is. Although I will put forward my personal experiences, my intention is to try and remain impartial and with an open mind. I really invite comments from any others with personal experience or opinion on this topic.
Firstly, here is my take on the various terms. Although in my country of heritage, Australia, all three terms would be considered 'politically incorrect' and if used toward a foreigner whilst playing sport, would constitute a suspension from the game for a number of weeks and at the highest level of representative sports would ensure that the offending player would undertake mandatory counselling (under racial villification rules), as a foreigner living and working in Singapore and having spent much time in Shanghai, China, I am quite tolerant of the usage of these terms.
In my experience, I have been called all three of these names many times. If a friend or colleague refers to me in any of these ways, it is often with affection or without malice and therefore I take absolutely no offense. However, as with any 'name calling', any of these terms can be used in a derogetory manner - which I have also been exposed to. No country is without some level of racial divide or downright racism, but I have found these people to be the minority in this era of globalization. In this instance, I just feel sorry for the person offering the racial taunt, as it suggests an ignorance that may never be resolved, no matter how much education.
I also understand the cultural divide here - what is acceptable in one country, may not be in another. It is my choice to live and work in a foreign country, and must therefore learn to live with the differences and respect the cultures for what they are - I cannot personally try and change centuries of tradition and beliefs in another country, just because I was raised differently by my parents.
In summary, although I understand the 'passion' that both sides of this discussion adopt, I strongly believe that if we are to ask whether or not a term is offensive (as my topic suggests), the answer lies with the recipient. That is, no matter whether a term is used in a demeaning manner or if the intent is not to offend, this is of no consequence in the argument - if someone is offended by being called any particular name, then by definition, the term is offensive (to that person) and that person should be respected for their opinions and feelings. At the same time, if one is travelling to a foreign country, one must understand that cultures are different and should therefore be respectful themselves and more 'open minded' to various terms. It is however in my mind, never acceptable to 'talk down' to someone based upon difference of race, religion or any other factors - by working together we can make this world a better place.
Please feel free to comment candidly on this topic.
NB: I do not claim to be author of the following texts. All facts on terms below have been freely adopted under 'GNU free documentation licence' and by copyright cannot and have not been altered from the original state. The same free texts can be found on Wikipedia.
Some background facts on the usage of the term 'Ang Mo' in Singapore
Ang mo (simplified Chinese: 红毛; pinyin: hóng máo; POJ: âng-mo•) or sometimes Ang mo kow (red-haired monkeys), also spelled ang moh, is a racial epithet that originates from Hokkien (Min Nan) that is used to refer to white people in Malaysia and Singapore. Literally meaning 'red-haired', the term carries a strong stigma at present amongst a large proportion of the Caucasian minority. The term implies that the person referred to is a devil, a concept explicitly used in the Cantonese term gweilo ('foreign devil').
The term is widely regarded as a racist and derogatory by many Caucasians living in Singapore, but is widely used. It appears, for instance, in various Singaporean television programmes and films. The term was used in the film I Not Stupid, in which when several employees in the marketing department of their company resented a particular Caucasian individual because they perceived that preference had been shown to him because of his race.
Ang mo is believed to be the term originally used in the Singapore place-name Ang Mo Kio (now usually rendered thus: simplified Chinese: 宏茂桥; pinyin: hóng mào qiáo). The term may either refer to the rambutan, a fruit with a red skin covered with hairs; or to a bridge built by the British after which the nearby town was named.
Fort Santo Domingo in Tamshuei, Taiwan is known as the 'City of the Red-Haired' (Traditional Chinese: 紅毛城; pinyin: hóng máo chéng; Pe̍h-ōe-jī: Âng-mn̂g-siâ; ) in Chinese. It was built by the Spanish in the 17th century.
Some background facts on the usage of the term 'Laowai'
Laowai (Chinese: 老外; pinyin: lǎowài) is one of several Chinese words for foreigner. Laowai literally translates as "old" (lao 老) "foreigner" (wai 外). It is an informal word that appears in both spoken and written Chinese. While some people consider laowai a casual and neutral word, others view it as a pejorative term.
Laowai is a commonly used Chinese word. It is the informal version for foreigner, waiguoren 外国人, which literally means "outside country person." There is some dispute about the correct Chinese characters used to write the word. While "老外" is the more common form, some argue that the character "佬", with the addition of the ren (person) radical (人字旁) is more correct. However, this form is grammatically awkward ("佬" is a slightly derogatory noun for an adult male), and infrequently used.
Lao 老, or "old", is frequently used to express long-term friendship, as in laopengyou, which means "old friend"; or respect, as in laoshi 老师, which means "old teacher." However, there are also words with clear negative connotations containing the character lao, such as lao dongxi 老东西 ("silly old fool"), laohan 老憨 ("simpleton") and lao gudong 老古董 ("old fogey, fuddy-duddy"). Lao is also used as an empty prefix in words for some animals, such as laohu 老虎 ("tiger") and laoshu 老鼠 ("rat, mouse"). (There is some disagreement about this "neutral" use of "lao" in front of these animal characters. In all of the cases mentioned and other cases (including 老鹰 laoying ("eagle") and 老狐狸 "laohuli" ("fox") the "lao" indiciates fear or discomfort. All these animals are considered unlucky or evil.)
Laowai is thus not a completely positive, or even neutral term, and its usage can imply "making fun of" foreigners. The recently published edition of the Chinese-language dictionary 现代汉语规范化词典 (Xiandai Hanyu Guifan Cidian) states that laowai carries a bantering connotation (谐谑; xiexue). Further indication of the negative connotations of laowai is the fact that it is sometimes used synonymously with waihang (外行; amateur, or lay person).
A pejorative term for foreigner, yangguizi 洋鬼子, which literally means foreign devil, was in frequent use early in the 20th century, but today is rarely used and is recognized by Chinese as inappropriate and racist.
Laowai, as well as waiguoren, are commonly used terms that in everyday spoken Chinese refer to Caucasian foreigners, but not Asian foreigners or foreigners of African origin. While a White Westerner may be referred to as a laowai, someone from Japan will be called ribenren 日本人, the Chinese word for Japanese. Someone who has dark skin color and appears to be African in origin will be called heiren 黑人, which means black person. Sometimes the term laohei 老黑 is used for people of African decent, a term which also has pejorative connotations. The most pejorative term is heiguizi 黑鬼子, which literally translates as black devil.
Laowai is one of the first Chinese words that foreigners learn when they come to China. It has now entered the lexicon of China's expat community, which numbers in the hundreds of thousands. It frequently appears in English language literature and advertisements in China as ‘‘laowai’‘ or ‘‘lao wai’‘. It is very common to see ‘‘laowai’‘ used in blogs and websites administered by foreigners living in China. A Google search will come up with 10,000s of entries for ‘‘laowai’‘, including an English language Web portal Laowai.com that caters to expats in Shanghai. There is even a Beijing based drum'n'bass band named "Lao-Why?" that is composed of foreign and Chinese members.
In recent years the word ‘‘laowai’‘ has begun to stir up controversy within the expatriate community in China. In this way ‘‘laowai’‘ is similar to how Americans view the Spanish word gringo and Westerners view the Japanese word gaijin or the Thai word farang. This is because many foreigners in China believe that ‘‘laowai’‘ is a derogatory term. This is due to the fact that some Chinese frequently shout out "Laowai"! to foreigners passing by, which may then be followed up with laughter and taunting.
The official Chinese press has expressed concern about the inappropriate use of ‘‘laowai’‘ and foreign sensitivities surrounding the word. Editorials, written by foreigners and Chinese, have appeared in English and Chinese language newspapers about the subject. In response, local governments have launched campaigns aimed at educating the Chinese public about the appropriate usage of ‘‘laowai’‘.
Some background facts on the usage of the term 'Gweilo'
Gweilo (鬼佬; Jyutping: gwai2 lou2; Cantonese pronounced [kwɐ̌ɪ lə̌ʊ]; sometimes also spelt Gwailo) is a Cantonese term for people of the caucasian race (generally men), and has a long racially deprecatory history of use. It literally means "dead corpse that has come back to life", ghost" or "ghost man", and arose to describe the pale complexion, the sometimes "red hair and green/blue eyes" (traditional Chinese: 紅鬚綠眼; Cantonese Yale: hung4 sou1 luk6 ngaan5) of caucasians. When the term is translated into English, it is often translated as foreign devil. The term arose in the 19th century and is associated with the demonization of Europeans during the occupation of China by foreign powers .
The translation, foreign devil is appropriate when seen from the standpoint of the history of deprecatory use of the term and the common use of the living dead (鬼) inhabiting various levels of hell in Chinese Buddhism.In this sense, the translation foreign devil also has strong merit. The Chinese meaning of gwei (鬼) can mean "ghost" or "devil" in Chinese, because although Chinese religions such as Buddhism do not include beliefs parallel to the the Christian ideas of "God" there are indeed hells where devils reside. Furthermore, some Chinese do believe in ghosts, spirits, and reincarnation. The reason for calling caucasians as "hateful living dead" was probably because during the 1800s, when the Chinese first saw the caucasians with a comparatively much paler complexion, they thought that the Europeans were actually dead corpses that had come back to life. It also could also have expressed hatred, as when the same term gwei (鬼) was historically applied to express hatred of the the Japanese military which massacred many Chinese.
Nowadays, this term demonstrates that Hong Kong residents often refer to caucasians and other races by their race. This is in sharp contrast to the remainder of the People Republic of China where foreigners are most commonly referred to as "foreign friends" (waiguo pengyou 外国朋友) of "good old foreigner" (lao wai 老外). The character "lao" (老) is the same character use in "good old friend" (老友). This sharp contrast reflects the ill will that Hong Kong residents have had towards caucasian occupiers during the past several hundred years. Particularly Hong Kong residents use "Gweilo" as a racist term which betrays a racist and isolationism mentality among many towards caucasians.
One must keep in mind however that gwei (鬼) in gweilo (鬼佬) is indeed used to express the highest degree of hate and deprecation. A case in point is when many Chinese families watched as their mothers were killed and daughter taken into forced prostitution by the Japanese during World War II. At that time the term they chose to express their greatest hatred towards the Japanese was (鬼), the same gwei that is used for gweilo. "Guizi Bing" (鬼子兵) does not refer to a cute Casper-type ghost, but is closer in connotation to devil or Satan. Considering this, "foreign devil" does have merit as a translation to capture the full nuance of the term.
The pejorative sense is further intensified when the term is prefaced by the Chinese word sei (死, jyutping: sei2, meaning: death, damnation) as in sei gweilo (死鬼佬), literally meaning "dead ghost man", using the translation "dead" for "sei" (死) because it is only correct to be used as an adjective. However, the word "sei gweilo" is not really a term, but an adjective added to the term in order to describe the person or people referred to by the term as bad. When the word "sei" (死) is used as such to describe a living person, it means "bad". "Sei" (死) is commonly added to other terms in order to describe the person or people being referred to as "bad", such as "sei lo" (死佬), meaning literally "dead man" or "bad guy" and "sei chai lo" (死差佬), literally "dead policeman" or "bad policeman". Chinese people also can call each other "Sei gwei" (死鬼), literally meaning "dead ghost", but refers to a bad man also. Even without the word sei (死) the character (鬼) itself can express intense loathing as when it was attached to the Japanese military in the term "Guizi Bing" (鬼子兵) during their massacre of what some have estimated to be upwards to 30 millian Chinese during World War II.
Gweilo is the most generic term, but variations include:
- To refer specifically to European women: gweipor (鬼婆; jyutping: gwai2 po4, literally: "ghost woman") which is also often spelt "gwai-poh"
- To refer specifically to European boys: gweijai (鬼仔; jyutping: gwai2 zai2, literally: "ghost boy")
- To refer specifically to European girls: gweimui (鬼妹; jyutping: gwai2 mui1, literally: "ghost younger-sister")
Due to its widespread use, the term gwei, which means devil, demon, or ghost, has taken on the general meaning of "foreigner" or "westerner" and usually refers to the European races since Indians, Filipinos, Indonesians, African and other races have their own separate racial terms that are used for them instead of gweilo. Few people for example would refer to their Philippine maid as a gweilo. The following variant of the term is considered racist because they are specific to a group of people based on their racial characteristic:
To refer to a white foreigner: bakgwei (白鬼; jyutping: baak6 gwai2, literally: "white ghost")
To refer to a black foreigner: hakgwei (黑鬼; jyutping: haak1 gwai2, literally: "black ghost")
In 1999, CFMT-TV in Toronto had a cooking show named Gwai Lo Cooking. It featured a Cantonese-speaking European chef as the host, who was also the show's producer and the person who named the show. In response to some complaints, the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council ruled that
... While historically, "gwai lo" may have been used by Chinese people as a racist remark concerning foreigners, particularly European Westerners, the persons consulted by the Council indicate that it has since lost much of its racist overtone. The Council finds that the expression has also lost most of its religious meaning, so that "foreign devil" no longer carries the theological significance it once did. Based on its research, the Council understands that the expression has gone from being considered offensive to, at worst, merely "impolite".
According to CFMT-TV, "Gwei Lo" was used as "a self-deprecating term of endearment". Others, however, particularly foreigners living in Hong Kong, find the term demeaning and/or racist. However, it is also used by some non-Chinese (sometimes jocularly) to address themselves.
While "gwailo" is commonly used by some Cantonese speakers in informal speech, the more polite alternative sai yan (西人; jyutping: sai1 jan4, literally: "western person") is now used.
The term is often considered racist by non-Cantonese people. Many Cantonese speakers, however, frequently use the term to refer to white people and westerners in general and they consider the term non-racist, a controversial notion. The term was commonly prefaced by sei (死; jyutping: sei2, meaning: death, damned) as in sei gweilo, meaning "damned ghost man", and used pejoratively with sei as the pejorative suffix.
Showing posts with label Singapore. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Singapore. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
More on Singapore
This gem was sent by AsianRacism3 (as they will be called very shortly). Highlights some problems in that country.
Original can be found here
I walked out of the house this morning and feared I had become a racist.
I passed by a newsstand and a magazine tells me about 50% of the world's most beautiful people are from the West, 10% from Singapore, 35% from Hong Kong and Taiwan and 5% from India and Malaysia. A JC Decaux billboard says that a lot of people read their ads and they have faces to prove it: Chinese people of various ages and occupations and genders. There are some which show non-Chinese people but they don't have the dignity of individual names, and they are put under the heading 'The Changing Face of Singapore'. This can mean that perhaps the media is using more non-Chinese people in their ads (which I don't see) or that Singapore's demographic makeup is being altered by the arrival of other races (which I am not aware of, historically). I take a bus and TV Mobile is screening a Taiwanese variety programme. A Singaporean beauty contestant wears a cheongsam as her national costume and asks for an interpreter to translate her replies from Mandarin. The Speak Mandarin campaign informs me of what assets are missing from my life.
Tanya Chua's music video comes on and I unconsciously tally the number of Malay people that appear; I have been doing this for some time now, when I was in JC there was a 'My Singapore' music video which showed images of corporate-looking Chinese women walking through the CBD and Malay women in factory uniforms walking through a bus interchange. Tanya Chua's 'Where I Belong' shows three instances of Malay people populating the landcsape: a husband and wife riding a scooter; a father and son on a bicycle, the son carrying a box one presumes is filled with curry puffs or goreng pisang, and a group of Malay youths playing soccer in a housing estate ghetto so run down, it looks like an opposition ward being denied of upgrading, or one of those satellite towns built when Jurong swamps were still being filled.
But perhaps this is an improvement over other images: the satay man, the songbird owner, the mee rebus Makcik, the Malay bride and groom getting married in gold-embroidered finery (and situated on a dais, we Malays like to call them 'royalty for a day', playing the illusion of being king and queen in a country where the royal bloodline has been evicted from their home and told that the ruins of their palace will be converted into a museum). I think about what Sang Nila Utama really did when he threw his crown into the sea to calm the raging storm; whether the gales spoke to his inner ear: 'if you want to live on the island you must surrender all memory of having once been a prince'. At the Sentosa Merlion there are signs that say that Sang Nila himself saw the Merlion rising from the waters, a fact that the Sejarah Melayu, the Malay Annals, failed to mention. Evidently there is someone called 'Sang Nila' somewhere in the executive committee of the Singapore Tourist Promotion Board.
At the foot of the Raffles statue in Boat Quay there is an inscription that says the man's genius transformed a 'sleepy fishing village' into the modern metropolis it is today, this at the foot of a man who recorded in his journals how he saw the tombs of the Malay kings, and inscriptions on a fortress wall, when he first landed: evidence of an empire, of civilisation. In an interview a doyenne of Singapore theatre laments that all Singaporeans are 'cultural orphans', including the Malays, because they migrated from Malaysia and Indonesia, and that makes them immigrants too, no matter that one can take a sampan from Johor to Singapore.
I walk through a park in Tampines and see Chinese boys playing basketball at the court and Malay boys playing soccer on the field; I am comforted that my complete uselessness at ball games has prevented me from taking either side, has by default made me a conscientious objector to such disturbing polarities. In the army a sergeant major never called be by my name; I was called 'Melayu', which I suppose was better than 'Ah-Neh', used to address the Indians in the platoon. I remember a fellow Malay platoon mate who told me to give it my all when I was fasting, this was to prevent anyone from saying that we could use religion as an excuse for our weakness. He was eventually posted to the infantry (not logistics or engineers, much less the Navy or Airforce) and I used to imagine him burning up his pre-fasting morning meal to be the first to charge up the hill, yelling the pain of hunger and the pain of being different. The Malay staff sergeant in Officer Cadet School gave me a lot of shit just to overcompensate, to show everyone that he was not into any form of racial favouritism. I became a victim of the sidelong glances he made as he watched me doing my pushups, those eyes constantly seeking approval from the eyes of the majority.
I see a schoolgirl from a madrasah wearing a tudung on the MRT and she is filling in the pictures in her colouring book. There are many choices among her colour pencils which she can use for skin, but she will use orange, and colour lightly, not brown or black. I have seen her schoolmates before, eyeing branded scoolbags at pasar malams, wearing branded sports shoes, like every other kid. I want to go up to her and hug her, and tell her how her tudung is not just a symbol of modesty, but a symbol of inscrutability. That layer of cloth makes her suspicious to others, it can be used to smuggle in a grenade or an agenda, so she will never get a frontline desk job, she will be expected to hang around with other tudung-wearing women in the university. I think about the fathers who sent their daughters to schools in tudung and reflect on how the media has framed them as shit-stirrers rather than citizens who practised their right to civil disobedience, the same way Gandhi fasted, or Rosa Parks refused to sit at her negroes-only seat on the segregated bus. If I can tell the girl one thing, it is 'integration is not assimilation', or 'tolerance is a failure in understanding' even though it is something she will take time to understand.
I think also of the men who filmed different locations in Singapore with the heinous intent of planting bombs. Did they not consider the various innocent Singaporean lives that could have been claimed by what they were about to do? And I wonder if they had already chosen another country to live in; a country in which they do not have to face a creeping sense of alienation, of redundancy. And I am not talking about an Islamic country, not Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia or anywhere else, but an afterlife paradise, where everyone is equal in the eyes of God, where wearing a sarong or having a beard does not immediately make you a proto-terrorist. Or perhaps a country that exists in their minds, nurtured by a growing sense of insularity and isolation, where they walk the streets and everyone else is just a ghost, in whose dead eyes they cannot find any light of empathy or understanding.
Once someone told me: 'But the government is bending over backwards to accommodate you Malays.' I smiled and wanted to ask him if it wasn't the other way round, that the Malays are made to bend forward to be fucked senseless. Another time a journalist asked if the statistical evidence of 'progress' shows that Malays are being given the same opportunities as everyone else. I told her that statistics don't do shit for me, as someone who has to live day by day as a Malay person in this country. I told her one Malay Air Force pilot poster boy, and a few bar charts and graphs, don't make me feel more at home. The only thing they do is to convince non-Malays that the country they live in is truly multiracial, that there are no tensions beneath the veneer of newsprint and newscasts and the rosy speeches of Malay MP's.
I have always believed in multi-racialism. I can say with utmost confidence that I have more friends who are non-Malay than those who are. And I mean real friends, who I confide in, who I've shared many things with, who I do love dearly. And yet, of late, I have the feeling that a lot of the things I'm saying, a lot of this talk about alienation and marginalisation, only feeds subconsciously into their sense of how fortunate they are to be born into the status quo. I have written a poem before where I say, 'But more than that we prayed for ourselves,/treading the rosary of our blessings,/for what is pity without thanks for/the opportunity for such pity?' And sometimes I feel as if the more my voice is raised on the fast-eclipsing fate of the minority, the more it feeds into the majority's smugness and arrogance about their assured place in the sun. And this only makes me feel more powerless than if I had kept silent.
So I say now, forgive me if you think my desire to work with my own people marks me out as a racist. Forgive me if you think that my preferences are actually prejudices. Forgive me for retreating into something one can so easily call 'cultural chauvinism'. And I will forgive you for thinking that this person writing this isn't the Alfian that you know, that he has always been moderate and liberal, and I will forgive you if you look at me differently the next time I meet you. For some time already I have felt that as a Malay writer writing in English I have had to carry the burden of articulating so many unvoiced concerns. And the responsibilities associated with this are frightening. I just think it is time I pass on whatever skills I have to other Malay people, so we may tell our stories to those who want to hear them, even though they are stories of loss and loneliness and accidents of birth.
I have been upset since. I don't think i am ever coming back home to work. Not if my race is going to be portrayed that way and especially not when i am respected first by my intelligence and merit here before my race comes into play. I sat in the Bell Canada Board room with my Executive Director for 8 hours on Saturday. My EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. a man who made 7 billion dollars for his company in one year and he sat there actually paying attention to my ideas. I thought to myself that no one at home would have ever paid attention to what a 21 year old Indian girl would have had to say, but here they did. WHY THE FUCK THEN WOULD I WANNA COME HOME AND WASTE MY TALENTS?
Original can be found here
I walked out of the house this morning and feared I had become a racist.
I passed by a newsstand and a magazine tells me about 50% of the world's most beautiful people are from the West, 10% from Singapore, 35% from Hong Kong and Taiwan and 5% from India and Malaysia. A JC Decaux billboard says that a lot of people read their ads and they have faces to prove it: Chinese people of various ages and occupations and genders. There are some which show non-Chinese people but they don't have the dignity of individual names, and they are put under the heading 'The Changing Face of Singapore'. This can mean that perhaps the media is using more non-Chinese people in their ads (which I don't see) or that Singapore's demographic makeup is being altered by the arrival of other races (which I am not aware of, historically). I take a bus and TV Mobile is screening a Taiwanese variety programme. A Singaporean beauty contestant wears a cheongsam as her national costume and asks for an interpreter to translate her replies from Mandarin. The Speak Mandarin campaign informs me of what assets are missing from my life.
Tanya Chua's music video comes on and I unconsciously tally the number of Malay people that appear; I have been doing this for some time now, when I was in JC there was a 'My Singapore' music video which showed images of corporate-looking Chinese women walking through the CBD and Malay women in factory uniforms walking through a bus interchange. Tanya Chua's 'Where I Belong' shows three instances of Malay people populating the landcsape: a husband and wife riding a scooter; a father and son on a bicycle, the son carrying a box one presumes is filled with curry puffs or goreng pisang, and a group of Malay youths playing soccer in a housing estate ghetto so run down, it looks like an opposition ward being denied of upgrading, or one of those satellite towns built when Jurong swamps were still being filled.
But perhaps this is an improvement over other images: the satay man, the songbird owner, the mee rebus Makcik, the Malay bride and groom getting married in gold-embroidered finery (and situated on a dais, we Malays like to call them 'royalty for a day', playing the illusion of being king and queen in a country where the royal bloodline has been evicted from their home and told that the ruins of their palace will be converted into a museum). I think about what Sang Nila Utama really did when he threw his crown into the sea to calm the raging storm; whether the gales spoke to his inner ear: 'if you want to live on the island you must surrender all memory of having once been a prince'. At the Sentosa Merlion there are signs that say that Sang Nila himself saw the Merlion rising from the waters, a fact that the Sejarah Melayu, the Malay Annals, failed to mention. Evidently there is someone called 'Sang Nila' somewhere in the executive committee of the Singapore Tourist Promotion Board.
At the foot of the Raffles statue in Boat Quay there is an inscription that says the man's genius transformed a 'sleepy fishing village' into the modern metropolis it is today, this at the foot of a man who recorded in his journals how he saw the tombs of the Malay kings, and inscriptions on a fortress wall, when he first landed: evidence of an empire, of civilisation. In an interview a doyenne of Singapore theatre laments that all Singaporeans are 'cultural orphans', including the Malays, because they migrated from Malaysia and Indonesia, and that makes them immigrants too, no matter that one can take a sampan from Johor to Singapore.
I walk through a park in Tampines and see Chinese boys playing basketball at the court and Malay boys playing soccer on the field; I am comforted that my complete uselessness at ball games has prevented me from taking either side, has by default made me a conscientious objector to such disturbing polarities. In the army a sergeant major never called be by my name; I was called 'Melayu', which I suppose was better than 'Ah-Neh', used to address the Indians in the platoon. I remember a fellow Malay platoon mate who told me to give it my all when I was fasting, this was to prevent anyone from saying that we could use religion as an excuse for our weakness. He was eventually posted to the infantry (not logistics or engineers, much less the Navy or Airforce) and I used to imagine him burning up his pre-fasting morning meal to be the first to charge up the hill, yelling the pain of hunger and the pain of being different. The Malay staff sergeant in Officer Cadet School gave me a lot of shit just to overcompensate, to show everyone that he was not into any form of racial favouritism. I became a victim of the sidelong glances he made as he watched me doing my pushups, those eyes constantly seeking approval from the eyes of the majority.
I see a schoolgirl from a madrasah wearing a tudung on the MRT and she is filling in the pictures in her colouring book. There are many choices among her colour pencils which she can use for skin, but she will use orange, and colour lightly, not brown or black. I have seen her schoolmates before, eyeing branded scoolbags at pasar malams, wearing branded sports shoes, like every other kid. I want to go up to her and hug her, and tell her how her tudung is not just a symbol of modesty, but a symbol of inscrutability. That layer of cloth makes her suspicious to others, it can be used to smuggle in a grenade or an agenda, so she will never get a frontline desk job, she will be expected to hang around with other tudung-wearing women in the university. I think about the fathers who sent their daughters to schools in tudung and reflect on how the media has framed them as shit-stirrers rather than citizens who practised their right to civil disobedience, the same way Gandhi fasted, or Rosa Parks refused to sit at her negroes-only seat on the segregated bus. If I can tell the girl one thing, it is 'integration is not assimilation', or 'tolerance is a failure in understanding' even though it is something she will take time to understand.
I think also of the men who filmed different locations in Singapore with the heinous intent of planting bombs. Did they not consider the various innocent Singaporean lives that could have been claimed by what they were about to do? And I wonder if they had already chosen another country to live in; a country in which they do not have to face a creeping sense of alienation, of redundancy. And I am not talking about an Islamic country, not Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia or anywhere else, but an afterlife paradise, where everyone is equal in the eyes of God, where wearing a sarong or having a beard does not immediately make you a proto-terrorist. Or perhaps a country that exists in their minds, nurtured by a growing sense of insularity and isolation, where they walk the streets and everyone else is just a ghost, in whose dead eyes they cannot find any light of empathy or understanding.
Once someone told me: 'But the government is bending over backwards to accommodate you Malays.' I smiled and wanted to ask him if it wasn't the other way round, that the Malays are made to bend forward to be fucked senseless. Another time a journalist asked if the statistical evidence of 'progress' shows that Malays are being given the same opportunities as everyone else. I told her that statistics don't do shit for me, as someone who has to live day by day as a Malay person in this country. I told her one Malay Air Force pilot poster boy, and a few bar charts and graphs, don't make me feel more at home. The only thing they do is to convince non-Malays that the country they live in is truly multiracial, that there are no tensions beneath the veneer of newsprint and newscasts and the rosy speeches of Malay MP's.
I have always believed in multi-racialism. I can say with utmost confidence that I have more friends who are non-Malay than those who are. And I mean real friends, who I confide in, who I've shared many things with, who I do love dearly. And yet, of late, I have the feeling that a lot of the things I'm saying, a lot of this talk about alienation and marginalisation, only feeds subconsciously into their sense of how fortunate they are to be born into the status quo. I have written a poem before where I say, 'But more than that we prayed for ourselves,/treading the rosary of our blessings,/for what is pity without thanks for/the opportunity for such pity?' And sometimes I feel as if the more my voice is raised on the fast-eclipsing fate of the minority, the more it feeds into the majority's smugness and arrogance about their assured place in the sun. And this only makes me feel more powerless than if I had kept silent.
So I say now, forgive me if you think my desire to work with my own people marks me out as a racist. Forgive me if you think that my preferences are actually prejudices. Forgive me for retreating into something one can so easily call 'cultural chauvinism'. And I will forgive you for thinking that this person writing this isn't the Alfian that you know, that he has always been moderate and liberal, and I will forgive you if you look at me differently the next time I meet you. For some time already I have felt that as a Malay writer writing in English I have had to carry the burden of articulating so many unvoiced concerns. And the responsibilities associated with this are frightening. I just think it is time I pass on whatever skills I have to other Malay people, so we may tell our stories to those who want to hear them, even though they are stories of loss and loneliness and accidents of birth.
I have been upset since. I don't think i am ever coming back home to work. Not if my race is going to be portrayed that way and especially not when i am respected first by my intelligence and merit here before my race comes into play. I sat in the Bell Canada Board room with my Executive Director for 8 hours on Saturday. My EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. a man who made 7 billion dollars for his company in one year and he sat there actually paying attention to my ideas. I thought to myself that no one at home would have ever paid attention to what a 21 year old Indian girl would have had to say, but here they did. WHY THE FUCK THEN WOULD I WANNA COME HOME AND WASTE MY TALENTS?
Discrimination, Singapore-style
Hi all;
Sorry for the long update. Some news: AsianRacism is going collaborative! Two new authors are joining the site, one i met at a conference recently and another is a long-timer contributor (via the comments function) on the site, who has provided a number of great articles in the past. So the site will be updated with some profiles of the three of us, and we should be seeing more content very soon.
In the interim, a nice little snippet of discrimination in the Singaporean workplace as reported in the freely-distributed and government owned Today newspaper. Despite calls from the opposition and other community groups, Singapore still has no legislation in place to deal with discrimination on the basis of race. Enjoy and see you soon!
Link the the article can be found here
Discrimination, Singapore-style
Sadly, racial discrimination in the workplace appears to be a worldwide problem, despite all the efforts to curb it. Things are no different in Singapore, as a Today Online article reports.
The job market can tough in Singapore if you're not Mandarin speaking – in other words, if you're Malaysian or Indian. According to a recent study, the problem goes beyond the workplace and is even apparent in schools.
The government response is to "take action" once discrimination occurs. Yet this response is reactionary and opens the government up to criticism of superficially "treating the wound" instead of addressing the real issue.
Another solution put forth by Singapore authorities is a web site that explains cultural differences in the primary ethnicities in Singapore. While noble, I can't imagine how many people – especially those who engage in discriminatory practices – will actually read this web site. Perhaps seminars and surprise adherence checks might be a better way of stopping potential offenders from making the jump to actual offender.
Ultimately, it will come down to companies to police their own personnel and root out any discriminatory practices – something which will require considerable management buy-in. Unfortunately, while I don't see this problem ever truly being eradicated, it's good to see some movement in the right direction
Sorry for the long update. Some news: AsianRacism is going collaborative! Two new authors are joining the site, one i met at a conference recently and another is a long-timer contributor (via the comments function) on the site, who has provided a number of great articles in the past. So the site will be updated with some profiles of the three of us, and we should be seeing more content very soon.
In the interim, a nice little snippet of discrimination in the Singaporean workplace as reported in the freely-distributed and government owned Today newspaper. Despite calls from the opposition and other community groups, Singapore still has no legislation in place to deal with discrimination on the basis of race. Enjoy and see you soon!
Link the the article can be found here
Discrimination, Singapore-style
Sadly, racial discrimination in the workplace appears to be a worldwide problem, despite all the efforts to curb it. Things are no different in Singapore, as a Today Online article reports.
The job market can tough in Singapore if you're not Mandarin speaking – in other words, if you're Malaysian or Indian. According to a recent study, the problem goes beyond the workplace and is even apparent in schools.
The government response is to "take action" once discrimination occurs. Yet this response is reactionary and opens the government up to criticism of superficially "treating the wound" instead of addressing the real issue.
Another solution put forth by Singapore authorities is a web site that explains cultural differences in the primary ethnicities in Singapore. While noble, I can't imagine how many people – especially those who engage in discriminatory practices – will actually read this web site. Perhaps seminars and surprise adherence checks might be a better way of stopping potential offenders from making the jump to actual offender.
Ultimately, it will come down to companies to police their own personnel and root out any discriminatory practices – something which will require considerable management buy-in. Unfortunately, while I don't see this problem ever truly being eradicated, it's good to see some movement in the right direction
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Censorship in Singapore
A great little snippet on censorship in the name of 'family values' in
Singapore censor fines TV station for showing gay family
April 25, 2008 - 6:29AM
A Singapore television station has been fined for airing a show that featured a gay couple and their baby in a way that "promotes a gay lifestyle," the city-state's media regulator said.
The Media Development Authority fined MediaCorp TV Channel 5 some 15,000 Singapore dollars ($A11,600), it said in a statement on its website.
The station aired an episode of a home and decor series called Find and Design that featured a gay couple wanting to transform their game room into a new nursery for their adopted baby.
The authority said the episode contained scenes of the gay couple with their baby and the presenter's congratulations and acknowledgment of them as a family unit "in a way which normalises their gay lifestyle and unconventional family setup".
The episode was in breach of rules on free-to-air television programming, which disallows content that promotes, justifies or glamourises gay lifestyles, the statement said.
Earlier this month, the authority fined a Singapore cable television operator, StarHub Cable Vision $S10,000 for airing a commercial that showed two lesbians kissing.
Under Singapore law, gay sex is deemed "an act of gross indecency" punishable by a maximum of two years in jail.
Despite the official ban on gay sex, there have been few prosecutions. But authorities have banned gay festivals and censored gay films, saying homosexuality should not be advocated as a lifestyle choice.
AP
Singapore censor fines TV station for showing gay family
April 25, 2008 - 6:29AM
A Singapore television station has been fined for airing a show that featured a gay couple and their baby in a way that "promotes a gay lifestyle," the city-state's media regulator said.
The Media Development Authority fined MediaCorp TV Channel 5 some 15,000 Singapore dollars ($A11,600), it said in a statement on its website.
The station aired an episode of a home and decor series called Find and Design that featured a gay couple wanting to transform their game room into a new nursery for their adopted baby.
The authority said the episode contained scenes of the gay couple with their baby and the presenter's congratulations and acknowledgment of them as a family unit "in a way which normalises their gay lifestyle and unconventional family setup".
The episode was in breach of rules on free-to-air television programming, which disallows content that promotes, justifies or glamourises gay lifestyles, the statement said.
Earlier this month, the authority fined a Singapore cable television operator, StarHub Cable Vision $S10,000 for airing a commercial that showed two lesbians kissing.
Under Singapore law, gay sex is deemed "an act of gross indecency" punishable by a maximum of two years in jail.
Despite the official ban on gay sex, there have been few prosecutions. But authorities have banned gay festivals and censored gay films, saying homosexuality should not be advocated as a lifestyle choice.
AP
Friday, March 21, 2008
Interesting Assumptions
Well, I've had a regular anonymous commenter making remarks about 'white guilt' and 'white privilege', amongst a host of other interesting but rather silly observations.
First off, it's clear that this person has assumed I am 'white' or Caucasian, and sorry to say it my anonymous friend, you are wrong. I am not Caucasian. Further to that, my race is not an issue, despite you trying to make it one.
Now, this concept of 'white privledge' got me a little intrigued, as did the concept of 'white guilt' being pushed as reasons why Asian racism is not as bad / non-existent, should not be discussed (the old "you are racist to so don't preach" argument) . I think the concepts are both piles of steaming junk.
First of all there is the false assumption that 'white' concepts of racial superiority were unique to western schools of thought. This is not true, a number of other societies have had related concepts of racial divides and levels etc independently of any western influence and often pre-dating western contact. So the concept of racial hierarchies is not a western construct.
The second false assumption is that only 'white' nations engaged in colonialism to enrich themselves. Again, wrong. Indeed four of the biggest colonial powers, the Mongolians, the Han Chinese, the Japanese and the Indonesians are not 'white' and, in the case of the Chinese and Indonesians, are still today engaged in colonialism.
The third false assumption is that somehow the combination of a belief in racial superiority combined with colonialism and economic domination and control has led to some form of privilege that only white people enjoy.
What a joke, and a funny one at that! The fact of the matter is that for whatever reason, western societies went from a level of civilization below that of most of the rest of the world to basically running the world in around 300 years. That's a big turn around. WHY this happened is still open to debate. Was it technology? was it the underlying social systems that developed? the economic ones? the intense competition between European nation states? whatever the reason, the concept that somehow 'white' people should be guilty for their successes is laughable.
What is NOT laughable is that they should apologize for their colonial actions and repressions. Likewise we have right now in the world, a number of Asian countries that are still playing the colonial game. China is one, Indonesia another and Japan has never truly confronted it's imperialistic past the way, say, the Germans have. So if the 'white' people need to apologize for colonial actions, then a large part of the Asian world also needs to do so, and even worse, desist in current colonial actions.
So how does this relate to Mr anonymous? Well he appears to be trying to say that in Asian soceties no such thing as 'white privledge' exists. I have to disagree and respectully suggest to Mr anonymous that they read a plethora of information on this blog and elsewhere to see that this is simply not true.
Mr anonymous also asserts that as a 'white' (as false presumption) I can never know what it feels like to be the subject of white racism AND that any racism a 'white' faces in Asian CANNOT (repeat, CANNOT) be as bad as what non-whites face at the hands of whites.
Now, i'm sure most of my educated readers won't need to see the strawmans arguments in those assertions. But for the fun of it...
1. How do you measure how bad racism is? therefore, how do you tell if a person of Asian origin, experiencing a racist act at the hands of a 'white person' feels worse than a 'white' person experiencing the same racist act at the hands of an Asian person?
2. Why is racism perpetuated by one group (in this case, accoring to Mr anonymous, 'whites') worse than racism perpetuated by another? What makes it worse? why is it worse? How do you measure it?
3. What is so unique about 'white' racism that makes it so different to other forms? (remember, the historical, social and economic aspects that supposedly make 'white' racism unique are bunk arguments as other ethnic groups that engage in racist behavior have the same historical, economic and social advantages over others groups, hence the circumstances that many writes suggest make 'white' racism unique, are indeed not unique)
As such, I don't think 'white privilege' really stands up to scrutiny in the 21st century. Likewise, I see no reason why 'white guilt' over success (not over colonial acts, the two are not totally connected) should exist. Even if you take both concepts to be true, then there should be Chinese-Singaporean privilege and associated guilt, Malay privilege and associated guilt and so on and so forth.
Mr anonymous then suggested that I should make a blog against ALL forms of racism in the world. With all due respect Mr anonymous, thanks for the tip but NO.
I started this blog for a number of reasons. First of all 'white' racism is well documented and there are a large number of links of WWW to support groups and so on and so forth. There is even one on this very blog. Likewise blogs against he caste system in India and the discrimination between inter-arab groups and inter-african groups also exists.
Secondly, I believe, given my experiences in Asia over the last 20 years (coming onto 21 soon) that I am in a better position to write about Asian racism against other Asians and non-Asians that I could write about the experience of say, Turkish migrants to Germany, Serbian shopkeepers is Kosovo, African Americans in Texas, Lebanese migrants to Australia, Japanese migrants to Brazil or Maori experiences in New Zealand.
So i could write about the time I was detained for nearly 48 hours by airport police, in an Asian country, being interrogated without legal representation, over a bottle of talcum powder in my carry on bags for my new-born baby, repeatedly being told that as I was a (insert name of my ethnic background) they were POSITIVE that it has heroin, that I was a drug smuggler, that my people were all thieves and crooks etc etc etc.
I look back (now) and laugh at the situation because that particular nation is now one of the worlds leading drug suppliers and people from that nation have been responsible for establishing criminal drug distribution networks in a large number of non-asian countries.
So YES Mr anonymous i have experience racial profiling and discrimination first hand, and that is not the only incident in my time in Asia where my race has been used as the basis for refusal of service, physical intimidation and assault, rejections from educational institutions based on racial quota's, extortion, detention (then release, obviously!) and overt hostility.
Racism in Asia is a problem, like racism anywhere. This blog aims to highlight it, to bring news clippings, academic articles etc into one place for reference purposes. This is not in anyway denying the equally destructive other forms of racism.
The differences between Asian Racism and other forms is this:
1. Gernerally speaking, Asian Racism is not discussed in Asian media, and indeed in some countries (it appears Mr anonymous is in Singapore) it is even 'off limits' by government control on media. As a result people are not always challenged to acknowledge, discuss and confront the problem.
2. Generally speaking, Asian Racism is not even seen as a social problem by the dominant ethnic majority and likewise, minorities perspectives are discredited (ala Ainu in Japan, Indians in Singapore, Tibetans in China etc)
3. Unlike most western countries, most Asian countries donot have strong anti-racism systems in place at the governmental or community level. As such there is often little recourse for those who have been discriminated against or little done to educate people in ways that reduce racial tensions or little done to sooth community relations when issues do arise.
4. As shown by Mr anonymous, the common response when talking about Asian racism by those that seek to defend it or deny it's existence is that the author should not comment as they either (a) come from a racist country (b) are not Asian (c) are not citizens of the country of residence (d) a racist themselves or that (e) other forms of racism are somehow worse or more deserving of attention.
Finally, Mr anonymous challenged me on another two issues:
1. My own anonymity and lack of ability to contact me directly.
2. Freedom of speech
Ok, on the first issue let me make my reasons who having a moderated blog and not having my email anywhere on this blog for a number of reasons. First of all, given the country I live in it would be unwise to have an unmoderated blog as case law has show that site owners and editors (and blog owners are considered editors) WILL be held responsible for any racist comments that appear on thier blog regardless of weather they are personally responsible for the content or not. Given the number of "*uck you you stupid *ucking angmoh/gaijin/white/honkey/redneck *****hole" type comments i get, followed by diatribes against Caucasians, Indians, hell, i've even had some crackpot white supremest post a number of 1000+ word articles on the evilness of a specific ethnic group. Damn scary stuff. So given all that, a non-moderated blog is not an options.
Secondly, I donot have my email as contactable for similar reasons as above, plus spam reasons AND given that various countries have anti 'sedition' laws in the books and given my previous run-ins with one government in particular whilst working for Amnesty international in the late 80's and the Red Cross in the late 90's, no thanks, I'll keep myself off the radar a little.
Finally, freedom of speech. I love it. I support it. But I also support censorship in certain circumstances (i.e pornography, hate speech etc) and in my opinion Mr anonymous, your last posts were paint all 'whites' and most western countries in a very specific and negative way, and so as a result, I saw little value in what they can add to the debate as this is not a debate about western colonialism or racism, but Asian colonialism and racism.
Mr anonymous, you can deny it exists, but to do so is like walking with your eyes closed. It's out there and this blog is designed to highlight it. This doesnot mean I don't acknowledge other forms of racism, merely that this blog doesnot deal with them.
For more on 'white' guilt etc take a look here and here.
Cheers
AsianRacism.
First off, it's clear that this person has assumed I am 'white' or Caucasian, and sorry to say it my anonymous friend, you are wrong. I am not Caucasian. Further to that, my race is not an issue, despite you trying to make it one.
Now, this concept of 'white privledge' got me a little intrigued, as did the concept of 'white guilt' being pushed as reasons why Asian racism is not as bad / non-existent, should not be discussed (the old "you are racist to so don't preach" argument) . I think the concepts are both piles of steaming junk.
First of all there is the false assumption that 'white' concepts of racial superiority were unique to western schools of thought. This is not true, a number of other societies have had related concepts of racial divides and levels etc independently of any western influence and often pre-dating western contact. So the concept of racial hierarchies is not a western construct.
The second false assumption is that only 'white' nations engaged in colonialism to enrich themselves. Again, wrong. Indeed four of the biggest colonial powers, the Mongolians, the Han Chinese, the Japanese and the Indonesians are not 'white' and, in the case of the Chinese and Indonesians, are still today engaged in colonialism.
The third false assumption is that somehow the combination of a belief in racial superiority combined with colonialism and economic domination and control has led to some form of privilege that only white people enjoy.
What a joke, and a funny one at that! The fact of the matter is that for whatever reason, western societies went from a level of civilization below that of most of the rest of the world to basically running the world in around 300 years. That's a big turn around. WHY this happened is still open to debate. Was it technology? was it the underlying social systems that developed? the economic ones? the intense competition between European nation states? whatever the reason, the concept that somehow 'white' people should be guilty for their successes is laughable.
What is NOT laughable is that they should apologize for their colonial actions and repressions. Likewise we have right now in the world, a number of Asian countries that are still playing the colonial game. China is one, Indonesia another and Japan has never truly confronted it's imperialistic past the way, say, the Germans have. So if the 'white' people need to apologize for colonial actions, then a large part of the Asian world also needs to do so, and even worse, desist in current colonial actions.
So how does this relate to Mr anonymous? Well he appears to be trying to say that in Asian soceties no such thing as 'white privledge' exists. I have to disagree and respectully suggest to Mr anonymous that they read a plethora of information on this blog and elsewhere to see that this is simply not true.
Mr anonymous also asserts that as a 'white' (as false presumption) I can never know what it feels like to be the subject of white racism AND that any racism a 'white' faces in Asian CANNOT (repeat, CANNOT) be as bad as what non-whites face at the hands of whites.
Now, i'm sure most of my educated readers won't need to see the strawmans arguments in those assertions. But for the fun of it...
1. How do you measure how bad racism is? therefore, how do you tell if a person of Asian origin, experiencing a racist act at the hands of a 'white person' feels worse than a 'white' person experiencing the same racist act at the hands of an Asian person?
2. Why is racism perpetuated by one group (in this case, accoring to Mr anonymous, 'whites') worse than racism perpetuated by another? What makes it worse? why is it worse? How do you measure it?
3. What is so unique about 'white' racism that makes it so different to other forms? (remember, the historical, social and economic aspects that supposedly make 'white' racism unique are bunk arguments as other ethnic groups that engage in racist behavior have the same historical, economic and social advantages over others groups, hence the circumstances that many writes suggest make 'white' racism unique, are indeed not unique)
As such, I don't think 'white privilege' really stands up to scrutiny in the 21st century. Likewise, I see no reason why 'white guilt' over success (not over colonial acts, the two are not totally connected) should exist. Even if you take both concepts to be true, then there should be Chinese-Singaporean privilege and associated guilt, Malay privilege and associated guilt and so on and so forth.
Mr anonymous then suggested that I should make a blog against ALL forms of racism in the world. With all due respect Mr anonymous, thanks for the tip but NO.
I started this blog for a number of reasons. First of all 'white' racism is well documented and there are a large number of links of WWW to support groups and so on and so forth. There is even one on this very blog. Likewise blogs against he caste system in India and the discrimination between inter-arab groups and inter-african groups also exists.
Secondly, I believe, given my experiences in Asia over the last 20 years (coming onto 21 soon) that I am in a better position to write about Asian racism against other Asians and non-Asians that I could write about the experience of say, Turkish migrants to Germany, Serbian shopkeepers is Kosovo, African Americans in Texas, Lebanese migrants to Australia, Japanese migrants to Brazil or Maori experiences in New Zealand.
So i could write about the time I was detained for nearly 48 hours by airport police, in an Asian country, being interrogated without legal representation, over a bottle of talcum powder in my carry on bags for my new-born baby, repeatedly being told that as I was a (insert name of my ethnic background)
I look back (now) and laugh at the situation because that particular nation is now one of the worlds leading drug suppliers and people from that nation have been responsible for establishing criminal drug distribution networks in a large number of non-asian countries.
So YES Mr anonymous i have experience racial profiling and discrimination first hand, and that is not the only incident in my time in Asia where my race has been used as the basis for refusal of service, physical intimidation and assault, rejections from educational institutions based on racial quota's, extortion, detention (then release, obviously!) and overt hostility.
Racism in Asia is a problem, like racism anywhere. This blog aims to highlight it, to bring news clippings, academic articles etc into one place for reference purposes. This is not in anyway denying the equally destructive other forms of racism.
The differences between Asian Racism and other forms is this:
1. Gernerally speaking, Asian Racism is not discussed in Asian media, and indeed in some countries (it appears Mr anonymous is in Singapore) it is even 'off limits' by government control on media. As a result people are not always challenged to acknowledge, discuss and confront the problem.
2. Generally speaking, Asian Racism is not even seen as a social problem by the dominant ethnic majority and likewise, minorities perspectives are discredited (ala Ainu in Japan, Indians in Singapore, Tibetans in China etc)
3. Unlike most western countries, most Asian countries donot have strong anti-racism systems in place at the governmental or community level. As such there is often little recourse for those who have been discriminated against or little done to educate people in ways that reduce racial tensions or little done to sooth community relations when issues do arise.
4. As shown by Mr anonymous, the common response when talking about Asian racism by those that seek to defend it or deny it's existence is that the author should not comment as they either (a) come from a racist country (b) are not Asian (c) are not citizens of the country of residence (d) a racist themselves or that (e) other forms of racism are somehow worse or more deserving of attention.
Finally, Mr anonymous challenged me on another two issues:
1. My own anonymity and lack of ability to contact me directly.
2. Freedom of speech
Ok, on the first issue let me make my reasons who having a moderated blog and not having my email anywhere on this blog for a number of reasons. First of all, given the country I live in it would be unwise to have an unmoderated blog as case law has show that site owners and editors (and blog owners are considered editors) WILL be held responsible for any racist comments that appear on thier blog regardless of weather they are personally responsible for the content or not. Given the number of "*uck you you stupid *ucking angmoh/gaijin/white/honkey/redneck *****hole" type comments i get, followed by diatribes against Caucasians, Indians, hell, i've even had some crackpot white supremest post a number of 1000+ word articles on the evilness of a specific ethnic group. Damn scary stuff. So given all that, a non-moderated blog is not an options.
Secondly, I donot have my email as contactable for similar reasons as above, plus spam reasons AND given that various countries have anti 'sedition' laws in the books and given my previous run-ins with one government in particular whilst working for Amnesty international in the late 80's and the Red Cross in the late 90's, no thanks, I'll keep myself off the radar a little.
Finally, freedom of speech. I love it. I support it. But I also support censorship in certain circumstances (i.e pornography, hate speech etc) and in my opinion Mr anonymous, your last posts were paint all 'whites' and most western countries in a very specific and negative way, and so as a result, I saw little value in what they can add to the debate as this is not a debate about western colonialism or racism, but Asian colonialism and racism.
Mr anonymous, you can deny it exists, but to do so is like walking with your eyes closed. It's out there and this blog is designed to highlight it. This doesnot mean I don't acknowledge other forms of racism, merely that this blog doesnot deal with them.
For more on 'white' guilt etc take a look here and here.
Cheers
AsianRacism.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Digging up Facts of Singapore
One of the more annoying double standards that i have encountered in Asia is that of the Singaporean mindset towards migration. Now, i need to clearly articulate that i mean chinese Singaporean. You see, many chiense Singaporeans are rightly very critical of Australia's former 'white australia' migration policy. It was a racist piece of garbage that belongs on the scrap heap of history. By and large, Australia has moved on from the days of only allowing 'whites' who could speak english to their shores.
But fast forward to the 21st century and we have in Singapore a blatantly pro-chinese migration policy still in place. Indeed, it was set up in the led up to Hong Kong returning to Chinese rule.
Basically the policy is this:
Hong Kong citizens can migrate to Singapore. They are given assistance. No education requirements. At the time the then Prime-Minister of Singapore refereed to the need to keep Singapore predominately chinese to ensure it's economic success (read in between the lines what you will.
The proof of this policy is still out there at the following places here here and here
To be balanced although the migration policy has been publicly linked to keeping the proportion of Singapore's population that is Chinese above a certain percentage, nothing explicitaly states you MUST be chinese, it is very clear that the policy is aimed at recruiting Chinese hong-kong citizens and as this is the only ethnic group that is being targeted in such a way it then lends itself to the question: if the white Australia policy was so racist and so evil, how is this any different or better? The answer to that (IMHO) is none.
Sure, defenders of it will say that Singapore has a non-discriminatory migration policy. They will also say as long as you have the skills you can migrate to Singapore. True to an extent, but if a non-asian country were to introduce such a scheme to keep a certain ethnic mix stable, to proactively recruit a specific ethnic group (which is already the majority) it would rightly be labeled as discriminatory and racist. Why then do many chinese singaporeans feel the need to defend such a policy whilst rightly condemning former very similar schemese hatched by neighboring countries? The double standard is alive and well.
Death to racism.
Wherever it is found.
But fast forward to the 21st century and we have in Singapore a blatantly pro-chinese migration policy still in place. Indeed, it was set up in the led up to Hong Kong returning to Chinese rule.
Basically the policy is this:
Hong Kong citizens can migrate to Singapore. They are given assistance. No education requirements. At the time the then Prime-Minister of Singapore refereed to the need to keep Singapore predominately chinese to ensure it's economic success (read in between the lines what you will.
The proof of this policy is still out there at the following places here here and here
To be balanced although the migration policy has been publicly linked to keeping the proportion of Singapore's population that is Chinese above a certain percentage, nothing explicitaly states you MUST be chinese, it is very clear that the policy is aimed at recruiting Chinese hong-kong citizens and as this is the only ethnic group that is being targeted in such a way it then lends itself to the question: if the white Australia policy was so racist and so evil, how is this any different or better? The answer to that (IMHO) is none.
Sure, defenders of it will say that Singapore has a non-discriminatory migration policy. They will also say as long as you have the skills you can migrate to Singapore. True to an extent, but if a non-asian country were to introduce such a scheme to keep a certain ethnic mix stable, to proactively recruit a specific ethnic group (which is already the majority) it would rightly be labeled as discriminatory and racist. Why then do many chinese singaporeans feel the need to defend such a policy whilst rightly condemning former very similar schemese hatched by neighboring countries? The double standard is alive and well.
Death to racism.
Wherever it is found.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Asian Racism in Singapore
This article is one i read in a taxi on a weekend visit to Singapore - and strangely enough it is actually written by a Singaporean. The article encompasses many of the points i have been trying to illuminate through the collection of articles that comprises this blog - that racism is alive and kicking in Asia and is conveniently ignored or dismissed as being a problem belonging to other countries. Enjoy.
Racism within Asia
AsiaViews, Edition: 30/IV/August/2007
In recent months, there has been much discussion in the media here about how Singapore could cope with a large migrant population from other parts of Asia if the country is going to aim for a population of 6.5 million within the next decade.
Though the question of race relations has not overtly being discussed, yet, it is what we are referring to when we talk about integration, etc. Asians seem to be very reluctant to talk about race relations or racism within their societies, but are quick to point fingers at the West. A couple of months ago, there was ample coverage given, especially in Singapore, to an episode of ‘Big Brother’ TV program in Britain in which Indian Bollywood actress Shilpa Shetty was the butt of racist comments.
Reading these reports, particularly in the Singaporean press, I could not resist the thought, “what’s the big deal, is it not present here?” This is particularly after some experience I’ve had here around the same time when I was looking to rent a condo apartment and was told not once but five times by housing agents that the owner “did not want to rent to Indians”. Some letters to the editor written by Indian expatriates published in ‘Today’ newspaper about 2 months later indicated that this is a widespread practice here.
I have raised this issue with Singaporeans recently and the usual response with the shrug of the shoulders is “well, racism exists everywhere” so what can we do about it?
In one of the popular expat forums on the Internet here, when I raised this point there was a heated debate which developed that reflected this attitude. One typical comment by a Singaporean professional woman in her 30s was: “No, housing agents are not racists, but local house owners may have pre-stated their preference to the agents representing them of not renting to Indians on account of Indian cooking involving very pungent spices that makes the house smell”.
When I responded: “This is what I said, it is a racist attitude to think that anyone of color cooks spicy food at home and smells”. Her reply was: “It is not my intention to make excuses, I’m merely stating the facts…”
Singapore has often boasted about the harmonious multicultural society they have created where Chinese, Indians, Malays, Eurasians, Filipinos, etc, live in harmony. But, what has transpired in the ‘blogsphere’ in recent years indicates that not everything is rosy under the surface.
Coming back to my experience, when I questioned the housing agents for the reasons for refusing to rent to Indians I was told that because they cook with such aroma, it leaves a “bad smell” in the house long after they have left. I pointed out that (a) I’m not an Indian, but a Sri Lankan-born Australian (b) I don’t usually cook at home because I live on my own. One agent told me “that doesn’t matter, you look Indian, all the same”.
This is exactly what is called “stereo-typing” a process which is described in any cross-cultural communication textbooks as “those overgeneralized and over simplified beliefs we use to categorize a group of people (which) have a tendency to make a claim that often goes beyond the facts, with no valid basis.”
At a time when Singapore is looking towards India—an emerging world power—to develop closer economic ties, and with increasing number of “Indian” professionals coming here to work and many even taking up PR here, it is an opportune time for Singaporean educational authorities to take a closer look at how the educational system could be utilized to address this problem of stereo-typing and racism. It does not apply only to Indians, I have noted that Filipinos, Indonesians and Thais to name a few, are also effected by such racial stereotyping.
I must also add that racist attitudes towards other Asians are not peculiar to Singaporeans. Even Malaysia’s recent treatment of its migrant laborers from Indonesia and Bangladesh in particular has been described by some observers as racist. A few years ago, when I arrived in Hong Kong for the first time I noticed that their customs checked the bags of all the people of color arriving there and not the Chinese nor the Caucasians. This was before the 9/11 event. After that I have observed that they do the same at Bangkok airport.
Over the past 25 years I have been to Bangkok over 30 times. Since the 9/11 event I have been there about 6 times and each time they have called me up and checked my bags, even though I was passing through the “green” line and I’ve noticed that they only check the bags of colored people, especially with South Asian appearance. Obviously they suspect us as possible “Pakistani Muslim terrorist”, even though I’m Buddhist and for 20 years living in Sydney, it was Thai monks who performed our family religious ceremonies including my father’s last rites in 2001.
Though many of us, especially professionals of South Asian background, find this attitude offensive, perhaps many of these officials behave in such fashion because they lack cross-cultural communication training. In many Western countries when they have such security concerns they usually do it more subtly where a few Whites will also be checked along with the non-Whites.
Today, in this globalizing world, not only Singapore, but many other Asian countries are facing an influx of people of different ethnic backgrounds, either coming as tourists, convention delegates or to work or invest in their countries. So, knowledge of cross-cultural communications should be an essential ingredient in these countries.
I lived in Australia for 20 years—throughout the 1980s and most of the 1990s—at a time when Australia had to address a similar problem in their society, because they were experiencing an immigration boom from Asia, after the ‘White Australia” policy was abolished in the mid-1970s. Australia was also trying to link up economically with a booming Asia, whose people were historically seen by most Australians as of “lower status” or what was called the “yellow peril”. This was tackled through the educational system with new Asian Studies and Cross-Cultural Communication courses introduced in high schools and tertiary institutions. Today most young Australians are less racist towards Asians and are more comfortable dealing and living with them—even marrying Asians in increasing numbers.
Two years ago, I taught an inter-semester course at a leading university in Singapore on Cross-Cultural Communications during which I covered many theories on stereotyping and racism. When I set assignments for students and asked them to apply these theories to practical situations, all of them took examples from the Western textbooks we were using because no Asians texts were available on the topic. They were happy talking about the Caucasians, Hispanics, Blacks or Australian Aborigines rather than applying these theories to their own environment and talk about relationships between the Chinese, Malays, Filipinos and the Indians for example.
There seems to be this perception in Asia that racism is a problem of the West, a problem of the “White” people. But, ‘Whites’ now understand the problem—thanks to many Indians, Africans and Arabs like Edward Said who pointed this out to them more than 30 years ago—and the West has taken remedial action via the education system. The fact that the Britons were able to acknowledge that there was racism involved in the ‘Big Brother’ episode and Shilpa Shetty was voted overwhelmingly as the winner of the show is reflective of such enlightenment.
In Asia, people are still in self-denial mood. Singapore, with its multiracial population mix and its ambition to become an educational hub and a bridge between South and East Asia, is in an ideal position to address this issue. A good start would be to introduce cross-cultural communication courses and textbooks with Asian examples which could be a benchmark for Asia.
By Kalinga Seneviratne, Singapore-based journalist, media analyst and international communications lecturer.
Asiaviews, August-September 2007
Racism within Asia
AsiaViews, Edition: 30/IV/August/2007
In recent months, there has been much discussion in the media here about how Singapore could cope with a large migrant population from other parts of Asia if the country is going to aim for a population of 6.5 million within the next decade.
Though the question of race relations has not overtly being discussed, yet, it is what we are referring to when we talk about integration, etc. Asians seem to be very reluctant to talk about race relations or racism within their societies, but are quick to point fingers at the West. A couple of months ago, there was ample coverage given, especially in Singapore, to an episode of ‘Big Brother’ TV program in Britain in which Indian Bollywood actress Shilpa Shetty was the butt of racist comments.
Reading these reports, particularly in the Singaporean press, I could not resist the thought, “what’s the big deal, is it not present here?” This is particularly after some experience I’ve had here around the same time when I was looking to rent a condo apartment and was told not once but five times by housing agents that the owner “did not want to rent to Indians”. Some letters to the editor written by Indian expatriates published in ‘Today’ newspaper about 2 months later indicated that this is a widespread practice here.
I have raised this issue with Singaporeans recently and the usual response with the shrug of the shoulders is “well, racism exists everywhere” so what can we do about it?
In one of the popular expat forums on the Internet here, when I raised this point there was a heated debate which developed that reflected this attitude. One typical comment by a Singaporean professional woman in her 30s was: “No, housing agents are not racists, but local house owners may have pre-stated their preference to the agents representing them of not renting to Indians on account of Indian cooking involving very pungent spices that makes the house smell”.
When I responded: “This is what I said, it is a racist attitude to think that anyone of color cooks spicy food at home and smells”. Her reply was: “It is not my intention to make excuses, I’m merely stating the facts…”
Singapore has often boasted about the harmonious multicultural society they have created where Chinese, Indians, Malays, Eurasians, Filipinos, etc, live in harmony. But, what has transpired in the ‘blogsphere’ in recent years indicates that not everything is rosy under the surface.
Coming back to my experience, when I questioned the housing agents for the reasons for refusing to rent to Indians I was told that because they cook with such aroma, it leaves a “bad smell” in the house long after they have left. I pointed out that (a) I’m not an Indian, but a Sri Lankan-born Australian (b) I don’t usually cook at home because I live on my own. One agent told me “that doesn’t matter, you look Indian, all the same”.
This is exactly what is called “stereo-typing” a process which is described in any cross-cultural communication textbooks as “those overgeneralized and over simplified beliefs we use to categorize a group of people (which) have a tendency to make a claim that often goes beyond the facts, with no valid basis.”
At a time when Singapore is looking towards India—an emerging world power—to develop closer economic ties, and with increasing number of “Indian” professionals coming here to work and many even taking up PR here, it is an opportune time for Singaporean educational authorities to take a closer look at how the educational system could be utilized to address this problem of stereo-typing and racism. It does not apply only to Indians, I have noted that Filipinos, Indonesians and Thais to name a few, are also effected by such racial stereotyping.
I must also add that racist attitudes towards other Asians are not peculiar to Singaporeans. Even Malaysia’s recent treatment of its migrant laborers from Indonesia and Bangladesh in particular has been described by some observers as racist. A few years ago, when I arrived in Hong Kong for the first time I noticed that their customs checked the bags of all the people of color arriving there and not the Chinese nor the Caucasians. This was before the 9/11 event. After that I have observed that they do the same at Bangkok airport.
Over the past 25 years I have been to Bangkok over 30 times. Since the 9/11 event I have been there about 6 times and each time they have called me up and checked my bags, even though I was passing through the “green” line and I’ve noticed that they only check the bags of colored people, especially with South Asian appearance. Obviously they suspect us as possible “Pakistani Muslim terrorist”, even though I’m Buddhist and for 20 years living in Sydney, it was Thai monks who performed our family religious ceremonies including my father’s last rites in 2001.
Though many of us, especially professionals of South Asian background, find this attitude offensive, perhaps many of these officials behave in such fashion because they lack cross-cultural communication training. In many Western countries when they have such security concerns they usually do it more subtly where a few Whites will also be checked along with the non-Whites.
Today, in this globalizing world, not only Singapore, but many other Asian countries are facing an influx of people of different ethnic backgrounds, either coming as tourists, convention delegates or to work or invest in their countries. So, knowledge of cross-cultural communications should be an essential ingredient in these countries.
I lived in Australia for 20 years—throughout the 1980s and most of the 1990s—at a time when Australia had to address a similar problem in their society, because they were experiencing an immigration boom from Asia, after the ‘White Australia” policy was abolished in the mid-1970s. Australia was also trying to link up economically with a booming Asia, whose people were historically seen by most Australians as of “lower status” or what was called the “yellow peril”. This was tackled through the educational system with new Asian Studies and Cross-Cultural Communication courses introduced in high schools and tertiary institutions. Today most young Australians are less racist towards Asians and are more comfortable dealing and living with them—even marrying Asians in increasing numbers.
Two years ago, I taught an inter-semester course at a leading university in Singapore on Cross-Cultural Communications during which I covered many theories on stereotyping and racism. When I set assignments for students and asked them to apply these theories to practical situations, all of them took examples from the Western textbooks we were using because no Asians texts were available on the topic. They were happy talking about the Caucasians, Hispanics, Blacks or Australian Aborigines rather than applying these theories to their own environment and talk about relationships between the Chinese, Malays, Filipinos and the Indians for example.
There seems to be this perception in Asia that racism is a problem of the West, a problem of the “White” people. But, ‘Whites’ now understand the problem—thanks to many Indians, Africans and Arabs like Edward Said who pointed this out to them more than 30 years ago—and the West has taken remedial action via the education system. The fact that the Britons were able to acknowledge that there was racism involved in the ‘Big Brother’ episode and Shilpa Shetty was voted overwhelmingly as the winner of the show is reflective of such enlightenment.
In Asia, people are still in self-denial mood. Singapore, with its multiracial population mix and its ambition to become an educational hub and a bridge between South and East Asia, is in an ideal position to address this issue. A good start would be to introduce cross-cultural communication courses and textbooks with Asian examples which could be a benchmark for Asia.
By Kalinga Seneviratne, Singapore-based journalist, media analyst and international communications lecturer.
Asiaviews, August-September 2007
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
A paper on Racism in Singapore
Not meaning to pick on Singapore, but someone emailed me with a link to this site:
http://www.crsi.mq.edu.au/news_and_events/documents/selvarajvelayutham_000.pdf
It's a paper that was presented at conference on multiculturalism. A real eye opener. Text is below:
1
Everyday Racism in Singapore
SELVARAJ VELAYUTHAM
Centre for Research on Social Inclusion, Macquarie University
In this paper, I outline some of the common forms of racism that Singaporean Indians
experience in their daily lives. Though other racial minority groups such as the Malays and Eurasians also experience racism within the Chinese dominated Singaporean society, I am limiting my focus to the Indians as my research is based on this community. It should be pointed out that the experience of racism among the Malays has been well documented (see Tremewan 1996 & Rahim 1998). Moreover, because the Malays are often singled out as a “socially and economically underachieving” community in Singapore which in turn has generated critical response and resentment from countries like Indonesia and Malaysia, racism towards the Malays is also well publicised. However, racism towards the Indians has received
little public attention. Even though Indians face racial discrimination in their everyday lives, their high socio-economic standing relative to their population size puts them as a prosperous and successful community in Singapore. As a result, racism has been become a non-issue for the India community and effectively ruling out the possibility of articulating experiences of racism discrimination in any official capacity.
Although the term ‘everyday life’ is synonymous with the idea of being mundane or ordinary and according to Gouldner (1975) is the stable, recurrent and seemingly unchanging features of the social life of ordinary individuals, they are by no means insignificant. In particular, what Heller (1984) termed as the ‘modalities of everyday contact’ which range from the random to the organised are important sites for gaining an insight into everyday racism. It is often argued that in multicultural societies, the proximity and intimacy created by living and encountering racial and cultural diversity can encourage familiarity and awareness of cultural difference. But as scholars such as Ash Amin (2002), Amanda Wise (2005) and others have argued it can
also create social tensions resulting in racial abuse, discrimination, and stereotyping.
Multiracialism is a fundamental pillar of postcolonial Singaporean society. It is a
political ideology that is actively promoted by the city-state to recognise/represent
Singapore as a racially and culturally diverse society. By that token, the main racial
groups in Singapore are accorded official status and are guaranteed equality.
Singapore considers itself a racially tolerant and harmonious country and indeed, the
four official groups – Chinese (77%), Malays (14%), Indians (8%) and Others - have co-
existed peacefully since its independence in 1965. However, this does not mean that
racial discrimination and intolerance are non-existent. Whilst there are many
examples of peaceful cross-cultural intermingling between the races, everyday social
tensions and discomforts arising from living with cultural difference are rarely
officially acknowledged (see for instance Lai 1995). Indeed, the term racism is entirely
absent from official discourse and public debate in Singapore. In this paper, I seek to
document some of the everyday experiences and practices of racism in Singapore.
Using empirical material and research field notes, I will outline a range of subtle to
explicit forms of racism that manifest in different social spaces in Singapore (indeed,
there are more research that needs to be done in studying structural and institutional
racism). I argue that while the city-state actively engages in activities targeted at
2
'fostering social cohesion' and is ever vigilant at suppressing overt racist provocations,
with few exceptions it has effectively silenced the voices of people who are at the
receiving end of everyday racism.
The Maria Hertogh and Prophet Muhammad Birthday remain as the two significant
events in Singapore history that exposed serious racial tensions on this island state.
The Maria Hertogh riots started on 11 December 1950. It was led by outraged
Muslims after the court’s decision to award custody of Maria Hertogh - raised in a
muslim family - to her biological Dutch Catholic parents. The riots lasted 3 days with
18 killed, 173 injured and many properties damaged. The second riots, took place
during two separate periods in July and September 1964 between Chinese and
Malays. Though no clear cause was identified, state officials blamed Indonesian and
communist provocateurs for instigating racial violence. But as official history and
discourse would have it these riots are regarded as the country’s most bitter
experience with racial conflict. Singaporeans are regularly reminded in official
speeches not so much about the causes of the riots but the fact that they were serious
and potentially disabling events in Singaporean history. The fragility of inter-racial
relationship and disaffections that emerged as a result of living with cultural
difference were never spoken.
In 1965, when Singapore gained full autonomy from the British, one of the foremost
concerns of the People’s Action Party (PAP) state was to ensure that such racial
conflicts did not take root again. And so, the promotion and maintenance of racial
harmony became a central pillar of nation-building. The new government was
confronted with the realities of serious unemployment, immense poverty, low levels
of education, acute housing shortages, strikes, and demonstrations, most of which
were Communist-led, and it had to deal with a plethora of competing ethnic and
national sentiments. The PAP addressed these challenges through what Chan (1975,
p. 51) describes as “a steady and systematic de-politicisation of a politically active and
aggressive citizenry” and mobilising the support of various organisations such as the
trade union and grassroots’ groups. Central to the PAP leaders’ thinking on the role
of the government was their view that the compulsion to achieve economic progress
and ethnic harmony made it imperative that the government in Singapore controlled
all instruments and centres of power and did not allow the growth of political
pluralism (Vasil 2000).
Following independence, many policies and programs were put in place by the PAP
government in an effort to build a nation-state. According to Quah (1990, p. 45):
[t]he rationale for the Singapore government’s approach to nation building has
always been and continues to be the nurturing of the growth of a Singaporean
national identity among the population, which will surmount all the chauvinistic
and particularistic pulls of the Chinese, Malay, or Indian identities of the various
ethnic groups on the island. The objective of the political leaders is to build a
nation of Singaporeans out of the disparate groups in the city-state. The
government has relied on many instruments to promote national integration,
including the promotion of economic development, public housing, national
service, educational policies, the mass media, periodic national campaigns, and
grassroots organization.
3
For instance by emphasising multiracialism and multilingualism as fundamental
principles of the state, the Singapore leaders aimed to inculcate a sense of commitment
in the various race groups to the state and to existence in racial harmony. In
institutionalising multiracialism as a state ideology, the fragmented and divided notion
of the nation no longer became an issue. Multiracial Singapore with a population of
around 4 million people — consisting of 77 per cent Chinese, 14 per cent Malays, 7.6 per
cent Indians and 1.4 per cent Other (CMIO) — was redefined as an essential feature of a
Singaporean identity and culture. The concept of Singapore’s multiracialism was
fostered through every conceivable means — in all forms of official cultural
representations, celebrations, schools, the media, national holidays and tourism.
Many scholars (Benjamin 1976; Clammer 1998) argue that the CMIO model
accommodates and assures equality and rights for minorities and is a practical and
viable ideology for maintaining racial harmony. One the most notable critical
assessments on Singapore’s multiracial policy was provided by Geoffrey Benjamin
(1976, p. 115) who argued that although the multiracial policy “accords equal status to
the cultures and ethnic identities of the various “races” that are regarded as comprising
the population of a plural society, [it at the same time] serves to define such a population
as divided into one particular array of “races”” (see also Chua 1998).
In addition, the government also actively championed the ideology of meritocracy so as
to tackle the problem of persistent racial inequality. It practical application can be
observed in the government’s promotion of multiracialism as a fundamental ideal
where the four main races are said to be given fair and equal opportunity without
privileging one or the other. According to Carl Trocki;
As an excuse for the paternalistic management of society, the multiracial agenda
justified the government’s structuring of education, housing and the new identity
to which all Singaporeans were expected to subscribe. At the same time, any
attempts by members of a specific cultural community to gain consideration for
themselves have been treated as expressions of chauvinism by the government.
The possibility of racial violence or outside intervention, should the government’s
brand of multiracialism fail, was presented as a constant threat to Singapore’s
“survival” and thus became an unchallengeable article of faith (Trocki, 2006: 140-
141)
And this remains the case till today. To be sure, there have not been any racial
conflicts since the 1950 & 1964 race riots. In fact, people generally do get along.
Similarly, structural and institutional racism are not wide spread. Nonetheless the
official rhetoric of racial violence or disorder has completely overshadowed critical
debates and discussions on racism, inter-cultural tension and disaffection in
Singapore. For a nation which prides itself as a multi-racial, multi-lingual and multi-
religious and multi-cultural, there has been very little academic scholarship on racial
relations, cross-cultural interaction and racism. Within this context, any attempt to
engage in discussions about everyday experiences of racism is deemed as lacking in
legitimacy and unconstructive. The spectre of racial violence has literally erased the
notion of racism from public and official discourses. Instead the need to maintain
racial harmony, social cohesion and tolerance is repeatedly voiced to render racists
practices as non-occurrences. In fact, the only time it is ever discussed is when
Chinese Singaporeans encounter racism while traveling or studying overseas and
report such incidents in Singapore - Australia is frequently cited in these reports. And
4
so, other forms of racism that the minority racial groups such as the Malays, Indians
and Eurasians experiences are silenced. The government’s repression of discussions
on racist experiences has meant that there are no avenues for expressing or speaking
out about them.
The most common form of racism invariably experienced by Indians is ‘name-calling’
with specific reference to ones physical appearance. The body and colour of the skin
becomes the point of reference for ridicule, insult and verbal abuse. As it is well
argued by scholars like Audre Lorde (1984) and Frantz Fanon (1965, 1967) racism is an
embodied experience. Repeated references to one’s skin colour, appearance and body
are not uncommon. Let me read to you a set of quotes from my interviews that relates
to this point. As one informant, Shanti in her early 30s pointed out:
I first became aware of racism when a PE [physical education] teacher of mine, because I
was not athletically inclined, called me “Black tofu” in front of everyone. He later said
he was just joking when my father complained to the school.
Another interviewee, Gita in her 20s recalled:
I was about 14 and at the public swimming pool with my brother and cousin. I didn’t
know how to swim and was just getting interested in water, swimming etc and quite
excited. A Chinese man walked past, looked at us and said, “Indian Olympics ah?” My
whole body froze, felt strange, embarrassed, hurt. I lost interest in learning swimming
and did not wear a swimsuit for 20 years. More importantly, it severely affected my
body confidence.
In these two incidents the Indian body is discredited and made inferior because it is
black and also lacking in athleticism. It is a tainted body and incapable of performing
at a competitive level such the Olympics. While the first discriminatory remark is
associated with ‘old’ racism, the second stems from a cultural stereotype that
circulates in Singapore. Sports activities such as volleyball, basketball, and swimming
are almost entirely are associated with the Chinese in Singapore. All other ethnic
groups do not have a high visible present in these sports. As such, within this context,
the remark at the swimming pool was rather insulting.
Another instance where racism is frequently experienced is during everyday
encounters in closed spaces such as on public transport. The involuntary proximity
created by a crowded bus or train and a vacant seat can potential generate
expressions of discomfort and subtle racism. As my informant Ravi in his 30s echoed:
On many occasions this incident has happened while I travelled in a bus. A co-Chinese
passenger would rather stand than sit next to me if there are no other places in the bus.
At other times, the passenger would pass by me and sit next to another Chinese
ignoring to sit next to me. Am I smelly or what?
Bala, in his 20s:
My first direct encounter with racism was probably my first day in kindergarten (1978)
when Chinese classmates will not sit next to me or cover their noses whenever I am near
because they thought I smelt. They would tease or tell me that their parents told them
that my skin is dark because my family and I bathed in mud or excrement or never
5
bathed at all. As a six year old, it was very troubling to be perceived in such a way and
it certainly damaged self- confidence.
Vimala in her late 20s said:
Often the seat next to me is one of the last ones to be taken on the bus. Once a young girl
boarded the bus and saw me and immediately told here mother loudly, eeee, mummy,
Indian... smelly.” (I did not smell or look shabby.).
It is fairly obvious that a general pattern of racially motivated discrimination emerges
in everyday encounters and contacts between Chinese and Indians. Though they may
not take place on a regular basis, it is hard to deny that they don’t occur at all. Name
calling, the use of expletives, and stereotyping are born out of an attempt to label
Indian bodies as inferior, a threat and mark them out as different to Chinese bodies.
The terms such as ‘black’, dirty and smelly are not just hurtful and distressing but can
result in what Fanon (1967: 11) describes as “the internalisation or the
epidermalisation of this inferiority”. The respondents in my study were clearly
affected by the disparaging remarks to the point that they felt that it has damaged
their self-esteem and confidence. The lacking in athleticism or trying a sport which
Indians don’t excel well is seen as a point of mockery. Moreover, the subtle as well as
overt responses to the Indian body such as the impulse to avoid sitting next to an
Indian and holding of the nose as an expression of revulsion may not appear as acts of
racism but are powerful means by which displeasure and fear is conveyed. The
assertion of the superior status of the Chinese arguably comes about because of their
position as the dominant majority in Singapore. Unlike in neighbouring Malaysia and
Indonesia, where Chinese exists in small numbers, the Singaporean Chinese
population is a powerful force as they dominate the economic, social and cultural
sectors
In addition, the arrival of large number of non-skilled workers from India since the
late 1980s has further intensified ongoing racist practices. There are some 160, 000
non-skilled foreigners currently working in Singapore - a majority of them are from
the Indian subcontinent. These workers congregate in the Indian historical and now
tourist enclave called Little India. During Sundays and public holidays, the Indian
workers gather here to do their shopping, meet friends, eat and so forth. However,
these large gathering has not only created an uproar among non-Indian Singaporeans
but also to the perpetuation of racists sentiments and stereotypes about Little India.
As one informant noted:
“Friends (yes, people I actually know quite well) who avoid Little India like it's some
Danger Zone. I can take it if they tell me they're not used to the food or the smell of
spices and incense, but to make comments like, "eeee, all the Bangla and Indian
workers hang out there" are uncalled for. It's not just about the workers (I mean if
they were Chinese workers, these people won't kick up such a big fuss). I mean if you
want to talk about a place being dangerous, Geylang [an area famous for late night
food stalls, nightclubs and a red light district] can be said to be fraught with danger
too right? but no one seems to make a big deal out of it -- most Singaporeans have no
qualms about heading there for durians and supper” (Devi)
Another respondent, Thiru – reiterated:
6
I also have non-Indian friends who refuse to go to Little India on Sundays because they
fear being harassed by the Indian foreign workers who hang out there. I have heard
stories of cab drivers whizzing through Little India and only stopping for local
Singaporean customers. I have also seen on public transport – especially when taking
the train to Little India – how people will avoid sitting next to Indian men (in
particular).
It has to be said that although Singaporean Indians (who are mostly 3rd or 4th
generation) try to dissociate themselves from the temporary Indian workers, they are
invariably implicated and are to subjected similar racist overtones. In this instance,
Little India with its large concentration of Indians (not frequented by many Chinese)
is perceived as an alien space which is potentially threatening and even dangerous.
Even though there are no crime statistics to show that it is an unsafe area – Little India
is a place which you would want to avoid. Such derogatory remarks and stereotyping
are becoming a common place in Singapore.
There are also many other instances of everyday racism relating to food, homes,
neighbourhood, characterization of Indian behaviour and so forth that I am aiming to
examine in the longer version of the paper. But in conclusion, I want reiterate that
everyday racism in Singapore is fairly widespread especially within dominant and
minority relationship and encounters. Unfortunately, such experiences are never
articulated or openly discussed in the public arena. As a result, they continue to
simmer beneath the warm and fuzzy image of a harmonious and tolerant image of
multiracial Singapore.
7
References
Amin, Ash. 2002. ‘Ethnicity and the Multicultural City: Living with Diversity,
Environment and Planning A 34(6): 959–980.
Benjamin, Geoffrey (1976) ‘The Cultural Logic of Singapore’s ‘Multiracialism”, in Riaz
Hassan (ed.) Singapore: Society in Transition. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University
Press.
Chan, Heng Chee (1975) ‘Politics in an Administrative State: Where has the Politics
Gone?’, in Seah Chee Meow (ed.) Trends in Singapore. Singapore: Institute of
Southeast Asian Studies.
Chua, Beng Huat. 1998. ‘Culture, Multiculturalism, and National Identity in
Singapore, in Kuan-Hsing Chen (ed.) Trajectories: Inter-Asia Cultural Studies.
Routledge: London.
Clammer, John (1998) Race and State in Independent Singapore 1965-1990: the Cultural
Politics of Pluralism in a Multiethnic Society. Brookfield, Vt : Ashgate.
Fanon, Frantz. 1967. Black Skin, White Masks. Grove Press: New York.
Fanon, Frantz. 1965. The Wretched of the Earth. Grove Press: New York.
Goulder, Alvin. 1975. ‘Sociology and Everyday Life’, in Lewis Coser (ed.) The Idea of
Social Structure. Harcourt Brace and Jovanovich: New York.
Heller, Agnes. 1984. Everyday Life. Routledge: London.
Lai, Ah Eng. 1996. ‘Everyday Spaces, Ordinary People and Everyday Life Activities’,
in Lee Weng Choy (ed.) Space, Spaces and Spacing. The Substation: Singapore.
Lorde, Audre. 1984. Sister Outsider : Essays and Speeches. Crossing Press: New York.
Rahim, Lily. 1998. The Singapore Dilemma: The Political and Educational Marginality of the
Malay Community. Oxford University Press: Kuala Lumpur.
Quah, Jon. 1990. ‘Government Policies and Nation-Building’, in Jon Quah (ed.) In
Search of Singapore’s National Values. Singapore: Times Academic Press.
Tremewan, Christopher. 1994. The Political Economy of Social Control in Singapore. St.
Martin’s Press: New York.
Trocki, Carl A. 2006. Singapore: Wealth, Power and the Culture of Control. Routledge:
London.
Vasil, Raj. 2000. Governing Singapore: A History of National Development and Democracy.
St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Wise, Amanda. 2005. ‘Hope and Belonging in a Multicultural Suburb’, Journal of
Intercultural Studie.s 26(1/2): 171-186.
http://www.crsi.mq.edu.au/news_and_events/documents/selvarajvelayutham_000.pdf
It's a paper that was presented at conference on multiculturalism. A real eye opener. Text is below:
1
Everyday Racism in Singapore
SELVARAJ VELAYUTHAM
Centre for Research on Social Inclusion, Macquarie University
In this paper, I outline some of the common forms of racism that Singaporean Indians
experience in their daily lives. Though other racial minority groups such as the Malays and Eurasians also experience racism within the Chinese dominated Singaporean society, I am limiting my focus to the Indians as my research is based on this community. It should be pointed out that the experience of racism among the Malays has been well documented (see Tremewan 1996 & Rahim 1998). Moreover, because the Malays are often singled out as a “socially and economically underachieving” community in Singapore which in turn has generated critical response and resentment from countries like Indonesia and Malaysia, racism towards the Malays is also well publicised. However, racism towards the Indians has received
little public attention. Even though Indians face racial discrimination in their everyday lives, their high socio-economic standing relative to their population size puts them as a prosperous and successful community in Singapore. As a result, racism has been become a non-issue for the India community and effectively ruling out the possibility of articulating experiences of racism discrimination in any official capacity.
Although the term ‘everyday life’ is synonymous with the idea of being mundane or ordinary and according to Gouldner (1975) is the stable, recurrent and seemingly unchanging features of the social life of ordinary individuals, they are by no means insignificant. In particular, what Heller (1984) termed as the ‘modalities of everyday contact’ which range from the random to the organised are important sites for gaining an insight into everyday racism. It is often argued that in multicultural societies, the proximity and intimacy created by living and encountering racial and cultural diversity can encourage familiarity and awareness of cultural difference. But as scholars such as Ash Amin (2002), Amanda Wise (2005) and others have argued it can
also create social tensions resulting in racial abuse, discrimination, and stereotyping.
Multiracialism is a fundamental pillar of postcolonial Singaporean society. It is a
political ideology that is actively promoted by the city-state to recognise/represent
Singapore as a racially and culturally diverse society. By that token, the main racial
groups in Singapore are accorded official status and are guaranteed equality.
Singapore considers itself a racially tolerant and harmonious country and indeed, the
four official groups – Chinese (77%), Malays (14%), Indians (8%) and Others - have co-
existed peacefully since its independence in 1965. However, this does not mean that
racial discrimination and intolerance are non-existent. Whilst there are many
examples of peaceful cross-cultural intermingling between the races, everyday social
tensions and discomforts arising from living with cultural difference are rarely
officially acknowledged (see for instance Lai 1995). Indeed, the term racism is entirely
absent from official discourse and public debate in Singapore. In this paper, I seek to
document some of the everyday experiences and practices of racism in Singapore.
Using empirical material and research field notes, I will outline a range of subtle to
explicit forms of racism that manifest in different social spaces in Singapore (indeed,
there are more research that needs to be done in studying structural and institutional
racism). I argue that while the city-state actively engages in activities targeted at
2
'fostering social cohesion' and is ever vigilant at suppressing overt racist provocations,
with few exceptions it has effectively silenced the voices of people who are at the
receiving end of everyday racism.
The Maria Hertogh and Prophet Muhammad Birthday remain as the two significant
events in Singapore history that exposed serious racial tensions on this island state.
The Maria Hertogh riots started on 11 December 1950. It was led by outraged
Muslims after the court’s decision to award custody of Maria Hertogh - raised in a
muslim family - to her biological Dutch Catholic parents. The riots lasted 3 days with
18 killed, 173 injured and many properties damaged. The second riots, took place
during two separate periods in July and September 1964 between Chinese and
Malays. Though no clear cause was identified, state officials blamed Indonesian and
communist provocateurs for instigating racial violence. But as official history and
discourse would have it these riots are regarded as the country’s most bitter
experience with racial conflict. Singaporeans are regularly reminded in official
speeches not so much about the causes of the riots but the fact that they were serious
and potentially disabling events in Singaporean history. The fragility of inter-racial
relationship and disaffections that emerged as a result of living with cultural
difference were never spoken.
In 1965, when Singapore gained full autonomy from the British, one of the foremost
concerns of the People’s Action Party (PAP) state was to ensure that such racial
conflicts did not take root again. And so, the promotion and maintenance of racial
harmony became a central pillar of nation-building. The new government was
confronted with the realities of serious unemployment, immense poverty, low levels
of education, acute housing shortages, strikes, and demonstrations, most of which
were Communist-led, and it had to deal with a plethora of competing ethnic and
national sentiments. The PAP addressed these challenges through what Chan (1975,
p. 51) describes as “a steady and systematic de-politicisation of a politically active and
aggressive citizenry” and mobilising the support of various organisations such as the
trade union and grassroots’ groups. Central to the PAP leaders’ thinking on the role
of the government was their view that the compulsion to achieve economic progress
and ethnic harmony made it imperative that the government in Singapore controlled
all instruments and centres of power and did not allow the growth of political
pluralism (Vasil 2000).
Following independence, many policies and programs were put in place by the PAP
government in an effort to build a nation-state. According to Quah (1990, p. 45):
[t]he rationale for the Singapore government’s approach to nation building has
always been and continues to be the nurturing of the growth of a Singaporean
national identity among the population, which will surmount all the chauvinistic
and particularistic pulls of the Chinese, Malay, or Indian identities of the various
ethnic groups on the island. The objective of the political leaders is to build a
nation of Singaporeans out of the disparate groups in the city-state. The
government has relied on many instruments to promote national integration,
including the promotion of economic development, public housing, national
service, educational policies, the mass media, periodic national campaigns, and
grassroots organization.
3
For instance by emphasising multiracialism and multilingualism as fundamental
principles of the state, the Singapore leaders aimed to inculcate a sense of commitment
in the various race groups to the state and to existence in racial harmony. In
institutionalising multiracialism as a state ideology, the fragmented and divided notion
of the nation no longer became an issue. Multiracial Singapore with a population of
around 4 million people — consisting of 77 per cent Chinese, 14 per cent Malays, 7.6 per
cent Indians and 1.4 per cent Other (CMIO) — was redefined as an essential feature of a
Singaporean identity and culture. The concept of Singapore’s multiracialism was
fostered through every conceivable means — in all forms of official cultural
representations, celebrations, schools, the media, national holidays and tourism.
Many scholars (Benjamin 1976; Clammer 1998) argue that the CMIO model
accommodates and assures equality and rights for minorities and is a practical and
viable ideology for maintaining racial harmony. One the most notable critical
assessments on Singapore’s multiracial policy was provided by Geoffrey Benjamin
(1976, p. 115) who argued that although the multiracial policy “accords equal status to
the cultures and ethnic identities of the various “races” that are regarded as comprising
the population of a plural society, [it at the same time] serves to define such a population
as divided into one particular array of “races”” (see also Chua 1998).
In addition, the government also actively championed the ideology of meritocracy so as
to tackle the problem of persistent racial inequality. It practical application can be
observed in the government’s promotion of multiracialism as a fundamental ideal
where the four main races are said to be given fair and equal opportunity without
privileging one or the other. According to Carl Trocki;
As an excuse for the paternalistic management of society, the multiracial agenda
justified the government’s structuring of education, housing and the new identity
to which all Singaporeans were expected to subscribe. At the same time, any
attempts by members of a specific cultural community to gain consideration for
themselves have been treated as expressions of chauvinism by the government.
The possibility of racial violence or outside intervention, should the government’s
brand of multiracialism fail, was presented as a constant threat to Singapore’s
“survival” and thus became an unchallengeable article of faith (Trocki, 2006: 140-
141)
And this remains the case till today. To be sure, there have not been any racial
conflicts since the 1950 & 1964 race riots. In fact, people generally do get along.
Similarly, structural and institutional racism are not wide spread. Nonetheless the
official rhetoric of racial violence or disorder has completely overshadowed critical
debates and discussions on racism, inter-cultural tension and disaffection in
Singapore. For a nation which prides itself as a multi-racial, multi-lingual and multi-
religious and multi-cultural, there has been very little academic scholarship on racial
relations, cross-cultural interaction and racism. Within this context, any attempt to
engage in discussions about everyday experiences of racism is deemed as lacking in
legitimacy and unconstructive. The spectre of racial violence has literally erased the
notion of racism from public and official discourses. Instead the need to maintain
racial harmony, social cohesion and tolerance is repeatedly voiced to render racists
practices as non-occurrences. In fact, the only time it is ever discussed is when
Chinese Singaporeans encounter racism while traveling or studying overseas and
report such incidents in Singapore - Australia is frequently cited in these reports. And
4
so, other forms of racism that the minority racial groups such as the Malays, Indians
and Eurasians experiences are silenced. The government’s repression of discussions
on racist experiences has meant that there are no avenues for expressing or speaking
out about them.
The most common form of racism invariably experienced by Indians is ‘name-calling’
with specific reference to ones physical appearance. The body and colour of the skin
becomes the point of reference for ridicule, insult and verbal abuse. As it is well
argued by scholars like Audre Lorde (1984) and Frantz Fanon (1965, 1967) racism is an
embodied experience. Repeated references to one’s skin colour, appearance and body
are not uncommon. Let me read to you a set of quotes from my interviews that relates
to this point. As one informant, Shanti in her early 30s pointed out:
I first became aware of racism when a PE [physical education] teacher of mine, because I
was not athletically inclined, called me “Black tofu” in front of everyone. He later said
he was just joking when my father complained to the school.
Another interviewee, Gita in her 20s recalled:
I was about 14 and at the public swimming pool with my brother and cousin. I didn’t
know how to swim and was just getting interested in water, swimming etc and quite
excited. A Chinese man walked past, looked at us and said, “Indian Olympics ah?” My
whole body froze, felt strange, embarrassed, hurt. I lost interest in learning swimming
and did not wear a swimsuit for 20 years. More importantly, it severely affected my
body confidence.
In these two incidents the Indian body is discredited and made inferior because it is
black and also lacking in athleticism. It is a tainted body and incapable of performing
at a competitive level such the Olympics. While the first discriminatory remark is
associated with ‘old’ racism, the second stems from a cultural stereotype that
circulates in Singapore. Sports activities such as volleyball, basketball, and swimming
are almost entirely are associated with the Chinese in Singapore. All other ethnic
groups do not have a high visible present in these sports. As such, within this context,
the remark at the swimming pool was rather insulting.
Another instance where racism is frequently experienced is during everyday
encounters in closed spaces such as on public transport. The involuntary proximity
created by a crowded bus or train and a vacant seat can potential generate
expressions of discomfort and subtle racism. As my informant Ravi in his 30s echoed:
On many occasions this incident has happened while I travelled in a bus. A co-Chinese
passenger would rather stand than sit next to me if there are no other places in the bus.
At other times, the passenger would pass by me and sit next to another Chinese
ignoring to sit next to me. Am I smelly or what?
Bala, in his 20s:
My first direct encounter with racism was probably my first day in kindergarten (1978)
when Chinese classmates will not sit next to me or cover their noses whenever I am near
because they thought I smelt. They would tease or tell me that their parents told them
that my skin is dark because my family and I bathed in mud or excrement or never
5
bathed at all. As a six year old, it was very troubling to be perceived in such a way and
it certainly damaged self- confidence.
Vimala in her late 20s said:
Often the seat next to me is one of the last ones to be taken on the bus. Once a young girl
boarded the bus and saw me and immediately told here mother loudly, eeee, mummy,
Indian... smelly.” (I did not smell or look shabby.).
It is fairly obvious that a general pattern of racially motivated discrimination emerges
in everyday encounters and contacts between Chinese and Indians. Though they may
not take place on a regular basis, it is hard to deny that they don’t occur at all. Name
calling, the use of expletives, and stereotyping are born out of an attempt to label
Indian bodies as inferior, a threat and mark them out as different to Chinese bodies.
The terms such as ‘black’, dirty and smelly are not just hurtful and distressing but can
result in what Fanon (1967: 11) describes as “the internalisation or the
epidermalisation of this inferiority”. The respondents in my study were clearly
affected by the disparaging remarks to the point that they felt that it has damaged
their self-esteem and confidence. The lacking in athleticism or trying a sport which
Indians don’t excel well is seen as a point of mockery. Moreover, the subtle as well as
overt responses to the Indian body such as the impulse to avoid sitting next to an
Indian and holding of the nose as an expression of revulsion may not appear as acts of
racism but are powerful means by which displeasure and fear is conveyed. The
assertion of the superior status of the Chinese arguably comes about because of their
position as the dominant majority in Singapore. Unlike in neighbouring Malaysia and
Indonesia, where Chinese exists in small numbers, the Singaporean Chinese
population is a powerful force as they dominate the economic, social and cultural
sectors
In addition, the arrival of large number of non-skilled workers from India since the
late 1980s has further intensified ongoing racist practices. There are some 160, 000
non-skilled foreigners currently working in Singapore - a majority of them are from
the Indian subcontinent. These workers congregate in the Indian historical and now
tourist enclave called Little India. During Sundays and public holidays, the Indian
workers gather here to do their shopping, meet friends, eat and so forth. However,
these large gathering has not only created an uproar among non-Indian Singaporeans
but also to the perpetuation of racists sentiments and stereotypes about Little India.
As one informant noted:
“Friends (yes, people I actually know quite well) who avoid Little India like it's some
Danger Zone. I can take it if they tell me they're not used to the food or the smell of
spices and incense, but to make comments like, "eeee, all the Bangla and Indian
workers hang out there" are uncalled for. It's not just about the workers (I mean if
they were Chinese workers, these people won't kick up such a big fuss). I mean if you
want to talk about a place being dangerous, Geylang [an area famous for late night
food stalls, nightclubs and a red light district] can be said to be fraught with danger
too right? but no one seems to make a big deal out of it -- most Singaporeans have no
qualms about heading there for durians and supper” (Devi)
Another respondent, Thiru – reiterated:
6
I also have non-Indian friends who refuse to go to Little India on Sundays because they
fear being harassed by the Indian foreign workers who hang out there. I have heard
stories of cab drivers whizzing through Little India and only stopping for local
Singaporean customers. I have also seen on public transport – especially when taking
the train to Little India – how people will avoid sitting next to Indian men (in
particular).
It has to be said that although Singaporean Indians (who are mostly 3rd or 4th
generation) try to dissociate themselves from the temporary Indian workers, they are
invariably implicated and are to subjected similar racist overtones. In this instance,
Little India with its large concentration of Indians (not frequented by many Chinese)
is perceived as an alien space which is potentially threatening and even dangerous.
Even though there are no crime statistics to show that it is an unsafe area – Little India
is a place which you would want to avoid. Such derogatory remarks and stereotyping
are becoming a common place in Singapore.
There are also many other instances of everyday racism relating to food, homes,
neighbourhood, characterization of Indian behaviour and so forth that I am aiming to
examine in the longer version of the paper. But in conclusion, I want reiterate that
everyday racism in Singapore is fairly widespread especially within dominant and
minority relationship and encounters. Unfortunately, such experiences are never
articulated or openly discussed in the public arena. As a result, they continue to
simmer beneath the warm and fuzzy image of a harmonious and tolerant image of
multiracial Singapore.
7
References
Amin, Ash. 2002. ‘Ethnicity and the Multicultural City: Living with Diversity,
Environment and Planning A 34(6): 959–980.
Benjamin, Geoffrey (1976) ‘The Cultural Logic of Singapore’s ‘Multiracialism”, in Riaz
Hassan (ed.) Singapore: Society in Transition. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University
Press.
Chan, Heng Chee (1975) ‘Politics in an Administrative State: Where has the Politics
Gone?’, in Seah Chee Meow (ed.) Trends in Singapore. Singapore: Institute of
Southeast Asian Studies.
Chua, Beng Huat. 1998. ‘Culture, Multiculturalism, and National Identity in
Singapore, in Kuan-Hsing Chen (ed.) Trajectories: Inter-Asia Cultural Studies.
Routledge: London.
Clammer, John (1998) Race and State in Independent Singapore 1965-1990: the Cultural
Politics of Pluralism in a Multiethnic Society. Brookfield, Vt : Ashgate.
Fanon, Frantz. 1967. Black Skin, White Masks. Grove Press: New York.
Fanon, Frantz. 1965. The Wretched of the Earth. Grove Press: New York.
Goulder, Alvin. 1975. ‘Sociology and Everyday Life’, in Lewis Coser (ed.) The Idea of
Social Structure. Harcourt Brace and Jovanovich: New York.
Heller, Agnes. 1984. Everyday Life. Routledge: London.
Lai, Ah Eng. 1996. ‘Everyday Spaces, Ordinary People and Everyday Life Activities’,
in Lee Weng Choy (ed.) Space, Spaces and Spacing. The Substation: Singapore.
Lorde, Audre. 1984. Sister Outsider : Essays and Speeches. Crossing Press: New York.
Rahim, Lily. 1998. The Singapore Dilemma: The Political and Educational Marginality of the
Malay Community. Oxford University Press: Kuala Lumpur.
Quah, Jon. 1990. ‘Government Policies and Nation-Building’, in Jon Quah (ed.) In
Search of Singapore’s National Values. Singapore: Times Academic Press.
Tremewan, Christopher. 1994. The Political Economy of Social Control in Singapore. St.
Martin’s Press: New York.
Trocki, Carl A. 2006. Singapore: Wealth, Power and the Culture of Control. Routledge:
London.
Vasil, Raj. 2000. Governing Singapore: A History of National Development and Democracy.
St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Wise, Amanda. 2005. ‘Hope and Belonging in a Multicultural Suburb’, Journal of
Intercultural Studie.s 26(1/2): 171-186.
Monday, July 2, 2007
Racism in Singapore
Taken from the "Today" newspaper:
Study finds children of different races are not mixing. Should we be surprised?
by Constance Singam
news@newstoday.com.sg
ARE you a racist? We are kidding ourselves if we think we are not. Let's admit it. We are all racist. That's the first step towards
change.
In Singapore, racism is institutionalised and we don't even challenge that. It is "normal".
However, racism is a learned social phenomenon. Children learn it from their families, through education, religion, the law and the
media.
I recall an incident in which two children, four and six at that time, thought it was fun to mimic a language they didn't understand
while watching an Indian programme.
Their father reprimanded them for being rude. "What do you think you are?" he asked them. They were surprised to discover that
they were Indians.
Another little boy I know, who must have been four at the time, discovered the notion of race when he was told that he was
Indian and that his friend was Chinese.
He then wanted to know what race his friend's brother was!
By the time children go to school, they would have learnt what it means to be "different". They learn it from their parents; they
learn it in the playground.
A young mother related a heart-rending experience that her two year-old son faces every time he goes out to play in the
playground of her HDB block.
Other mothers in the playground warn their children against playing with this little boy because of his "difference".
Once in school, they learn it in their "mother tongue" classes. They learn it from their teachers. They learn it when they fill forms.
By the time they reach Primary Six, their identity card would forever confine them to their racial group, labelling their "difference"
and depending on their experiences, they would have learnt to celebrate that "difference" or be ashamed of it.
A child told her mother recently that she wanted to kill herself because of her dark complexion.
A principal of a school that a little girl I know attended is known for her racial biases. Some of the teachers, as an exercise in
empowerment, taught the Indian girls an Indian dance for a school concert.
While the students proudly displayed their skill, the principal's comment was: "They can shake, shake. But they can't study."
In such an environment, they would have difficulties with their studies. Low self-esteem and internalised acceptance of the myth
of racial inferiority or superiority are the consequences of racism.
So, we should not be surprised by the results of the recently-published study by the National Institute of Education which
revealed that children of different races are not mixing with one another.
But it doesn't end there at the school level. A young woman, proficient in Mandarin and English, was not picked for a job
because she was not Chinese.
She applied for the job at a career exhibition, the requirement of which matched the qualifications she had, including proficiency
in Mandarin.
But she was told that the company was looking for a Chinese. These examples may be countered by the argument that that
there is racism in every country — which is true.
But racism is racism wherever it takes place. It threatens humanistic values and undermines the moral development of the whole
society.
The biggest problem we face in Singapore is that racism has been normalised. It is normal to describe people in terms of race,
for instance.
It is normal for the media to identify people in terms of race; it is normal to compare the achievement of various groups (for
instance, examination results) of school children along racial lines; it is normal to divide people in HDB housing estates according
to their ratio in the population; it is normal to limit the learning of language to "mother tongue".
These practices are racist and the tendency towards sticking together and preferring the values and personal beliefs of one's
own group perpetuates racism.
And so, a society may live in peace together but they do so in a state of mutual isolation, suspicion and incomprehension. And no
wonder! In our system we are taught "racial harmony" with a narration of the history of racial riots.
That is "normal".
Yet, there are signs of tolerance everywhere.
For instance, there could be a Chinese funeral in one void deck while a Malay wedding is celebrated in another. Churches and
temples stand side by side, in amicable co-existence.
The Buddhist temple, the Christian church and the Sai Baba Centre located next to each other in Moulmein Road, is an amazing
testimony to this high degree of tolerance.
The most positive affirmation of the triumph of a common humanity is seen in the ever increasing number of inter-racial
marriages.
And who among us has not experienced the wonder of cross-cultural friendships, occasions of kindness and generosity
across racial and, sometimes, even language barriers?
My own experience in civil society supports my optimism in the ability of Singaporeans to suspend their individual prejudices,
racial and class differences, and work towards common values and goals.
However, for all that optimism, the level of racism will not diminish if we continue to assume that group differences are
biologically determined and, therefore, inherently unchangeable.
We will then remain a nation of racists.
Extracted from Today, Thursday July 31, 2003
Friday, June 15, 2007
Anti-Discrimination, Singaporean Style
So Singapore is finally getting serous about racial discrimination. Recently the government has annoucned new guidelines to try and ensure that discrimination doesn't occur. Commendable effort, but unless it is actually backed up by statute law, the author believes it will be a failure.
I mean, many other bloggers have complained about ads that essentially state 'chinese only need apply' (abliet in code) through things like "must be able to speak mandarin" (the company does no business with mainland china) or "chinese working environment" and so forth.
So my question is this: if you are a non-chinese living in singapore and you are discriminated against in a job selection process, what recourse do you have?
Therein lies the crux of the problem.
I mean, many other bloggers have complained about ads that essentially state 'chinese only need apply' (abliet in code) through things like "must be able to speak mandarin" (the company does no business with mainland china) or "chinese working environment" and so forth.
So my question is this: if you are a non-chinese living in singapore and you are discriminated against in a job selection process, what recourse do you have?
Therein lies the crux of the problem.
Monday, March 19, 2007
The First Five
The first five articles posted on this blog cover a variety of issues. Singapore comes into special attention with a variety of articles focusing on the challenges faced by non-chinese minorities in the Lion City.
Although Singapore has done much to stop racial violence the academic study in particular shows that even the younger generation of Singaporeans show some racist traits, although thankfully they are not a majority. The two articles also questions the assertion made by many Singaporeans i have encountered that Singapore is a land of equal opportunity. Of particular concern is the lack of anti-discrimination statute law in Singapore.
Hong Kong also is in the spotlight today with an excellent article looking at the racist attitudes towards non-asians, especially those with brown skin colour. Attitudes towards darker skin color are also examined in the Korean context and an excellent article on Asian Racism in general from the International Herald Tribune is also posted.
One key features of asian racism is that it is often thinly disguised under 'nationalistic feeling' or 'patriotism'. Another common feature when dealing with asian racists is that complaints by minorities simply dismissed or disbelieved.
A common tactic of asian racists is to attack your home country or culture and point out it's flaws and on this basis suggest that you have no 'right' to offer observations or criticisms of their culture or own racist policies. I hope these articles can begin to provide an insight into the complex world of asian racism and begin to equip enlightened and tolerant people to question, consider and attack the issues when suitable occasions to do so arise.
Although Singapore has done much to stop racial violence the academic study in particular shows that even the younger generation of Singaporeans show some racist traits, although thankfully they are not a majority. The two articles also questions the assertion made by many Singaporeans i have encountered that Singapore is a land of equal opportunity. Of particular concern is the lack of anti-discrimination statute law in Singapore.
Hong Kong also is in the spotlight today with an excellent article looking at the racist attitudes towards non-asians, especially those with brown skin colour. Attitudes towards darker skin color are also examined in the Korean context and an excellent article on Asian Racism in general from the International Herald Tribune is also posted.
One key features of asian racism is that it is often thinly disguised under 'nationalistic feeling' or 'patriotism'. Another common feature when dealing with asian racists is that complaints by minorities simply dismissed or disbelieved.
A common tactic of asian racists is to attack your home country or culture and point out it's flaws and on this basis suggest that you have no 'right' to offer observations or criticisms of their culture or own racist policies. I hope these articles can begin to provide an insight into the complex world of asian racism and begin to equip enlightened and tolerant people to question, consider and attack the issues when suitable occasions to do so arise.
More on Singapore
The Farce City
by Ana Jumari
G21 ASIA Staff Writer
"Racism seems to just be coffee talk, you know? It's a taboo that only a minority ... talk of openly. People know it exists but people just turn a blind eye ..." --- Kir
Back in mid-July, 1964, a huge celebration commemorating prophet Mohammed's birthday involved 25,000 Moslems who were supposed to march approximately 7 kilometers from the Padang (our national parade square in the center of our island) east to Geylang (the poster area for the Malay community).
The celebrations were cut short when someone threw a bottle and ticked off more than a few.
By 6 PM that day, Geylang was licked in flames and cars had been overturned. Half an hour later, the first of the clashes was reported at Chinatown. The violence spread throughout the small island like fingers of hate. By the end of the first day, 4 people had been sacrificed and 178 more injured.
At the end of the two-week nightmare, the racial riots of 1964 had claimed 23 lives and amassed nearly 500 casualties.
Almost 30 years later, New York Times writer Steven Erlanger (NY Times, May 13, 1990) points out that "Singaporean officials now like to speak of the city-state as a mosaic of cultures --- a successful amalgam of immigrant peoples who have made an implausible nation succeed through hard work, tough government, anti-Communism and free enterprise."
Looks great on the brochure doesn't it?
And for the longest of time, I've had to grapple with the fused idea that my country is both "multi-racial" and "Chinese". Which is it? Define "multi-racial." Four ethnic groups crammed on this little island. This island renowned for "political stability."
One interesting question: Isn't this all a masquerade?
Ku Klux Klansman, Black Nationalist, Serb, Bosnian, Yugoslav, Palestinean, Israeli --- ethnic discrimination amasses libraries of books in the histories of this planet. And people wonder what it is about Singapore that keeps its people so harmonious. Think it's the water? *shrug*
"Singaporeans are not blind to the racism that exists but [choose] to be blind --- for a simple reason -- harmony and peace." -- Vin
Every single day, four different races ride in the same buses, the same trains. And every single day, each is gossiping about the other.
I have come to realize a sad fact growing up in this country -- native Malays and Indians will always be second-rate citizens wherever we go. And if I know it, most of my comrades here know it, too.
Four years ago, the web became the platform for yet another interesting discussion. [http://www.sintercom.org/sef96/discrimination.html].
An nteresting observant calling himself"Sheik" pointedly notes that "...under the [Singapore] Constitution, the government may not discriminate solely on the grounds of race, religion, language or decent in the passing of or implementation of any law. But there is nothing preventing private individuals and corporations from [practicing] such discrimination.
"In UK there is a Race Relations Act which prohibits any such practice. Isn't it a little strange that people can legally be racists in Singapore, free from rules that even the government must obey?"
That is not strange my friend, that is pure irony. You don't have to be a lawyer to know that the law has become a toy of manipulation -- a puppet on strings. "Multi-racial" in and of itself, can already be seen as a division of the races. It almost looks to me like the government is refusing to recognize its existence.
The media constantly downplay how strong ethnic favoritism has grown, how boldly it is implemented. And ironically, it is easiest in the print media to find blatant racial discrimination. Grab a paper, whip open the classifieds and scan the ads - "Bilingual in English and Chinese preferred". Send a resume, go for an interview. "Oh, you not Chinese hah? Don't call us, we'll call you."
"We may have degrees --- diplomas, or masters but in the end [somehow] we ... must be Chinese speaking. " -- D
" ... forget [the] qualifications cos all they [want] is a CHINESE ..." -- Vin
I have not come to understand the mindset of these employers. At the end of the day, all that results from blue/white collar labor are human relationships. Humans have built, from skin alone, massive walls that divide. Do they really enjoy strengthening this wall between two people of different color?
I apologize.
I forget once again. It is always so much easier to strengthen the wall, than it is to break it.
"The result for its minority populations: an enhanced feeling of distance, divisiveness, and alienation" - Fuller.
"For many years, no one said nothing and it'll continue. The repression that the [minorities] feel will always be there and it'll take many years to eradicate this feeling that is instilled in them." -- Vin
Personally, I've grown skeptical of "national pride" (I challenge you to blame me). I don't need official figures to slap me awake. The one country I proudly sang about when I was young and it has done so much in as far as casting aside the needs of my people, constantly bearing down on my people. And if I'm sitting here writing this, you can bet thousands more minority youths sitting around broaching exactly the same issue.
"It is so 'in your face' but people pretend not to look. You just can't [place] your finger on the right button." -- Farhan
My friends constantly remind me that everything comes with a price. I suppose that makes racism and racial discrimination the price-tag for all I can be thankful for -- the food on my table, the excellent public transport, excellent infrastructure, excellent technology, stable income ...
Price tag or otherwise, when is racism ever justifiable?
Singapore's population has reached its fourth million. Recent figures show that one in every four of us is foreign-born. That adds up to one million people. Ever wonder how the figures rose to that?
Associate Professor in Communications, Worcester College, Linda K. Fuller wrote an academic paper on the Singapore Chinese rule, posted 6/30/98 [http://kumo.swcp.com/biz/theedge/domrac.htm]. She cites Mutalib, who points out ""the intensification of the annual "Speak Mandarin Campaign'", the repeated call for Chinese to have more babies, the big budget for Chinese drama serials on television... and notes these trends:
" ... the insistence that the Chinese proportion of the population must stay and may reach a maximum of 76%, a liberal immigration policy designed to bring in some 100,000 Hongkong Chinese to Singapore, the official patronage for Confucian studies, and the building of Chinese theme parks and entertainment centers by Hongkong tycoons."
With racial figures constantly tipping the scales, how will the minorities carry on groping ahead amidst the seeming sandstorm?
It's always been a long, hard season for the minority in worlds where majorities govern, but the crops waiting for harvest have emerged stronger. With them, a newfound determination has evolved -- iron-will. As a minority member, I work harder, push harder hoping to catapult my people ahead.
"If a design firm won't hire me because of my race, I will use this anger [as a] catalyst to start up my own company and give that design firm a run for it's money. Get what I mean?" -- Kir
I am but a number in the constant run of statistics. So is he, he, she and he. We all are, but we can't be the only weights exerting our people ahead. As a minority, we need to wake up to the constant calls for the edge over the rat race. I cannot hope to catapult my people ahead by sitting down and thinking this is the best I've got because "I can't get any farther than this --- this isn't the country of my people."
"But hopefully, one day things do change and the younger generation will have the courage and strength to do what they deem is right and tell the world how things are really here." -- Vin
As a youth still gingerly stepping out, I am proud to be able to say that my people have surged farther ahead in the last ten years than we ever have since this country's independence. More of us recognize the need for continuing education. More of us recognize the influx of technology and the need for constant self-improvement.
But there is still that number who get carried away with wiles of youth. They drop out, look upon learning institutions with disdain, and then whine about life's bitchiness and the disadvantages of minority.
Narrow horizons have always been my people's most bitter enemy. If he opens himself to the vast universe of his mind and she does the same with hers, all our figures will add up. And that would be more than a catapult as figures for our community.
Then no one can bullshit us about what we can or cannot do with our skin.
" ... the thing about racism is not to let it get to you, but to keep going in spite of it and prove the attitudes wrong. If you let it get to you, then --- these chauvinists have succeeded in their hate campaign. Little solace, but all I can say is, welcome to the unfortunate real world of Singapore, my friend."Thank you, Sheik.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)