RACE

Enduring Understandings
1. Race is determined by one’s biological heritage whereas ethnicity is determined by social,
cultural and religious factors. However, these terms are often used interchangeably.
2. Race has played and continues to play a significant role in determining one’s social and
economic status.
3. Privilege intersects with race to create or limit access to opportunities.

Essential Questions
1. What do we understand by the term ‘race/ ethnicity’?
2. How important is racial heritage?
3. How do historical perspectives on race affect us?
4. How do stereotypes (affect the way we perceive racial identity?) cause us to understand/
misunderstand race?
5. How does race intersect with other factors to create or limit access to opportunities?
6. How do national policies affect our understanding of race?
7. What does it mean to have racial equality?
8. How is racial equality perceived in Singapore?
9. How appropriate and effective are measures taken in the pursuit of racial equality in Singapore?
Article 1
Source: http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/what-pledge-should-mean-today
What the Pledge should mean today
Calvin Soh (The Guardian, 2 September 2014)

My daughter came home one day and proudly recited the Singapore Pledge to me. She had just learnt it
and was, naturally, a little uncertain. Imagine a five-year-old girl reciting it as if there were a question
mark after every line. It made me think because I have never questioned the Pledge. I bet most of us
have not.

The Pledge was written in 1966 and it made complete sense for a simpler, less complex time in
Singapore. It established who we were, our goals and our vision, all in 38 words. It was written for a
young, desperate nation with one concern: Survival. Almost half a century later, do the words still carry
the same meaning? Let us assume Singapore is run like a company. That is like working for one where
the vision has not changed or evolved for 49 years. Yes, the Pledge enabled us to progress from Third
World to First World. But will it take us to where we want to go?

The Pledge was written when Singapore had to find its place in the 20th century’s manufacturing and
controlled economy. Now, we have to find our place in this century’s knowledge, ideas and
collaboration economy. The new normal since the 2011 General Election has also seen a significant shift
in Singaporeans’ political values, attitudes and aspirations. Globalisation and ever-evolving technology
have transformed the way we live and interact with one another. So, what is the “new-normal” Pledge
for the “new-normal” Singapore?

WE, THE CITIZENS OF SINGAPORE

There were only four races then, but in this globalised world, it is a bit more complex. What values do
we believe in? Do we share the same vision?

In the 21st century, immigration is even more vital to Singapore. It was vital in the past when my
grandfather came here and contributed to Singapore’s growth along with other pioneers. Today, we
need progressive people who share the same vision and goals. The operative word is talent, not foreign.
In the new normal, citizens must be knowledgeable, creative, open, curious and comfortable with
constantly-changing technology. Our education system and government policies must constantly evolve
with new global realities.

PLEDGE OURSELVES AS ONE UNITED PEOPLE

In the new normal, what are the beliefs that will unite us?

Do we believe it is necessary to embrace failure because it is part of the journey to success? Do we

believe experience and achievement outrank paper qualifications? Do we believe the Government
needs to trust the people more? Do we need to create our own art, music, food, language, fashion and
architecture? I would say yes to all of the above.
To be truly united, we have to accept that we all have different points of view. But we will get along
despite that. Being united also means while the majority rules, it rules in such a way that it will accept
and consider the minority’s ideas. All philosophy, religion and ideas always start with the few before it is
accepted by the many.

REGARDLESS OF RACE, LANGUAGE AND RELIGION

These three topics are the most polarising in Singapore society. Just because they are does not mean we
tiptoe around them. We must be trusted to have a frank conversation about these issues and be clear
on where everyone stands. But one principle stands above all others: If you want to be part of this
nation, the country comes first, not your race, language or religion.

Is Malay still our national language? If it is, then it deserves more prominence as it is integral to our
identity. And where does Singlish fit in? Some are ashamed of it, while others are proud of its
uniqueness. And lately, religion is a very touchy subject. Everyone ought to remember that public life
and government decisions should remain secular.

TO BUILD A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY

What kind of democratic society? One ruled by elites? Democratic society in the new normal has to be
collaborative and the responsibility shared between the people and the Government. Why? Because the
people want to be part of the process. We have the technology for consultative and participatory
dialogue to take place. Platforms such as http://crowdhall.com are designed for that. The Greeks had
the right idea about democracy, they just did not have the servers. We do now.

BASED ON JUSTICE AND EQUALITY

Are we consulted on our own laws governing us? Do we have a say in what we can watch, read, write or
blog? “New-normal” laws need to be responsive to business and society. What is acceptable to us now is
very different from 50 years ago.

The Internet needs to be kept free because in some ways, it is a great equaliser. It is part of our lives
now, carrying not only news and trolls. It is true that the Net is a double-edged sword, but I would rather
have that than a single-edged sword that cuts only one way. We also have to define what equality
means if you are married or unmarried, male or female, or lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. This is
the inevitable conversation we must have as a nation.

It is better to have this difficult conversation now than to pretend it does not exist and hope it will go
away, the way our fathers used to, because we need to move from toleration to acceptance of whatever
the outcome may be.

SO AS TO ACHIEVE HAPPINESS, PROSPERITY AND PROGRESS FOR OUR NATION

Do happiness, prosperity and progress have equal weight or is one more important than the others? If
so, which is the most important? How do we measure prosperity? What do we mean by progress? In the
new normal, happiness is one that combines both profit and purpose, one that feeds the stomach and
the mind. Prosperity should come with a conscience, compassion and empathy, while preserving our
past because we need to know where we came from to know where we are going.

So take a little time to reflect on what the Pledge means to you. The context has changed, so we have to
make those words mean something to us, like it did to our forefathers. After all, in this day and age of
exponential change, it no longer takes a generation, but every half- or quarter-generation, to find their
own Pledge and their own “new-normal” Singapore.

I know my daughter would. Because I will raise her to question everything, to think for herself and make
up her own mind.

Calvin Soh, a Singaporean father of two, is the founder of brand agency Ninety Nine Percent and co-
founder of history app Time Travellr.
Article 2
Source: https://www.ipscommons.sg/the-we-in-our-national-pledge/
The ‘We’ in our National Pledge
Janadas Devan (16 January 2016)

“We” – it is the first word in the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States : “We the People…”
It is also the first word in our National Pledge: “We, the citizens of Singapore…”

It is an example of what in modern rhetorical theory has come to be known as a “catachresis” – a

linguistic imposition that brings into existence that which it posits. The “we” in “we the people” is the
application of a pronoun “used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself and one or more other people
considered together”, as the Oxford English Dictionary defines “we”, to a much larger grouping of
people largely unacquainted with each other – in the US, China or Singapore – thus bringing into
existence the “imagined community” that we collectively posit by referring to ourselves as “we”.

When it was applied by the framers of the United States Constitution to the “people” of the 13 colonies,
they in effect claimed for the people the sovereignty that had hitherto reposed in the king – with the
royal “we” thus replaced by the popular “we”.

The first time we heard “we” used to describe us was in the famous press conference that the founding
prime minister Lee Kuan Yew gave on the occasion of Singapore’s Separation from Malaysia. We all
remember the tears he shed that day when he said he would always look back on our leaving Malaysia
as “a moment of anguish”.

What most of us forget – till we were reminded of it at last year’s National Day Parade – was that he had
ended the press conference on an altogether different note, with these stirring words: “We are going to
have a multiracial nation in Singapore. We will set the example. This is not a Malay nation; this is not a
Chinese nation; this is not an Indian nation. Everybody will have his place, equal; language, culture,
religion… And finally, let us, really Singaporeans – I cannot call myself a Malaysian now – we unite,
regardless of race, language, religion, culture.”

“I cannot call myself a Malaysian now” – that transition from one “imagined community”, Malaysian, to
another, Singaporean, was fraught with tension.

It is too embarrassing 50 years later to recall the pathos of “I cannot call myself a Malaysian now”. We
cannot understand why that transition from Malaysian to Singaporean should have been difficult.

Let me further illustrate this with another example, this time a statement made on March 17, 1966,
barely seven months after Separation: “A national identity for Singapore is not possible and the very
idea itself is ludicrous.”
Who said that? Lee Siew Choh? Lim Chin Siong? Possible, since the Barisan Sosialis and the Communist
Party of Malaya thought Singapore’s independence was “phoney”. But it was neither Dr Lee Siew Choh
nor Mr Lim who uttered this statement.

Perhaps David Marshall then. After all, Mr Marshall authored a number of colourful statements in the
course of his career. But alas, this wasn’t one among them.

The person who delivered this categorical judgment on the impossibility – the sheer ludicrousness – of a
Singaporean “national identity” was none other than S. Rajaratnam, the author of the Singapore
National Pledge and the muse of a Singaporean Singapore.

The Straits Times used a stark headline in reporting Mr Rajaratnam’s remarks: “Can Singapore Have a
Separate National Identity? ‘Ludicrous’ – Rajaratnam”.

The tension I spoke of earlier in referring to Mr Lee’s press conference – “I can’t call myself a Malaysian
now” – can be seen again in the way The Straits Times reported the story. Notice how it took care to say
“separate national identity”. The word “separate” should have been unnecessary. After all, by definition,
national identities are separate. So there is no need to insist: “Singapore cannot have a separate
national identity”. Separate from what?

The clue is provided in what else Mr Rajaratnam said on March 17, 1966: Reunification with Malaysia
was “inevitable”, he said. The forces of history will bring Singapore and Malaysia together again, he
prophesied. So you see, the subconscious of The Straits Times then – for it was still a paper serving both
Malaysia and Singapore simultaneously – its subconscious probably still held that Singapore could not
have a “separate” national identity apart from Malaysia. Separation was still assumed to be temporary.
Singapore may be a separate political entity – for a while, at any rate; but it could not have a separate
“national identity”.

That Mr Rajaratnam too could hold this view in March 1966 is all the more remarkable when one recalls
that he had penned the first draft of the National Pledge just the month before, on Feb 18. His name has
become inseparably linked to the Pledge, but there is also one other name whom we should remember
in connection with the Pledge.

RAJARATNAM’S FIRST DRAFT

The idea for the Pledge in fact originated with Mr Ong Pang Boon, then Education Minister. It was he
who first proposed that schoolchildren should have a flag-raising ceremony every day, accompanied by
the recitation of a Pledge. And it was he who sought Mr Rajaratnam’s advice on the wording of the
Pledge.

The draft Mr Rajaratnam first produced read thus: “We, as citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves to
forget differences of race, language and religion and become one united people; to build a democratic
society where justice and equality will prevail and where we will seek happiness and progress by helping
one another.” (The emphases added are mine.)

Note first the weak “we, as citizens of Singapore” – as though there is a distinction between “we” and
“citizens of Singapore”; as though the “we” here exceeded, went beyond, mere “citizens of Singapore”.
Might we hear in this subtle hiatus or gap between “we” and “citizens” the conviction that Mr
Rajaratnam expressed a month later – that there can be no such thing as a “Singaporean national
identity”?

His implicit, perhaps unconscious, logic seemed to be that Singapore may be a separate political entity –
with “citizens” to call its own – but its possession of a national identity awaited fulfilment in the not-so-
distant future when we are reunited with Malaysia.

We don’t have Mr Rajaratnam’s re-drafts or Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s edits, but the final version that
schoolchildren my age first recited on August 24, 1966, six months later – I remember that day clearly,
as though it were yesterday; I was in Primary 6 – began definitively and powerfully thus: “We, the
citizens of Singapore”.

No hiatus or gap between “we” and “citizens”. The “we” that we learnt to call ourselves from that day
coincided with “citizens of Singapore”. We thus came into existence as a collective pronoun: “We”.

ACCEPT, NOT FORGET, OUR DIFFERENCES AND THEN GO BEYOND THEM

I draw your attention next to what Mr Rajaratnam’s first draft enjoined us to do: “forget differences of
race, language and religion”.

Forget – meaning erase, extinguish, expunge, obliterate differences of race, language and religion? Can
that be possible?

How does one forget differences of language, for instance? Every time I hear a Chinese Singaporean
speak Mandarin or Hokkien, I am bound to remember, not forget, that I do not know Mandarin or
Hokkien, and that these languages produce world-views quite different from the languages I am
acquainted with. And as for forgetting differences among religions, who but an agnostic could have
taken that as a serious possibility?

The formulation in the Pledge as we know it – “one united people, regardless of race, language or
religion” – is more realistic in its command. It does not deny racial, linguistic or religious differences
exist, let alone call for their obliteration. Rather, we are enjoined to go beyond them.

“Remember we are different – and then accept our plurality, set aside our differences, go beyond
them,” the Pledge urges. That is difficult enough but far more possible than: “Forget our differences –
and then make sure you never remember them, erase all memory of our plurality”, as the first draft
would have demanded of us.
Sometimes, we have to remember our differences in order to go beyond them – as when we make
provisions for minority representation in Parliament, for instance. We could have said racial differences
don’t matter, let’s forget them, no need for a Presidential Council for Minority Rights, no need for
minority representation in Parliament. And of course if the electorate had then elected only Chinese to
Parliament, we would have discovered racial distinctions did matter after all, for the minorities would
most certainly have felt excluded.

In the US, the courts have insisted on electoral districts with built-in African-American or Hispanic
majorities to ensure minority representatives in legislatures. In Singapore, minorities are more or less
evenly distributed throughout the island – so there are no majority Malay or Indian constituencies – but
the Constitution guarantees minority representation in Parliament through group representation
constituencies.

It remains to be seen which is the better system, but both share a similar recognition: You cannot get E
Pluribus Unum – out of many, one – by simply denying that there are many.

“We, as citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves to forget differences of race, language and religion” or
“We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or
religion”. By choosing the latter, Singapore’s founding leaders recognised that we cannot be One
without also acknowledging that we are Many, any more than one can produce a rainbow by smudging
the different colours.

This is the first and most important thing we should note about the “we” in our Pledge: It does not call
for the erasure of differences. We are not enjoined to forget our separate identities. Rather, we are
urged to accept our plurality. And we are urged to go beyond them – go beyond our separate racial,
linguistic, religious, cultural identities, so as to encompass the imagined community that lies beyond our
differences.

Becoming Singaporean, in other words, from the beginning, was never conceived as a matter of
subtraction but rather of addition; not a matter of less but of more; not a matter of forgetting our
separate identities but of remembering the possibility of a national identity beyond those separate
identities.

It is difficult in retrospect to piece together what happened in those six months, between February 1966
(when Mr Rajaratnam penned the first draft of the Pledge) and August 1966 (when we first recited the
Pledge as we know it), but somehow our founding leaders – perhaps unknown to themselves, perhaps
tentatively – began imagining in those months the possibility of a national Singaporean identity, and
became firmer in their conviction that Singapore shall indeed “forever be a sovereign democratic and
independent nation”, as the Proclamation declares.

For the meaning of the Pledge – the meaning of “we” – was not obvious from the start. The Pledge itself
wasn’t the National Pledge as we now call it from the word go. Indeed, it wasn’t till 1987 that the Pledge
even featured in the National Day Parade, when an extended version of the song, We Are Singapore,
was sung as the grand finale, together with the recitation of the Pledge. And it wasn’t till 1988 that we
recited the Pledge with the right fist clenched to the heart, as we do now; before that we raised our
right hand as when taking an oath – as indeed the Pledge was initially conceived, an oath taken by
schoolchildren before the flag.

The meaning of the Pledge, in other words – the meaning of “we” – accrued as the story of our island-
nation unfolded. As we became more confident that a Singaporean national identity was not only
possible but was beginning to take shape, the “we” became more substantial and the Pledge became a
more powerful statement of our ideals.

It was the future of our own elaboration that imbued our originating symbols and ideals with meaning;
our history did not unfold like a macadamised road from our originating symbols and ideals. It was our
commitment to the possibility of a national identity – We, the citizens of Singapore – that produced the
“we”; we did not begin with a fully conscious “we” that came festooned with a ready-made national
identity.

And so should it be over the next 50, 100, 1,000 years: Every moment in our as yet to unfold tale must
begin with the decision: We shall exist.

It must always be possible to say “we, the citizens of Singapore”; that the elaboration of a “we” does not
require the obliteration of differences – racial, religious or linguistic; that we accept our pluralities –
political and social; that becoming a more perfect “we” or acquiring a deeper national identity, shall
always be a matter of becoming more than the sum of our parts, not less, addition, not subtraction.

Singapore will undoubtedly face many challenges in its future – political, social, economic. In politics, we
will have to learn to accommodate a demand for plurality, for a contest of ideas, for alternative views to
be represented in Parliament. In society, we will have to learn to manage new diversities aside from the
traditional ones of race, language and religion. In economics, we will have to strive to contain stark
differences of income and wealth, and ensure that no part of “we” is left behind.

It was an incredibly brave thing that our founding generation did 50 years ago. The notion that a
collection of such diverse peoples could have anything in common was indeed “ludicrous”.

But just as God said in Genesis: “Let there be light, and there was light”, our founding generation made a
decision to exist – “We, the citizens of Singapore” – and so we came into existence. But unlike the “fiat
lux”, this is a decision that has to be repeated over and over again, emphatically, or “we” literally shall
cease to exist.

Janadas Devan is Director of IPS. This excerpt of his opening remarks at the Singapore Perspectives 2016
conference was published in The Straits Times on 19 January 2016.
Article 3
Source: http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/in-his-own-words-equality-is-an-aspiration-it-is-not-
reality-it-is-not-practical

LKY: In his own words: 'Equality is an aspiration, it is not reality, it is not practical' (AUG 19, 2009)

In a motion to continue to affirm the tenets in the National Pledge when debating government policies,
Nominated MP Viswa Sadasivan questioned if it was time for Singapore to move beyond race and treat
everyone as an equal. The next day, Mr Lee Kuan Yew delivered one of his last major speeches in
Parliament and took it upon himself to "bring the House back to earth". He argued that equality of men
is an aspiration rather than the reality.

"Sir, I had not intended to intervene in any debate. But I was doing physiotherapy just now and reading
the newspapers and I thought I should bring the House back to earth.

Mr Rajaratnam had great virtues in the midst of despondency after a series of race riots when we were
thrown out during Independence. And our Malays in Singapore were apprehensive that now that we
were the majority, we would in turn treat them the way a Malay majority treated us. He drafted these
words and rose above the present. He was a great idealist.

It came to me; I trimmed out the unachievable and the Pledge, as it stands, is his work after I have
trimmed it. Was it an ideology? No, it is an aspiration. Will we achieve it? I do not know. We will have to
keep on trying. Are we a nation? In transition.

I want to move an amendment to this amendment that "acknowledges the progress that Singapore has
made in the 50 years since it attained self-government in 1959, in nation building and achieving the
aspirations and tenets...". These were aspirations. This was not an ideology.

Sir, reference was made to the Constitution. The Constitution of Singapore enjoins us to specially look
after the position of the Malays and other minorities. It comes under Articles 152 and 153...

We explicitly state in our Constitution a duty on behalf of the Government not to treat everybody as
equal. It is not reality, it is not practical, it will lead to grave and irreparable damage if we work on that
principle. So this was an aspiration.

As Malays have progressed and a number have joined the middle class with university degrees and
professional qualifications, we have asked Mendaki to agree not to have their special rights of free
education at university but to take what they were entitled to; put those fees to help more
disadvantaged Malays.

So, we are trying to reach a position where there is a level playing field for everybody which is going to
take decades, if not centuries, and we may never get there.
Now let me read the American Constitution. In its Declaration of Independence on 4th July 1776,
adopted in Congress, the Declaration read, in the second paragraph: "We hold these truths to be self-
evident that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
inalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights,
governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."...

Nowhere does it say that the blacks would be differently treated.

But the blacks did not get the vote until the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s with Martin Luther King
and his famous speech "We Dare to Dream". An enormous riot took place and eventually President
Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act, and it took many more decades before the southern states, which
kept the blacks in their position, allowed the registration of black voters and subsequently even after
that, to allow black students to go into white schools.

It was 200 years before an exceptional half-black American became president.

So, my colleague has put it: trying to put square pegs into round holes. Will we ever make the pegs the
same? No.

You suggest to the Malays that we should abolish these provisions in the Constitution and you will have
grave disquiet. So we start on the basis that this is reality. We will not be able to get a Chinese minister
or an Indian minister to persuade Malay parents to look after their daughters more carefully and not
have teenage pregnancies which lead to failed marriages; subsequent marriages also fail, and
delinquents. Can a Chinese MP or an Indian MP do that? They will say: "You are interfering in my private
life." But we have funded Mendaki and Muis, and they have a committee to try and reduce the number
of such unhappy outcomes.

The way that Singapore has made progress is by a realistic step-by-step forward approach. It may take
us centuries before we get to a similar position as the Americans. They go to wars - the blacks and the
whites.

In the First World War, they did not carry arms, they carried the ammo, they were not given the honour
to fight. In the Second World War, they went back, they were ex-GIs - those who could make it to
university were given the GI grants - but they went back to their black ghettos (in 1945) and they stayed
there. And today there are still black ghettos.

These are realities. The American Constitution does not say that it will treat blacks differently but our
Constitution spells out the duty of the Government to treat Malays and other minorities with extra care.

So the basis on which the Nominated Member has placed his arguments is false and flawed. It is
completely untrue. It has got no basis whatsoever. And I thought to myself, perhaps I should bring this
House back to earth and remind everybody what is our starting point, what is our base, and if we do not
recognise where we started from, and that these are our foundations, we will fail.

Note: Articles 1-3 present 3 perspectives on Singapore’s National Pledge. Compare the three perspectives
and assess them. How does the tone of each perspective differ from the others? How can you tell?
Article 4

Read this poem written by Claude McKay and respond to the following questions.

The Barrier

I must not gaze at them although

Your eyes are dawning day;
I must not watch you as you go
Your sun-illumined way;

I hear but I must never heed

The fascinating note,
Which, fluting like a river reed,
Comes from your trembling throat;

I must not see upon your face

Love’s softly glowing spark;
For there’s the barrier of race,
You’re fair and I am dark.

Claude McKay (1889-1948)

McKay’s poem speaks of the racial injustice (felt by the speaker in the poem) in an interracial
relationship.

Consider:
1. Refer to the poem’s opening stanza and its use of metaphors – how are they significant?
2. There is the repetition of “I must…” throughout the poem. What is implied about the speaker’s
tone?
3. Research task: how prevalent are interracial relationships in Singapore today?

Read this other poem written by Langston Hughes.

I, too

I, too, sing America.

I am the darker brother.

They send me to eat in the kitchen
When company comes,
But I laugh,
And eat well,
And grow strong.

Tomorrow,
I’ll be at the table
When company comes.
Nobody’ll dare
Say to me,
“Eat in the kitchen,”
Then.

Besides,
They’ll see how beautiful I am
And be ashamed—

I, too, am America.

Langston Hughes (1902-1967)

This poem, along with other works by Hughes, helped define the Harlem Renaissance, a period in the
early 1920s and 30s of newfound cultural identity for African Americans who had discovered the power
of literature, art, music, and poetry as a means of personal and collective expression in the scope of civil
rights. Here, the poem makes reference to the days of slavery, when African Americans were supposed to
be barely-visible labour instead of standing equal with their fairer fellow Americans. The implication of
this poem is that, in practice, not a whole lot has changed since then. So Hughes pens this poem, in which
he envisions a greater America, a more inclusive America. He claims with force that he is in fact part of
America – a country that's all about equality and freedom.

Consider:
1. Come up with at least two possible interpretations of the poem’s title.
2. In your opinion, who does the pronoun “they” refer to? Why would they be “ashamed”?
3. What is the difference between the poem’s opening and closing lines?
4. Is the world today more accepting of racial differences? What examples can you cite to support
your stand?
Article 5
Source: http://lkyspp2.nus.edu.sg/ips//wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2013/04/TD_why-we-need-to-talk-
about-race_190816.pdf
Why we need to talk about race
Matthew Matthews (19 January 2016)

The just-released Channel NewsAsia-Institute of Policy Studies survey on race relations captures the
reality of multicultural living in Singapore.

Broadly put, it sheds light on how Singaporeans have — or believe they have — interpreted and
exemplified our shared ethos of multiculturalism. More than 95% of the approximately 2,000
Singaporean residents surveyed agreed that diversity is valuable, and that all races should be treated
equally and with respect. They also reported that they lived peacefully with those of other races,
standing up for them and accepting them. While it is not possible to ascertain the depths of interactions,
many respondents said they had friends of other races and attended their cultural celebrations.

Perhaps the Singaporean Chinese, who constitute three quarters of our citizen population, should get
some credit for positive race relations in Singapore. Despite being an overwhelming majority, only a
third of those surveyed supported the statement that “It is only natural that the needs of the majority
race should be looked after first before the needs of the minority races”. By not clamouring for majority
rights, the Chinese have allowed the principles of meritocracy to gain substantial ground in Singapore.
This is evident from the 89% of respondents across races in the survey who agreed with the statement
that “Everyone who works hard, no matter what race they are, has an equal chance to become rich.”

But the strong endorsement of multicultural principles and relationships does not mean that our society
is free from racism. About a quarter of respondents perceived themselves to be at least mildly racist
while 38% of all respondents rated their close friends similarly.

Asked how racist most Singaporean Chinese, Malays and Indians were, nearly half of respondents
classified each of these generalised groups as at least mildly racist. Respondents were even more likely
to use the racist label when asked to rate new migrants from China, India and the Philippines. This
finding can be explained by social psychological research, which has shown that people often view
themselves more favourably. We judge others based on their actions but justify our own behaviour by
pointing to our good intentions.

Nevertheless the survey showed that a significant number of people had seen racism on display by
others, which reminds us that it still wields its head in our society. These racist behaviours are likely to
be of a mild variety, for few of our respondents, including minorities, in the last two years, had
experienced instances of insults, name calling, threats or harassment, which is the standard fare of
racism in many societies.

In Singapore, perceptions of racism tend to be based on interpersonal actions which may subtly convey
that one group is inferior. In this regard, more minorities compared to majority members agreed that
they had experienced incidents where “People have acted as if they think you are not smart” or “People
have acted as if they’re better than you are”. While two thirds of minorities who experienced such
incidents attributed these differential experiences to race, quite a number at the same time also linked
this to their educational or income level. This implies that sometimes it is difficult to tease out the exact
source of bias.

Another manifestation of the mild form of racism that respondents cited has to do with the presence of
racial stereotypes. Nearly half of respondents believed that people of some races are more disposed to
having the negative traits such as violence, getting into trouble and being unfriendly. While stereotypes
can be leveled at all groups, the effects of the stereotypes are different. Being labelled “enterprising”,
“afraid to lose” and “money-minded” may be regarded as necessary traits for success in competitive
market environments. But to be viewed as “overly religious”, “boisterous”, “lazy” or “smelly” may have
rather dire consequence in how one is treated and might inhibit entry and progress in a profession. It
can sometimes also convey that one’s racial and cultural background is essentially second class and
subject to derision.

Some have contended that racism can also be seen when people prefer a member of their race to fulfill
certain roles. The survey results confirmed that most people are more comfortable with someone who is
racially similar when it comes to marrying into the family, sharing personal problems, managing one’s
own business, and the appointment of the Prime Minister and President. Such preferences seem to be
etched deep into our being with some recent research claiming that even babies demonstrate such in-
group bias in choosing which other baby in their playgroup they will help.

However in-group bias is not always adaptive. Thus, many more minorities compared to majority
respondents reported their acceptance for the majority race to fulfill many roles — only 38% of Chinese
respondents would be accepting of a Singaporean Malay helping to manage their business while
practically all Chinese respondents would accept a fellow Chinese in that role. However, 82% of Malay
respondents said they would accept a Singapore Chinese in that role. This is because minorities who live
in a space with many more majority members are aware that it is simply not tenable to expect only
members of their race to fulfill important roles and relationships. But in our increasingly cosmopolitan
city, majority members also should realise that it may no longer be useful even for them to accept only
those who are racially similar to themselves in many relationships.

The character of racism that exists in Singapore was not shaped by acrimonious histories that have
plagued a number of societies, where specific groups have been actively subjugated, sometimes through
slavery and worse still genocide. Rather, the vestiges of racism here stem from our innate in-group
preferences which have sometimes left us lacking in sensitivity and self-awareness when we interact
with those who are ethnically different. If we are to overcome this we need to talk about our
differences, as much as we talk about our commonalities. It is through this process of frank discussion
and an openness to understand others that we can eliminate unfair stereotypes and biases. With that,
we can go beyond simply agreeing with our multicultural ideals to actually realising them in practice.
 Dr Mathew Mathews is a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies, National University of
Singapore. He was the lead researcher in the CNA-IPS Survey on Race Relations. This piece first appeared
in TODAY on 19 August 2016.

Consider:

In his interview at the 45th St Gallen Symposium, DPM Tharman mentioned that public housing estates
where 85 per cent of Singapore lives in, is the “most intrusive social policy” which has “turned out to be
the most important”, where “every single block of flats, of apartments, and every single precinct,
requires an ethnic balance.” He compared it to the United Kingdom, where half of the Muslim
population lives in the bottom 10 per cent of neighbourhoods, recognising that the “natural working of
society would have just as easily and more likely led to mistrust, discomfort, bigotry and what we see in
abundance in many countries around the world today.” He also acknowledged that “we have to address
these facts honestly and realise that human beings aren’t perfect; everyone has biases, discomforts, a
sense of liking or distrust for each other. And there is a rule of government – an elected representative –
to unify people...you need mechanisms, you need instruments. They mustn’t be too constraining on
individual choice, but you do need to constrain something.”

In the light of the 2016 IPS survey findings,

1. What are some of the political mechanisms and instruments, other than the housing policy cited
by DPM Tharman, to keep racist tendencies at bay?
2. How effective are they?
Article 6
Adapted from White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack: https://nationalseedproject.org/white-
privilege-unpacking-the-invisible-knapsack

1. I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.

2. I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race

widely represented.

3. When I am told about our national heritage or about “civilization,” I am shown that people of

my color made it what it is.

4. I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of

their race.

5. I can go into a music shop and count on finding the music of my race represented, into a

supermarket and find the staple foods that fit with my cultural traditions, into a hairdresser’s

shop and find someone who can cut my hair.

6. I can swear, or dress in second-hand clothes, or not answer letters, without having people

attribute these choices to the bad morals, the poverty, or the illiteracy of my race.

7. I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race.

8. I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group.

9. I can remain oblivious of the language and customs of persons of color who constitute the

world’s majority without feeling in my culture any penalty for such oblivion.

10. I can be pretty sure that if I ask to talk to “the person in charge,” I will be facing a person of my

race.

11. I can easily buy posters, postcards, picture books, greeting cards, dolls, toys, and children’s

magazines featuring people of my race.

12. I can go home from most meetings of organizations I belong to feeling somewhat tied in, rather

than isolated, out-of-place, outnumbered, unheard, held at a distance, or feared.

 13. I can take a job with an affirmative action employer without having co-workers on the job

suspect that I got it because of race.

14. I can choose public accommodations without fearing that people of my race cannot get in or will

be mistreated in the places I have chosen.

15. If my day, week, or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation

whether it has racial overtones.

16. I can choose blemish cover or bandages in “flesh” color and have them more less match my skin.

Consider: How does privilege and race intersect?

● Give students time to go through the checklist on their own and check their own “score” on the

checklist.

● Discuss the meaning and implication of these criteria.

● Based on the criteria - what is the meaning of privilege (can use the analogy of “Invisible

knapsack” to help explain the idea)?

● How does privilege work? (Article to help the

discussion: https://www.vice.com/en_id/article/gvqa59/what-privilege-looks-like-in-singapore)

● How is the situation similar or different from Singapore’s context? (Video and local checklist to
help the discussion: http://www.unsaid.sg/the-privilege-walk/ )
Article 7
Source: http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/policies-shaped-multiracial-nation
The policies that shaped a multiracial nation
(Kelly Ng, 8 August 2017)

Founding leaders believed ethnic integration was non-negotiable.

SINGAPORE — When Singapore became independent on Aug 9, 1965, multiracialism was written into the
Constitution.

It was to be expected since the issue was partly why Singapore had split from Malaysia. Disagreeing with
Tunku Abdul Rahman, the Republic’s founding leaders believed staunchly that multiracialism was non-
negotiable; it was the anchor needed to forge a nation.

Since then, multiracialism has shaped many major national policies, spanning education, housing and
politics, among others. Most recently, legislative changes were passed to ensure that the highest office of
the land reflects Singapore’s ethnic diversity via a provision for elections reserved for a minority community
that had not had a representative elected as President for five consecutive terms.

As with many previous policies that had to do with entrenching multiracialism, the prescriptive approach
ignited intense sentiments and public discussion. But seen in the cold light of day, analysts TODAY
interviewed agree that these measures have generally achieved the aim of averting “racial enclaves” ­— an
issue that remains relevant today, with global events signalling increased resentment towards minorities
and non-citizens.

While new issues with policies may emerge from time to time — given societal trends, for example -—
maintaining multiracialism has, and will always be a work in progress, they added.

National University of Singapore sociologist Tan Ern Ser noted that why race largely appears to not matter
in Singapore today was precisely because “there are these measures to ensure that their potential for
generating tension is nipped in the bud”.

Dr Janil Puthucheary, who chairs OnePeople.sg, an organisation to promote inter-racial and inter-religious
harmony here, added that these policies also give “assurance” that the good foundation built over the
decades is not unravelled by racist undercurrents.

EDUCATION AND NATIONAL SERVICE

One of the first things that Singapore’s pioneer leaders did was to overhaul the practice in schools of using
different languages to instruct different curricular.
Education, the Government recognised quickly, was not just a means to train up a workforce. Carefully
calibrated, education could be crucial in forging social stability and a sense of national identity among a
diverse population, they understood.

A series of reforms was undertaken to unify standards, most crucially, by mandating that English would be
the medium of instruction in schools, such that it would be neutral in the eyes of all races.

Yet, the idea was not to paper over the ethnic diversity. On the contrary, in a nod to ethnic heritage,
founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew made the study of a “mother tongue” ­— Mandarin, Malay or Tamil,
depending on race — compulsory.

He explained that the nexus between language and culture was crucial to creating a rugged, tightly-knit
society with “cultural ballast” because with the language go “the literature, proverbs, folklore, beliefs, value
patterns”.

Outside of education, the armed forces, which are made up mostly of conscripts, is another pillar of
national consciousness.

As an institution, the military offers a shared experience where every male of every family, regardless of
race or religion, has to play a role in the nation’s defence and security.

Dr Tan Ern Ser noted that National Service (NS) facilitates inter-ethnic interaction between soldiers to
“achieve a common national purpose”.

Nevertheless, universal conscription of Malays was not practised until 1985, as the authorities navigated
the challenge of integrating a multiracial population amid polarised race relations that came about from
separation from Malaysia and the racial riots in the 1960s. Today, Malays serve in the army, navy and air
force. In 2009, Brigadier-General (NS) Ishak Ismail was the first Malay Muslim to become a general in the
Singapore Armed Forces (SAF).

Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen reiterated in 2015 that a person is deployed in a sensitive unit in the SAF
based on his ability and beliefs, to ensure that he is not a security risk, and not on his race.

ETHNIC INTEGRATION IN NEIGHBOURHOODS

Since 1989, the racial quota in each Housing and Development Board (HDB) block and estate has been
controlled to broadly reflect Singapore’s racial proportion under the Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP).

The objective is two-fold: To prevent any particular race from congregating in a location giving rise to
“enclaves”; and to give residents more opportunities to interact with those from other races as they “go
about their daily lives”, said Dr Puthucheary, who is also Senior Minister of State for Communications and
Information, and Education.
The policy has largely met its aim, with every neighbourhood here a microcosm of society at large. Not only
have residents of all races formed strong neighbourly ties, they have largely accommodated each other’s
practices and customs, such as the burning of incense or the holding of wedding celebrations.

For all its successes, the EIP has drawn its fair share of criticism.

One has to do with how it appears to disadvantage certain ethnicities. A 2012 study by the Wharton School
of Business in Pennsylvania, for instance, found that HDB units restricted to the Chinese could be sold for
prices that are 5 to 8 per cent higher. Others wondered if the EIP needs tweaking in view of more inter-
ethnic marriages, and in turn, mixed parentage.

Currently, the quota that applies to mixed-race applicants depends on the first component of their “double-
barrelled race”.

For instance, a Chinese-Malay will be restricted by the quota imposed on Chinese occupants even though
he is half-Malay.

The order of components in the “double-barrelled race” would have been decided by the individuals (for
those above the age of 21), or their parents.

Singapore Management University law don Eugene Tan, who has researched ethnic and religious diversity,
said the EIP is an important first step, but noted that “people learn to live with differences through ... doing,
not simply being put together”.

He added: “There is no guarantee that putting people together will result in better understanding ... There
is a need to go beyond racial quotas, to embrace activities that enable people to see themselves as an
integral part of the community.”

GROUP REPRESENTATION CONSTITUENCIES

The Group Representation Constituency (GRC) scheme, though contentious when it was mooted as a way
to ensure minority representation in Parliament, has helped weed out “divisive racial sentiments”, said the
analysts.

The GRC system was first pitched in 1982, as Mr Lee sought to ensure minority representation in
Parliament, concerned that young voters were less aware of the importance of having multiracial Members
of Parliament (MPs).

Six years later, the idea came into fruition, with political parties fielding teams in a GRC being required to
have at least one minority team member. The size and racial composition of each GRC was defined by the
President and can change for each election.
“It means that all the political parties cannot take an anti-multiracial stance. You have to stand by these
values as part of the political process,” said Dr Puthucheary.

Some, such as civil society group Maruah, however, have argued that the requirement creates a barrier for
smaller political parties that want to contest in elections as they may be hard-pressed to field a quality
team.

The group also thinks that the scheme “entrenches the expectation of ethnic voting”.

As GRCs grew in size and numbers, so has the number of minority MPs. There were 14 when GRCs first
appeared on the Republic’s electoral history in 1988. Today, the number has slightly more than doubled to
30, including non-constituency and nominated MPs.

ETHNIC-BASED SELF-HELP GROUPS

Having found that a larger percentage of Malay students were consistently weaker in mathematics and
sciences, Mr Lee roped in Malay community leaders in 1980 to “tackle the problem of Malay
underachievement”. From there, the first self-help group, Mendaki, was born in 1982.

Over the years, Malay students’ achievements improved. Mendaki’s progress spurred the formation of the
Singapore Indian Development Association in 1991 and the Chinese Development Assistance Council in
1992.

Today, employees are required to contribute monthly to the self-help groups for their respective ethnic
groups, with the amounts determined by their monthly salaries.

Self-help groups may look uncontentious today, but back in the day, Mr Lee’s idea had naysayers, even
including from his closest political comrades.

Then Deputy Prime Minister S Rajaratnam, who crafted the National Pledge, for instance, feared the move
towards community-based self-help groups would strengthen communal pulls.

Today, a different challenge has emerged. Assoc Prof Eugene Tan said while the philosophy of getting the
community to help itself has its merits, getting Singaporeans to see that helping fellow countrymen is a
“civic duty” was far more important.

“We should keep ethnic self-help to matters in the private realm, such as issues specific to a particular
community. Where possible, help should be rendered at a national level,” he said.
 Activity

Language Discrimination social experiment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svDI7tkRsr0
Lesson aim: understand the power of language in creating barriers or granting access.

Guiding Questions:

1. What point is the man trying to make about language and race?
2. Consider Singapore context - what are some similarities? What are some differences we observe? →
might help people understand the difference between race, nationality and ethnicity
3. How does language create barriers or grant access? → Tutors can guide students to a discussion on
English language in the world today and how it might grant access or restrict people’s access to
opportunities in Singapore. Tutors might also want to bring the discussion to Mandarin in Singapore and
how it might create access or deny access.

Tutors may want to get students to look through and respond to the following article. (Please note that
this article has not been included in the students’ reading package)

Discussion on recent Singapore Mandarin Masterchef:

http://www.straitstimes.com/lifestyle/unhappiness-over-mandarin-language-local-edition-of-hit-cooking-
show-masterchef
Article 8
Source: http://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/being-chinese-in-multi-racial-spore
The Chinese Singaporean identity
Being Chinese in multiracial Singapore: A framework to check one's ignorance
(15 February 2018)

They are millennials who grew up under Singapore's bilingual education system and graduated from
Special Assistance Plan schools. Has their language background influenced their worldview? In the first
collaboration of its kind, two reporters, one from The Straits Times and the other from Lianhe Zaobao,
explore how the Chinese Singaporean identity has evolved in an exchange of views written in their
preferred languages. In this final of a 3-parter, they look at the issues arising from being the majority race.

A FRAMEWORK TO CHECK ONE’S IGNORANCE

Dear Wai Mun,It was only when a group of drunken men began shouting "chink" after me in the middle of
a wintry English night that the idea of "Chinese privilege" acutely hit home. It hit home because in
England, I no longer had it.

Growing up in Singapore, I navigated everyday life unmarked by my race. I never had to explain away how
I looked, or ever felt alienated by a group because of my ethnicity. After all, the Chinese were the majority
at home, and most of us never had to feel like outliers.

But in the English town of York, where I spent my university years, this sense of Chineseness was
something I could not quite escape from. "Where are you really from?" people would enquire, sometimes
curiously, sometimes patronisingly. Once, after a heavy snowstorm, children hurled snowballs at my
Chinese Singaporean friend, whom I later found in our hostel, freezing and close to tears.

When a Dr Lee Siew Peng wrote to The Straits Times Forum last year questioning why racism had
"suddenly become an issue in Singapore", it triggered a backlash. Many such as local novelist Balli Kaur
Jaswal took umbrage at Dr Lee's remarks that she had thought of herself as "simply a Singaporean" and
that she never had to deal with her "Chineseness" until she went to work in Europe.

"In Singapore, my 'Indian-ness' has always been an issue," pointed out Ms Jaswal. "Many minorities here
are questioned when they say they are Singaporean," she added.

Ms Jaswal echoes points that independent scholar and activist Sangeetha Thanapal made when she
coined the term "Chinese privilege" to refer to the behaviour of Chinese Singaporeans, akin to "white
privilege" in the West - not being able to see things from the viewpoint of those who are not in the
majority.

These sentiments speak to me. Though I had always been aware that racism existed in Singapore, it was
only after being part of a minority while studying abroad that I made a conscious effort to "check my
privilege".
The first thing I did was to be more aware of how simple words and actions in everyday life can be
insensitive - or even insulting - to those who are in minority groups.

Classmates, for example, politely commented on how good my English was, not realising that it was
precisely because their forefathers had colonised our country that had led us to learning English in school
in the first place. Others often casually lapsed into obscure references about local shows or historical
events in Europe that I had only the slightest inkling of in conversations.
Back home, whenever a group of people started speaking in Mandarin in the presence of someone who
was not Chinese, I would try my best to steer the conversation back to English.

While I used to stay quiet if someone made an offensive remark about a person of another race, I am now
bolder about calling it out, because I know how much it stings to be on the receiving end. Worrying issues
remain, such as employers who discriminate against hiring minorities even for jobs where Mandarin is not
required.

However, there are also times "Chinese privilege" feels like a blanket term, too broad and sweeping.
Many bandied the term "Chinese privilege" in protest in 2016, when Education Minister (Higher Education
and Skills) Ong Ye Kung said during a parliamentary debate on proposed changes to the elected
presidency that the Chinese community had made compromises in the interests of Singapore society.
They had accepted English as the State's working language, for instance, and thus would understand the
need to safeguard minority representation in the President's office, he said.

Perhaps it had been unwise for him to conflate this historical episode with the heated debate over the
reserved election, as these are two separate topics.

But it was also not wrong for Mr Ong to acknowledge the sense of marginalisation that a generation of
Chinese-educated Singaporeans felt when swept up by changes to the dominant language of instruction
in schools to English in the 1970s.

My mother, for example, gave up on further education beyond secondary school after grappling with the
new English syllabus. I am aware of the sense of disadvantage she must have felt when it came to getting
a job due to her limited grasp of English - a predicament that likely extended to others in schools where
Malay or Tamil had been the main language of instruction.

While some Chinese Singaporeans like Dr Lee could grow up here feeling unmarked and unattached to
their ethnic Chinese identity, my mother's generation bore the brunt of trauma that came from the
closure of vernacular schools and the demise of the Chinese-medium Nanyang University.

They still feel threatened by a growing tide of youth - including their own kids - who spurn speaking
Mandarin for English, and listen to American pop songs in place of local xinyao tunes.
Like other minority groups here, they, too, fear that their sense of identity could be diluted by a majority
with disproportionate amount of power in society, including English-speaking Chinese.
The term "Chinese privilege" provides a framework for us to start examining the myopia and ignorance
that we may bear as members of the majority race.

However, rather than rounding on each other with scornful calls of "privilege", let's start addressing this
by being empathetic towards the lived experience of those who feel marginalised - regardless of whether
this is due to divisions along lines of race, class, or other identity markers.
Yuen Sin

EMBRACING OUR MULTIPLE IDENTITIES

Dear Yuen Sin,
My family spoke only Mandarin and dialects when I was young. It took me a long while to overcome that
sense of inferiority I felt whenever I was surrounded by people who were used to English as their first
language.

To some extent, despite the fact that many would think that I am effectively bilingual, I now still vaguely
feel that sense of unease when a conversation is conducted in English. I would even describe it as feeling
as if I were in a state of exile - although I recognise that saying this reeks of self-victimisation. It is a
dangerous position to take.

I agree with you that in a multiracial society like Singapore, as ethnic Chinese, we sometimes forget that
we are the majority and as such, enjoy certain natural advantages compared to minorities. It also means
that it is easy for us to have blind spots.

But I'd also like to point out that, to the Chinese-speaking community, the term "Chinese privilege", in the
context of Singapore, is an extremely unfamiliar one.

You would hardly find any mention of the phrase in past commentaries published in the Chinese-language
newspapers like Lianhe Zaobao.

It might be due to generational differences. Before writing this letter, I had mentioned the concept of
Chinese privilege to my older colleagues in the newsroom. Some instantly adopted a defensive posture,
retorting: "What privilege?"

But I can understand how they feel.

I have noticed that this anxiety about the Chinese identity is felt among the younger Chinese-speaking
crowd. Several of my younger colleagues said they find it hard to identify with what is commonly defined
as "Chinese culture".
Setting aside how the merger of Nanyang University and the University of Singapore has left an indelible
scar on the Nantah generation, one still cannot ignore the fact that there are also others in the Chinese-
speaking community who have experienced setbacks due to educational policy changes.

Then there are those who rue the state of Chinese-language standards today. This common
understanding that this tight-knit community has forged - to do all it can to defend what's left of Chinese
language and culture - can distract from the serious discussion of Chinese privilege.

However, in the social media world that we're both familiar with, the situation seems completely
different. I believe you would have noticed that for the past year, the issue of privilege has been much
discussed. It could be that the election of American President Donald Trump has once again brought race
to the forefront, or that in Singapore, a reserved presidential election has created more discussions and
awareness about some of our differences.

Some of my Malay and Indian friends shared openly on Facebook about instances of casual racism. At the
same time, whenever these issues were brought up, I saw how some Chinese reacted in an insensitive
way, and was surprised by how they seem unaware that it was inappropriate.

It got me thinking about racial discrimination. I realised, too, that I have to be careful with my words and
actions.

I am also reminded of something else I've read on Facebook. In 2016, the issues over the South China Sea
arbitration case and the detention of Singapore's armoured vehicles in Hong Kong caused ties between
Singapore and China to drop to a low point.

There were netizens who called for Singapore to take a more pro-China stance in its conduct of relations
with the country, without realising that this could be a sensitive issue for racial minorities.

This prompted local playwright and poet Alfian Sa'at, in a Facebook post, to describe what he observed to
be netizens siding with China, as a "comeback of a form of Chinese cultural and political identity that was
suppressed". He questioned if some in the Chinese community should let their judgment be clouded by
their bid to "reclaim overdue dignity".

Of course, Alfian's comment might not be representative of how most felt about the issue. Some people
might also think that the accusation of "Chinese privilege" does not have sufficient basis, and that it might
have been misused. But I think that this question that Alfian raises is worth thinking about: Will the rise of
China affect social cohesion in Singapore or the exercise of our sovereignty?

It further exposes a problem that the Chinese community needs to address: How should we view our
identity? Is the way we define "Chineseness" too exclusive?
I have noticed that this anxiety about the Chinese identity is felt among the younger Chinese-speaking
crowd. Several of my younger colleagues said they find it hard to identify with what is commonly defined
as "Chinese culture". One of them asked: "If the Chinese Singaporean identity is so vaguely defined, is it
possible for me to feel a sense of belonging? Also, if there is no one 'Chineseness' we can speak of, can we
look beyond race and language, when promoting Chinese culture?"

But if we look at the other side of the coin, such introspection may also mean that even if younger
Chinese Singaporeans display a stronger sense of ethnic pride, they choose to adopt a more inclusive view
in doing so. Some are starting to trace their identity, and adopt a more historical point of view.

The Singapore bicentennial commemoration next year would be a good time to take a closer look at this
issue. Can we learn to embrace our multiple identities, as Chinese, as Singaporeans, and as South-east
Asians, all at the same time, and accept such complexities and diversity?
Ng Wai Mun (Translated by Lim Ruey Yan)
Article 9
Source: http://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/racial-stereotypes-in-media-not-just-a-bit-of-harmless-
fun?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&xtor=CS1-
10#link_time=1498193001
Racial stereotypes in media: Not just a bit of harmless fun
(Leonard Lim and Mathew Mathews, 23 June 2017)

Singapore, with its polyglot population living and working together peacefully for the past five decades,
often strikes international visitors as an oasis of social harmony.

However, undercurrents of racism do surface from time to time. Insensitive remarks or actions based on
stereotypes about a certain race may cause offence, and social media amplifies both the effect and reach
of the offence and the grievances of those who feel victimised.

But these incidents also offer good opportunity for Singaporeans to have open and civil conversations on
what constitutes racial discrimination, as there are sometimes no clear lines, and these shift over time as
social mores evolve.

In some instances, the markers are quite clear. There was a strong backlash against "blackface", or the use
of make-up by ethnic Chinese to impersonate a dark-skinned character, last year (on a Mediacorp
television programme) and in 2012 (at a dinner and dance event).

Many, including Chinese Singaporeans, spoke out against what they regarded as appropriating someone
else's ethnicity and treating it like entertainment. The authorities also imposed a financial penalty on
Mediacorp for what was deemed racially insensitive content.

There is relatively strong consensus when it comes to employment practices, and this is probably shaped
by fair-hiring legislation. About four in five respondents in last year's Channel NewsAsia - Institute of
Policy Studies (CNA-IPS) survey on race relations deemed not hiring someone because of his or her race as
racist (the make-up of the 2,000 surveyed reflects Singapore's racial composition).

But when it comes to poking fun at someone's race, especially through stereotypes, the picture does not
seem so clear. This was displayed in the range of opinions that surfaced after a local Indian actor's recent
post on Facebook. Mr Shrey Bhargava had expressed disappointment over how he was asked to adopt a
thick Indian accent and "make it funny" during an Ah Boys To Men audition.

The CNA-IPS survey brought out similar sentiments. Compared to employment practices, there was
relatively less consensus on whether making jokes about another race was racist.

About one in three said they would not consider this racist. In fact, 42 per cent of respondents reported
that it was at least sometimes acceptable to make those jokes in the company of friends, although the
proportion dropped to 23 per cent when the respondents were asked if it was acceptable to make such
racist jokes in public.

Such "casual racism" may be more commonplace than we think. About 60 per cent of respondents
(regardless of race) had heard racist comments.

While many Singaporeans had presumably stayed silent previously, several were emboldened to share
their experiences after a call by Mr Bhargava to do so. This could be an indication of the latent tension the
minorities may be suppressing. Those who have been socialised to accept casual racism, especially
through their childhood or at work, may begin to feel resentment towards society now, especially if they
feel their objections are being brushed aside.

It is worth asking ourselves whether discriminatory actions or words that some of us deem to be harmless
may unintentionally wound others' feelings.

Such reflection may be especially pertinent for the majority race. Researchers point to the phenomenon
of "majority privilege", whereby members of the dominant ethnicity may fail to see things from the
viewpoint of others who are not in the majority. For instance, in assessing whether making fun of a
language associated with another race was acceptable, 59 per cent of Chinese survey respondents agreed
that it was never acceptable. Among the minorities, the number was higher: 76 per cent of Indians and 69
per cent of Malays reject such actions.

While the facts in the Ah Boys To Men incident may never emerge for one to determine the full story,
majority privilege was clearly in operation in some of the reactions. Some pointed out that the Chinese
are also routinely made fun of, and Mr Bhargava's reaction was another instance of minorities being over-
sensitive.

While parents, teachers, colleagues and employers can all play a role in their spheres of influence to call
out casual racism, responsibility also falls on the local entertainment industry.

We cringe at how Asians and other minorities are sometimes still portrayed by Hollywood. Chinese men
are bespectacled geeks, while the Asian woman is a bumbling domestic helper who speaks broken
English. This, despite many men and women of Asian descent rising to prominent positions within
academia and business in the United States.

In Singapore, minority actors have similarly lamented that they are often shoehorned into certain roles
and seldom given opportunities for protagonists' roles.

Racial stereotypes in the media, whether for comedic effect or otherwise, unfortunately reinforce our
prejudices (and in the case of children, help in forming those prejudices) against those who look, talk and
behave differently.
We then tend towards a narrow view of what constitutes members of "the other", when in reality the
make-up of "the other" is much more diverse. They hail from different backgrounds, and have an
abundance of talent.

Further, the subliminal message to the audience is that statements or jokes that highlight and poke fun at
a particular accent, mannerism or look are socially acceptable.

Some argue that the majority race is also subject to such treatment. They point to how several of the
roles played by Chinese actors in Ah Boys To Men are premised on stereotypes - a sheltered mummy's
boy and "Lobang King", an "Ah Beng" who has a knack for connecting his friends with good deals.

But that misses the point. These portrayals have more to do with personality types than racial differences.

In our multi-ethnic and multicultural country, a certain amount of caricaturing of race is expected. One
could argue that the fact that we are able to talk and laugh about such differences openly points to the
strength of our social fabric.

But what happens when those at the receiving end are no longer prepared to stay silent?

The recent episode involving Mr Bhargava will not be the last time that charges of casual racism and
discrimination surface. Each provides an opportunity for reflection, and one question we might ask
ourselves is whether we should insist that the status quo is fine, especially in the wake of growing
protests from those who have been the subject of such "humour".

We cannot call ourselves a truly inclusive society, if racial stereotypes in the media and in daily
interactions continue to be the stimuli for some of our loudest laughs.

Leonard Lim is a research associate and Dr Mathew Mathews is a senior research fellow at the Institute of
Policy Studies, National University of Singapore.
Article 10
Source: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/is-casual-racism-okay-seven-singaporeans-
share-stories-7862072
Is casual racism okay? Seven Singaporeans share stories
(Kane Cunico and Joyce Ng, 19 August 2016)

Seven Singaporeans, aged 20 to 76, talk about dealing with racist jokes, stereotypes and thoughtless
comments.

SINGAPORE: Is cracking a joke about someone’s race just a ‘friendly’ thing among pals, or is it insensitive
no matter what the context?

Nearly 2 in 3 Singaporeans surveyed have heard racist comments being made, and about half the time it
was by workplace colleagues and friends, according to a survey on race relations commissioned by
Channel NewsAsia in partnership with the Institute of Policy Studies.

What’s more, faced with such comments, 65 per cent of respondents said they ignored the person’s
comments.

This is in spite of the fact that:

- 84 per cent said they would get upset if heard racist comments about any race

- 62 per cent said it was never acceptable to make jokes about another race in the company of friends

- And 67 per cent said it was never acceptable to call a racial group terms like dirty, lazy or money minded.

These seven Singaporeans, aged from 20 and 76, talk about what it’s like dealing with stereotypes,
thoughtless comments and race-based jokes.

‘We are silently racist’ - Petrina Anne De Souza, 26, associate producer
When I was in K1, or K2, the teachers were doing an exercise about race. So they went, “All the Chinese
people sit down”, and they sat down, and they asked the same of the Malays and Indians. But then they
just stopped there.

I stood there thinking, “You didn’t mention my race yet?” But the teacher merely went, “Never mind, just
sit down, just sit down.” I was appalled, but I think as a child, I didn’t quite understand the concept of
Eurasian (technically, I’m half Eurasian and half Sinhalese).

One teacher went, “Oh, you’re Indian-Muslim, right?” I am actually Catholic. But I was fitted into a
category because I happened to “look like that”, based on the colour of my skin.
But I got more affected when I was in primary school. There was this Indian girl in my class, and kids from
other races would make fun of her saying that she didn’t bathe.

I sat next to her and heard people say things like, “Eww, dirty,” and then they pointed at me and said: “Eh
this one also.” My other friend who’s Chinese said, “No, no she’s different, she’s Christian.”

Of course at that age, I didn't feel the need to stand up and say something.

That being said, I have never come across people who are openly racist. I think Singaporeans are tolerant,
and we are silently racist. We don't proclaim it out loud because we know it’s not right to say it.

But it’s not something that's a big issue. It’s not going to manifest into anything violent.

‘People stereotype that Indian men don’t take care of their family’ - Wincent Das, 76, tissue seller
Being an Indian back in the 1960s, everything was good. I didn’t encounter any problems. I worked in the
shipping line as a secretary for the seamen welfare officer, then as an office boy at the Catholic High
School, and then at a childcare centre in Kampong Java.

Two years ago, I lost my leg because of diabetes. So I’m here every day at Toa Payoh selling tissues from
10am to 5pm because if I stay home, I’ll go mad. People buy and I take what they pay, but I never beg. I
must be in good health, work, to take care of my family and children.

But people do stereotype that Indian men do not take care of their family, that they drink and get drunk
and do not bring their salary home. I’ve only one leg but I refuse to stop working. I have to work.

‘When it’s not about your race, you don’t think about it’ - Deborah Koh, 23, graduate
I guess it’s quite a privilege being Chinese in Singapore. I don’t feel any discrimination or face the teasing
jokes my friends of other races have gotten, because I guess I’m from the majority race.

I remember when I was in secondary school, I had a senior who was an Indian and I had to hear so many
stereotypes about her race. When it’s not about your race, you don’t think much of it, but when it
happens to a person who is your friend, it begins to affect you.

I felt really sad and I grew up telling myself that nobody should be judged on the basis of their race or
culture. Nobody.

‘Some of us are stuck and conflicted’ - Hafeez Hassan, 33, freelance performing artiste
I’m Malay and I’m Muslim. What I love is dancing. Back in the 1990s there weren’t many male dancers. It
was misunderstood in our culture that it was quite a ‘sissy’ thing to do. My mum told me music was the
devil’s work. So I got a diploma in engineering to make my parents happy.

Growing up in Singapore has its challenges for Malays. As Malays, we are very relaxed and calm, so by
nature we are very happy-go-lucky. But now, as the economy grows, it goes against our nature.
Some of us try to adapt and progress and inspire others - others are stuck and conflicted.

You have to understand that Islam guides much of the Malay culture, and because of that it affects our
socio-economic perspectives.

There were certain boundaries that I had to abide by, in terms of my friends, what I did, my activities,
what I ate, what time I had to go home. Though I come from a broken family - and I realise that so do a lot
of people from my community - my family was very traditional.

I, however, am a big fan of change. As a freelance dancer, I get to meet dancers of different races and
nationalities and I learn more from them.

I think being a Malay Muslim and feeling disadvantaged is very subjective. We only choose what we want
to feel, and I refuse to choose that I am disadvantaged because of my race.

‘I tell everyone, you are all the same’ - Eddie Goh, 62, business owner
I’m Chinese. I’ve lived through the race riots in Singapore. And I know that’s not a good way to live.

Today, I’m an easy going kind of guy. If you’re likeable, regardless of your race, you’re okay with me. Every
person from any race has their good and bad habits. I grew up during the Malaysia Cup days, so I have a
lot of Malay friends.

I run a skate shop and today, all my friends are my customers. And in my shop, there is no room for
racism. I see today’s young people from all races. I hear things and I observe the way the kids behave.

Sometimes I hear negative things. But I tell everyone who walks in that you’re all the same. All of you are
‘skaters’. One word. That’s it and nothing else.

I tell them never to form these racist opinions because at the end of the day, we should just skate
together and enjoy together.

‘They said, ‘Shoot the forehead!’’ - Karthik Subramaniam, 20, polytechnic student
It was an irritating time in primary and secondary school being from a minority race. I would go to school
with a pottu on my head. Some classmates would think we did it for fun. They would ask something silly
like, “Why you all wear that? Bleeding or what?”

But they would even tease the Indian girls who wore bindi. They would say: “Eh, got a laser pointed there,
is it? Shoot the forehead!”

I know they were just joking, especially the friends of mine. At that point, I felt a little irritated, but I let it
go. I didn’t speak up. Even if I did the first time, they would still keep on disturbing me. I felt it was
pointless after a while. That lasted for a long time, though.
But I think someone who is younger than me can learn from my patience and tolerance.

When I grew up, my thinking changed. I got less irritated. I knew then that people just didn’t know any
better. They didn’t know what they were saying or asking. To them, it was a joke. But I know that sooner
or later, they would learn to understand my culture.

You know what? It goes both ways. When I’m with my group of Indian friends, we’ll joke about other
races as well.

But I mix with people of different races. I’m actually okay with the jokes, as long as they don’t go
overboard with the teasing. I like having a mixed group of friends. It makes me more aware.

‘It’s how we choose to make do’ - Nur Izzati Ariffin, 26, marketing consultant
I definitely feel a mild discrimination from society. I made it to a local university because I did well and not
because anyone had to do me any favours just for being Malay.

But I’m always mistaken as a Chinese and when people find out that I’m actually Malay, the question I
always get is, “Oh you’re Malay!” or “You’re doing this? And you’re actually Malay?”

I don't blame them because they have these stereotypes of us, and it stems from repetitive acts of a
certain group of people. For instance, I’ve heard people say that we Malays are bad at Maths, or we’re
slacking, or we’re addicts, so on and so forth, but these stereotypes derive from a lot of subjectivities.

At the same time there are families who struggle to break away from this cycle. It really boils down to an
individual’s goals and drive in spite of their race. I mean I have the drive and the motivation, and this
comes not from being a particular race or having a particular skin colour. It’s something any individual can
cultivate.

I think Singaporeans need to realise that they can’t use race or anything as an excuse for their plight. If
they don’t do well then they don't do well, and it’s not because they are not given equal opportunities or
are discriminated against. We’re all given equal opportunities, and it’s how we choose to make do.
Source: CNA/yv
Article 11
Source: http://www.straitstimes.com/politics/the-race-issue-how-far-has-singapore-come
The race issue: How far has Singapore come?
(Walter Sim, 8 November 2015)

The date is July 21, 1964 - barely a year since Singapore became part of the Federation of Malaysia.

A procession is held to mark Prophet Muhammad's birthday, starting at the Padang and ending in
Geylang.

But the festive occasion will soon turn sour. A scuffle breaks out between Malays in the procession and
Chinese bystanders, escalating into nationwide violence.

By the time a 13-day curfew was lifted, 23 people died and 454 people were injured. Singapore would
later learn it was an orchestrated attempt to stir up racial tensions.

Two months later, another riot breaks out after rumours spread that a Malay trishaw rider was killed by a
group of Chinese men, with 13 dead and 106 injured.

ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER

We have sound principles in place but practice and realisation is the real challenge in some domains
more than others.
SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGIST LAI AH ENG of the National University of Singapore.

Fast forward to today and modern, independent Singapore is celebrating 50 years of prosperity and
relative peace. Now, July 21 is notable as Racial Harmony Day, when young generations of Singaporeans
go to school decked in racial garb and are taught the virtues of respecting diversity.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said last month that no matter the progress over the last 50 years, it
would be "complacent and dangerous" to be lulled into a false sense of safety that race and religion
matters are no more the divisive issues they once were.

The Constitution of a newly independent Singapore had set the tone of what was to come. Article 152
says it is the responsibility of the Government "constantly to care for the interests of the racial and
religious minorities in Singapore".

It also recognises the "special position of the Malays, who are the indigenous people of Singapore".

Founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew had, in 1965, promised to build a multiracial nation. He said on
Aug 9 that year: "This is not a Malay nation; this is not a Chinese nation; this is not an Indian nation.
Everyone will have his place, equal: language, culture, religion."

He also rebuffed language agitators who were lobbying for a constitutional guarantee of the status of the
Chinese language in spite of assurances that all four major languages are official and equal.
But developments in neighbouring countries continued to have some effect in the early years. When
severe rioting between Malays and Chinese broke out in Kuala Lumpur on May 13, 1969, tensions spilled
over, but the authorities acted quickly to contain the disturbance.

POLICIES BEAR FRUIT

Various policies implemented over the years have enabled the peaceful co-existence that Singapore has
come to be known for today - the Republic emerged top out of 142 countries in the annual Legatum
Prosperity Index, released last week, for tolerance of ethnic minorities.

A bilingual policy was started in 1966, with English becoming the lingua franca. And in 1970, the
Presidential Council for Minority Rights was established to scrutinise laws, so as to ensure there is no
discrimination against any ethnic minority groups.

To ensure adequate minority representation in Parliament, the Group Representation Constituency (GRC)
system has been in place since 1988. It requires political parties to field at least one minority candidate in
each GRC team.

The Housing Board in 1989 also introduced the Ethnic Integration Policy that mandates a quota for
minorities in HDB estates, so as to prevent racial enclaves from forming.

Although economic growth had benefited Singaporeans from all communities, by the 1980s, Malay
community leaders were concerned that theirs was lagging behind in education. This led to the formation
of self-help group Mendaki to help lift the community.

In the 1990s, other ethnic-based self-help groups were set up - the Singapore Indian Development
Association (Sinda), the Chinese Development Assistance Council (CDAC) and the Eurasian Association.
There have been questions over the need for such self-help groups, but the Government has said it would
not be a good idea for them to merge or operate under one umbrella. This is because certain community
problems can be dealt with only by leaders from those communities.

It is still a work in progress - there are concerns that while the Malay community has made many strides,
they still lag behind in areas like education and employability. To its credit, Mendaki has made much
progress in helping the community through programmes catering to lower-income groups.

The ethnic-centric focus of the four self-help groups, however, has not stopped them from joining forces
to help the wider community. They recently said they will set up a joint venture to run 30 school-based
student care centres to better support the holistic development of children, especially those from less-
advantaged backgrounds, by tapping the resources of all the groups.

This, in a sense, is a microcosm of Singapore, which pledges to be colour-blind in its meritocracy and
economic growth by providing opportunities for all. And for the most part, Singaporeans have been happy
to share the fruits of the Government's economic growth policies and not rock the boat.
A study on race by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) and OnePeople.Sg in 2013 found that more than 90
per cent of the 2,000-plus Chinese respondents said they were comfortable with Indians and Malays as
neighbours and employees - and about 85 per cent as close friends.

PUSHBACK BY MINORITIES

Yet as the country becomes more affluent and the racial wounds of decades past are increasingly
forgotten, some are voicing dissatisfaction at other racial groups, and their views are amplified by social
media.

This has also generated a pushback, notably from minorities. Independent scholar and activist Sangeetha
Thanapal has used the term "Chinese privilege" to refer to behaviour of Singaporean Chinese, which she
says is akin to "White privilege" in Western countries - not being able to see things from the viewpoint of
others who are not in the majority.

Sociologist Mathew Mathews of the IPS also observes in a recent commentary that some minority
Singaporeans are not comfortable in their own skin. He says: "They are more likely to be sensitive to the
fact that they have physical attributes and cultural practices which differ from those of the majority.
Minorities often consider how those of the majority view them."

And time and again, cracks have appeared. At least 16 people have been investigated, either under the
Sedition Act or the Penal Code, for race or religion-related offences in the last 10 years.

This, after the section of the Sedition Act making it an offence "to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility
between different races or classes of the population" had been dormant from its inception in 1948 until
2005.

In 2012, former National Trades Union Congress employee Amy Cheong was sacked for her online diatribe
against Malay weddings in void decks, and she fled to Australia after the resulting furore.

Some criticised the authorities' reaction in these cases as heavy-handed, but officials have always been
mindful that isolated incidents can easily get out of control.

And two years ago, they did: the death of a foreign worker run over by a bus in Little India sparked a riot
by about 300 people. In the process, 54 officers and eight civilians were hurt, 23 emergency vehicles were
damaged, including five that were torched. It was contained within a few hours, and while the riot was
not linked to race, some of the ensuing online rhetoric vilified the South Asian rioters on account of their
race.

Just last week, a Facebook post that was critical about the Malay language drew a stern rebuke from Pasir
Ris-Punggol GRC MP Zainal Sapari, who wrote: "In today's age, racism is beyond basic comprehension and
should not be allowed to take root in our society."

That these sentiments are hidden under the surface of a seemingly cohesive society is a sign that
Singapore, despite the progress made, is "nowhere near being a race-blind society", says law don Eugene
Tan, who has done research on ethnic relations here.
"Bubbling beneath our civil veneer, there are prejudices and stereotypes which occasionally surface to
trigger bouts of soul-searching," adds ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute sociologist Terence Chong.

Starkly, the 2013 study also made headlines for the finding that more than one in two Singaporeans did
not have a close friend of another race.

"We have sound principles in place but practice and realisation is the real challenge in some domains
more than others," says social anthropologist Lai Ah Eng of the National University of Singapore.

"Some people and groups are downright ignorant and biased, others merely tolerate, but others are
proactive in understanding and being appreciative."

As Singapore moves forward, it should seek to reduce the number of those in the first category and
expand on those in the last.
Article 12
Source: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/black-panther-global-significance-1087878
The Global Significance of 'Black Panther' (Guest Column)
(Alan Jenkins, 23 February 2018)

Here’s what the Black Panther means to me. It’s a story about my brother.

Two decades ago, he arrived in Taiwan to teach English as a second language, primarily to young adults.
As an African-American fluent in Mandarin Chinese, he expected to encounter surprise and curiosity —
and he was pretty sure people would want to touch his hair.

What he did not expect was the fear and anxiety that he encountered. His students, living half a world
away from the U.S., were frightened by his presence and, more so, by his identity. They had never met a
Black person, yet they held the same harmful stereotypes about him that are so prevalent here at home,
an indelible association of Black people with criminality, malice and brutality.

In the years that followed, teaching in Taipei, Beijing and Shanghai, my brother finally unearthed a major
source of those stereotypes: Hollywood.

From the movies and television shows they’d seen, imported from America, my brother’s students had
developed a harmful impression of him. Indeed, American film and television have long been among the
United States’ most capacious exports, sending to overseas audiences a pernicious inventory of racial
tropes, stereotypes and distortions. Those misperceptions arrived in Asia years before my brother did.

Research by The Opportunity Agenda confirmed that these media distortions have continued. A massive
2011 study of depictions of Black men and boys in television, film, video games and other entertainment
media found that media persistently overrepresent Black males in depictions of violence, crime and
poverty; fail to depict the systemic barriers facing members of this group; underrepresent them as
problem solvers and users of technology; and contribute to negative attitudes toward African-American
males, which negatively impacts their own self-perceptions.

Other research has additionally documented the distorted depictions of Black women, including
disproportionate hyper-sexuality, anger, greed and subservient roles. Given those trends over many
years, it is unsurprising that so many international consumers of American entertainment have
internalized fear and disdain for Black people whom they do not know.

Enter Black Panther.

Marvel’s blockbuster superhero movie has a virtually all-black cast, a Black director, a Black soundtrack
and a Black African storyline. The film depicts the beauty, genius, courage and compassion of Africans and
their diaspora, as well as the trauma with which so many continue to grapple. It answers the question
what would Africa look like if it had escaped the ravages of colonialism, the slave trade and the plundering
of its resources. It provocatively asks what should be done to set things right.

And notably, it exports a new narrative to the rest of the world.

At a time when the president of the United States is describing Black nations as “shithole countries” and
denigrating African-American communities and people, Black Panther is a cultural response with global
significance. Over its four-day opening weekend, the film made about $242 million domestically and $427
million worldwide, shattering box-office records. It is being seen by millions of people globally, including
many who, like my brother’s students, have never met someone Black in person.

It’s not just that the Black Panther is a superhero, or that he is surrounded in this film by heroic men and
— especially —women, but the film counters and overwhelms each of the media distortions identified by
our research. The people of Marvel’s mythical Wakanda are loving fathers, mothers and siblings. They are
creators and users of technology. They are financially responsible and secure. They are peace-loving and
ethical, notwithstanding their penchant for patriarchal monarchy.

Of course a single film, even a massive blockbuster like Black Panther, cannot alone reverse generations
of negative imagery and distortion. But it’s an important step that will hopefully invite more, in part by
indisputably demonstrating the global hunger for Black heroes and storylines.

For now, moviegoers from Taipei to Tanzania to Turkey to Trinidad will see a new vision of what blackness
means and what Africa stands for. Black Panther is an export of which we can all be proud.

Extra Reading
Black Panther is a gorgeous, groundbreaking celebration of black culture
The newest Marvel movie is about more than a superhero’s journey. It’s about black culture’s journey.
By Tre Johnson Feb 23, 2018, 12:40pm EST

Marvel’s Black Panther is a cultural phenomenon, a historic box office success that’s brought in rave
reviews and sparked conversation all over social media and traditional media alike. There are no signs of
the excitement abating, either, as the conversation about the film has evolved from discussions about the
importance of representation into something grander: a rather groundbreaking celebration of black
culture.

With an all-star collection of majority black talent both in front of and behind the camera, Black Panther,
under the direction of Ryan Coogler (Fruitvale Station, Creed), is about more than the latest superhero’s
journey; it’s also about black culture’s journey, and it points toward a future where it could be the culture.
It acknowledges and celebrates everything from traditional African society to African-American political
debates, from the power and beauty of black women to the preservation of identity, all within the lush
confines of the fictional African nation of Wakanda.

All told, Black Panther’s greatest legacy may not be what it’s done for Marvel, Hollywood, or box office
records, but what it’s done for the culture. In Wakanda, which offers much to marvel at for audiences of
all backgrounds, black viewers in particular have found a cultural oasis that feels like nothing we’ve seen
before.

Black Panther celebrates black culture on several fronts

Black Panther is in many ways a love letter to black culture. Africa has traditionally been an
unsophisticated bit player in American media, often portrayed as backward, savage, and chaotic in
everything from news coverage to films. It’s a portrayal that has left little room for other interpretations,
which is why Black Panther’s vision of Wakanda as a bustling metropolis of vibranium-powered futuristic
skyscrapers, racing trains, and soaring spaceships feels so refreshing.

Marvel movies often take place in grand, imaginative locales, like Thor’s Asgard or Guardians of the
Galaxy’s far-flung planets. But nothing has been quite as audacious and poignant as Wakanda, a vision of
Africa that feels indebted to both Jack Kirby and Octavia Butler, home to a thriving black population that
represents our collective ingenuity and beauty. As a testament to black empowerment, Black Panther is
an important artifact, but it’s also, quite simply, a big draw for black moviegoers starved for this sort of
vision.

It’s not just Wakanda’s skyline that makes an impact, though; the film drew on a team of designers and
stylists to showcase a very specific, beautiful black aesthetic. In an interviewwith the New York Times,
Camille Friend, who oversaw the various hair designs of what she calls “a totally Afrocentric, natural hair
movie,” said the entire production was considered against a backdrop of a bigger black cultural moment:
“We’re in a moment when people are feeling empowered about being black,” she says. “The hair helps
communicate that.”

Like the film’s hair, Black Panther’s costuming was an opportunity to infuse meaning and pride into the
movie. As the film’s head costume designer, Ruth Carter, shared with NPR, the costumes, like Wakanda
itself, needed to evoke a place and people that had “never been colonized, one that looked toward the
future but was based on a real past.”

Carter and her team drew on Kenyan, Namibian, and South African reference points to complete the
film’s array of looks, reflecting not only the tribal diversity that exists within Wakanda but the diversity of
black culture and identity as well. The film is a crucial stamp of validation for black people hungry for the
opportunity to celebrate everything from Afrofuturism to the natural hair movement that’s often been
derided in mainstream spaces.

The care and intricacy of the film’s styling carried a heavy price tag, with Marvel committing more money
to Black Panther than its previous few films in order to achieve a visual splendor that’s as exciting to the
culture as it is to the eye. The result is the sort of spectacle black moviegoers rarely get to see in popular
mainstream culture. That isn’t lost on Marvel’s Kevin Feige, who explained his reasoning behind the film’s
budget to Vulture: “It’s a big story that deserves to be told in a big way, for all of the cultural and political
reasons that people talk about.”

Marvel’s comic book superheroes were always political. Black Panther embraces that.

These vague “cultural and political reasons” are at the heart of a movie phenomenon that’s inspired
everything from Black Panther-themed watch parties to a voter registration initiative to a curriculum that
encourages educators to leverage the film to teach deeper histories about African culture, politics, and
history. It’s also opened up dialogues and personal reflections about black identity in America and abroad
via #WhatBlackPantherMeansToMe, a powerful cross section of editorial and real-time reflections on the
film’s resonance with black moviegoers.

The film has also jumped into the current of black political thought and action, prompting challenging
think pieces about how T’Challa and Killmonger’s rift is representative of familiar ideological debates in
the black community, and what the film’s politics represent about the state of black America. In addition
to escapism and inspiration, Black Panther offers African Americans the opportunity to reexamine and
reimagine their place in the world, both literally and figuratively. Wakanda has emerged as a vision of
what’s possible, representing what true liberation could look like, but the power of that fantasy is directly
linked to the harsh realities of Erik Killmonger’s experience growing up in Oakland, California, far away
from that utopic vision.

Black Panther is part of a wave of entertainment that’s expanding the scope of black narratives

The excitement around Black Panther doesn’t exist in a vacuum; the film is the latest in a string of high-
water-mark moments for a black pop culture landscape that’s experiencing a renaissance. Recent years
have seen a new level of black art that’s intertwined sociopolitical commentary with high-caliber artistry:
from Beyoncé’s Lemonade and Kendrick Lamar’s DAMN to Atlanta and Queen Sugar, there’s been a
renewed focus on telling stories that broaden and sharpen the range of black narratives.

This expansion is significant given black audiences’ complex relationship with Hollywood, which has
typically presented a narrow slice of the African-American narrative. It’s an industry that has often
seemed invested in black Americans primarily as slaves (12 Years aSlave), victims of inner-city strife
(Detroit), or symbols of comfort (The Help) and is fixated on stories about the post-Reconstruction and
civil rights eras and biopics of famous black people that only glimpse at race.

For a long time, it’s felt like the only stories about the African-American experience Hollywood was
interested in telling were stories that were intertwined in some way with the white experience, making
this shift toward stories that center black narratives as black narratives feel both welcome and long
overdue.

Why Black Panther’s box office success matters

A similar shift has been afoot in Hollywood offscreen in recent years. As #OscarsSoWhite launched a
debate about the industry’s fidelity to representation and valuing nonwhite contributions, filmmakers like
Moonlight’s Barry Jenkins, A Wrinkle in Time’s Ava DuVernay, and Get Out’s Jordan Peele have taken
crucial pole positions as visionaries who are pushing the boundaries of black representation on film.
Coogler’s Black Panther joins these projects as a missing piece: a popcorn movie that uses the most
mainstream of film genres — the superhero movie — to project the complexity of black identity, politics,
and creativity.

The renewed conversation around race that Black Panther enters into extends beyond the entertainment
industry. As the first black superhero film in a cinematic universe that’s spent the past decade focused
primarily on white superheroes, it underlines the chasm that exists between society’s treatment of black
Americans and white Americans.

In many ways, black bodies have experienced a renewed series of attacks in recent years. Black NFL
players can’t kneel in protest without recrimination from the president, team owners, or a conservative-
leaning fan base. Everyday black citizens have been increasingly displaced in gentrifying cities, locked up
in prisons at alarming rates, and shot and beaten by law enforcement at equally high ones.

This makes Black Panther a palate cleanser of sorts, a healthy injection of powerful, beautiful images of
the black body. It’s what’s behind the lure of Wakanda, a land of black vibrancy, freedom, diversity, and
discourse not blighted by outside forces or forced to negotiate with anyone but themselves. It’s why the
Killmonger/T’Challa chasm rings so true, as they both offer their own type of wish fulfillment for black
viewers: Wouldn’t it be nice to have a world where we aren’t encumbered by systemic racism and
oppression and are masters of our own destiny? And yet wouldn’t it also be nice to galvanize a
community with resources and political might to address and maybe even reverse the effects of that
systemic oppression?

Told from a posture of power and pride, Black Panther is in many ways a most necessary antidote for the
black American experience in 2018, an elixir that provides escape into a world where black Americans can
imagine these conversations outside of the white gaze. As black America feels under assault everywhere
from Charlottesville to the White House, it’s invaluable to be reminded that we still have the ability to
soar and take action like T’Challa or Nakia or Okoye, to be strong black bodies of justice. The value of that
reminder is not just timely — it’s timeless.