On Racism and Discourse Surrounding it in Singapore
Having witnessed recent events in Singapore — from the overtly racist incident in the MRT by a Singaporean lady to the recent incident involving the use of Ms Sarah Bagharib and her husband’s wedding photo as a cardboard cutout representing the cultural wear of the Malay-Muslim community within a Hari Raya Aidilfitri display by the People’s Association in Radin Mas, there are some thoughts I’d like to share, and the following contains my mere two-cents to the issue of racism and the discourse surrounding it in Singapore.
What is Racism?
In light of the exchange of words between the PA and Ms Bagharib, a key point of contention amongst many netizens was whether the PA’s actions constituted racism. Without a doubt, most netizens agree what the PA did was wrong, and that improvements were needed.
On whether what the PA did constituted racism though, there was less of a consensus. It is clear there exists a schism between different peoples’ understanding of the term “racism”, and from there, their judgment on whether an incident is a racist one. Some Singaporeans, especially those from the older generation, may remember racism to be acts along the lines of public racial segregation, discrimination and hate crimes, which aligns closely with the dictionary definition of racism:
(from the Oxford Dictionary)
“prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized”;
“the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another”.
By the above definition, some asserted that the PA’s actions could not constitute racism — it was not discrimination on the basis of race, and that the incident was mainly one of cultural appropriation and ignorance.
On the other hand, in recent times, the meaning and use of the term “racism” in our language has evolved beyond dictionary-bound definitions — actions that are offensive/unpleasant towards a racial group are often seen as racist in today’s standards. It has moved on from being offensive to someone to what feels offensive to them — there is a key difference between the two.
Say, if an innocent action by a citizen offends members of a certain race, some would instinctively extend the term “racist” to this particular action, even if the intentions behind that action was innocent and non-racist. Some Singaporeans, especially the younger generation, may see racism as the perpetuating of acts that are deemed offensive by the affected race, regardless of the intention behind that act.
And rightly so — most of us are often unable to truly understand how it feels to be marginalised. Some of these acts may be unintentional, yet they could bring back unpleasant memories of the times when similar acts were done with intent amongst those on the receiving end, and negatively affect them as a result.
Of course, there are nuances — it is not a clear younger-older generational divide, with intra-generational differences as well; there are viewpoints that land in the in-betweens of the two, but this is just an example.
Beyond that, the modern understanding of the term racism also carries with it complexities that extend beyond discrimination — for example, stereotyping can be considered racist, as persistent negative stereotypes could fuel institutional racism by shaping views on policy.
The term “racism” also carries a heavy moral weight behind it — there is consensus that being racist is morally wrong. This moral weight was likely derived from the initial understanding of racism and its associated acts, such as racial segregation or overt hate crimes. As our understanding of the term “racism” evolves, with acts of relatively lower severity coming within the boundaries of what modern society understands as racist, applying this term with its considerable moral weight to describe such acts is something that is subject to much disagreement amongst the general populace.
This is why considerable time and effort has been spent by different parties debating the characterisation of this issue, a topic which has become divisive — some feel it’s not right to label someone as racist when the intentions behind their mistaken actions are good while others beg to differ. As always, there are more nuanced positions, but this is an example.
One thing is for sure: most parties agree on the core issue at hand — that the PA’s actions were wrong and offensive to members of the Malay-Muslim community, and that change is needed in their processes and organisational oversight to ensure something similar is never repeated.
Not one person has a monopoly on a specific, fixed definition on what racism is, and the lines defining its boundaries with, say, cultural insensitivity or prejudice. Nevertheless, the main point of the above paragraphs is to exhibit the possible reason for the different viewpoints held by different parties surrounding the understanding and labelling of this particular issue. From there, it is my hope the differing parties can be more understanding of the reasons behind the other’s characterisation or labelling of this incident, and understand that while they disagree in those aspects, they are largely in agreement of the rights and wrongs, and what has to be done to ameliorate it.
Perhaps, the label isn’t nearly as important as the underlying issues that should be examined by society.
On Institutional Racism in Singapore
As TODAY reports, Mr Mohamed Imran Mohamed Taib, an interfaith activist and founding board member of the Centre for Interfaith Understanding, said that racism cannot just be confined to an act of an individual or a particular incident.
He said in a Facebook post on Tuesday — which he confirmed with TODAY was a response to the PA incident — that racism is a “structure, and a system of thinking and doing, that can manifest in an individual, group or social organisation through a style of thinking, speech and communication, law and policy, and physical action”.
Institutional racism often entails organisational structures, systems and processes that propagate or facilitate racial discrimination and other forms of discriminatory actions. It often reinforces a system of advantage based on race.
On this particular organisation, the PA, this incident was certainly not the best they could do as an governmental institution that has focused on fostering racial and religious harmony in Singapore for the past few decades. Is this incident then a symbol of wider institutional racism existing within the PA?
It is imperative to consider whether this incident was an isolated one — presence of institutional racism within this organisation would more likely than not lead to a pattern of similar acts of racial insensitivity and cultural appropriation. I will acknowledge I am not sufficiently well-researched to say with confidence whether a history of similar actions exists within the PA, but this is a point that should be considered prior to arriving at a verdict on whether institutional racism exists within the PA. Not every incident of cultural insensitivity and appropriation involving a governmental organisation warrants a label of institutional racism — it would be ill-informed to jump to conclusions without the abovementioned consideration.
On wider Singaporean society, does institutional racism generally exist? Certainly. We’ve all heard the long history of allegations and anecdotal examples within National Service — it is one of many examples. Ideally, these should be acknowledged, and actions should be taken to progressively shift our institutions towards improvement. It is the least we could do.
On the Societal Gap of Understanding and the Way Forward
At risk of overgeneralisation, the older generation of Singaporeans grew up in much different circumstances compared to the younger generation. This necessarily entails, generally speaking, a different upbringing and a different worldview — this extends towards the understanding of what racism is and the complexities surrounding it. On an intra-generational level, there also exists differences in level of understanding within the complex issue of racism.
As such, friction can appear within Singaporean society as we Singaporeans attempt to navigate a historically taboo topic, each with possibly differing worldviews and understanding on what racism entails.
An older generation Singaporean may not view their casual passing remarks on race as racist, though it may be deemed as casual racism in the eyes of younger Singaporeans; a younger generation Singaporean that has not been exposed to the nuances of racism may not deem some acts as racist; some Singaporeans may be uncomfortable on the use of the label “racist” and its associated moral weight on acts that they perceive as relatively less severe. On the other hand, many younger generation Singaporeans perhaps see those particular incidents as racist — as the small parts that, when added up, continue to perpetuate racism in society.
I understand that, cumulatively, minority races in Singapore have faced discrimination and prejudice for a long time. These need not manifest themselves in obvious ways, but can exist as casual racism and microaggressions. They’ve had to wait far too long for a societal reckoning and discussion of this important issue.
Nevertheless, as we navigate this issue, let us do so in an atmosphere of understanding and persuasion. A mindset change on this issue, especially amongst those who grew up in vastly different circumstances, will take time. There are those who might not even realise they have been subconsciously discriminatory; others may disagree on the extent of racism, on the boundaries of what is considered racism. They could very well be the ones closest to us. They could be good, everyday Singaporeans with a different worldview.
Make no mistake, they are a silent, yet sizeable percentage of society. Let us educate and change their worldview, step by step, without doing it in an overly confrontational way that sets them on the defensive. Let us hear what they have to say, and tactfully correct their misguided views. Even if unsuccessful in a complete change in worldview, often, there would some, if not substantial, progress towards that direction. It’s plausibly better than if they kept quiet and perpetuated the same views to like-minded individuals within echo chambers.
I understand it may be a lot to ask, especially to some Singaporeans in the minority races. I understand that my request for patience and gradual change comes from a position of privilege — having been within the majority in Singapore, I’ve not faced much discrimination or prejudice. However, I personally feel this is the most effective approach — to obtain gradual, incremental change while getting most of Singaporean society on board; to change, not alienate; to educate, not condemn.
Of course, unless you’re one of those who are openly and hopelessly racist. Then perhaps all the condemnation in the world would not suffice.
Beyond that, let us take small yet significant steps towards a more inclusive future. It is a period of transition — for far too long, much has been glossed over under the banner of racial harmony. Already, we have seen progress in recent years. Let us keep moving in the right direction, with empathy, understanding and persuasion. Let us all do the little things we can to contribute to this effort, to change Singaporean society for the better.
