⭐ star in the top right of the page to add this draft to your favourites list in the Notion side panel. This will ensure easy access if you want to revisit this page in future.Add an image button below to select a representative image that may be displayed as a thumbnail associated to your post. You may insert beautiful images from Unsplash OR select an animated-gif from GIPHY as you wish.
Initiated during my residency at SAM, the Bureau of Race Neutrality is a participatory artwork, collective think tank and collaborative consultancy that seeks to divest from race as a category of difference. Soon after arriving, I became fixated on Singapore’s racial categories: Chinese, Malay, Indian and Others (CMIO). I learned that this means of sorting the population is a legacy of the British colonial system (mid-18th to mid-20th century) which used race to organise its subjects occupationally according to “inherent predispositions,” and I understand that these stereotypes linger on. [1] In their first colonial census in 1871, the British identified 33 racial categories. These have since been streamlined and retained as an organising principle in post-colonial Singapore, following its separation from the newly formed Malaysia in 1965.
Race is a social construct, often determined according to visible physical differences (phenotypes) such as skin colour. Geographic places of origin, ancestry, language and cultural practices also contribute to racialisation. My “antira” efforts have been influenced by cultural theorist Paul Gilroy, who urged activists to dispense with the category of race while remaining vigilant to emergent forms of racism. [2] The sisters Barbara and Karen Fields, respectively a historian and a sociologist, describe race as an irrational yet persistent belief that is sustained through habitual modes of race-thinking; a kind of “racecraft” that they liken to witchcraft. [3]
These thinkers seek to deconstruct and dismantle race, dismissing arguments premised on “scientific racism”; for example, certain hereditary characteristics predispose particular groups of people to certain attributes (eg. intelligence) or, to certain kinds of behaviour (eg criminality). Indeed, with the recent mapping of the human genome, it seems that humans are genetically 99.6–99.9% similar, prompting the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to advise that scientists avoid using racial categories. [4]
Nevertheless, calls to forgo race are often met with resistance, arguably because communities, states and societies are deeply invested in it. So while the adequacy of Singapore’s CMIO categories are the subject of ongoing debate, as Cindy Khoo of Prime Minister’s Office Strategy Group argued in 2022:
for a sizeable proportion of people, they still align into those boxes…And unfortunately, to be totally realistic, race is a very important identifier when people form their sense of identity. [5]
Singapore citizens and permanent residents are assigned a race upon registration, which is most often determined according to their paternal lineage. A person is allowed to change their race twice: once before the age of 21 and once at or after the age of 21. Since 2011, Singaporeans can register as being of “double-barrel” race, reflecting the races of both parents eg. Chinese-Indian. Double-barrel registrations are limited to two components, and for Government policies such as “mother tongue” language education and HDB housing allocations (Housing Development Board, Singapore’s public housing system which houses more than 80% of the country’s population has specific policies on allocations according to race) it is the first race—ironically “father race”—that is taken into account. [6]
Since independence and throughout its development into a contemporary “global city”, Singapore has maintained its population as a remarkably consistent ratio of racial categories. Recent figures place these at 75% Chinese, 15% Malay, 7.5% Indian and 1.5% Others. [7] This ratio, as a national “recipe” for social harmony and economic success, is of great interest to the Bureau. How accurate are these statistics? Why is it so important that these ratios are maintained?
When I asked some locals if they could imagine a future Singapore without race, their response was a firm “cannot”. Yet in the Epigram bookstore located in the foyer of SAM, I found publications of local science fiction and fantasy that elaborate on alternative Singapores, offering commentary and critique of its present state. Flicking through issues of the now-defunct journal LONTAR: The Journal of Southeast Asia Speculative Fiction (published between 2012 to 2018, LONTAR was the only publication which focused on speculative fiction with a lens through and on Southeast Asia), I encountered the poetry of Davian Aw, and was struck by these lines:
in the end we’ll still have this eternal island in the sunwhere spires scratch the heavens and the river always flows
and factories print out babies in perfect racial quotas
and smiling couples savour merlion sushi on the beach
and laughing children freely fly across the peaceful streets
to sky-high walls that keep the dying world from crowding in. [8]
On 1 June 2024, the Bureau opened its doors to the public for SAM Residencies Open Studios. Offering bowls of rojak ice cream, the Bureau sought to “break the ice” with local art patrons. Rojak, a salad of fruit and vegetables accompanied by a spicy-sweet sauce that is found across Southeast Asia (alternatively ASEAN or Nusantara), is a reference to Singapore’s policy of multiracialism. This shapes a social mix that is often described metaphorically as a “salad bowl,” [9] by which each of the ingredients retain their unique flavours or characteristics while being bound by a “Singapore sauce.” Visitors were asked to participate in a thought experiment: What would Singapore be like if it were both post-colonial and post-race? If having realised its aspirations to become a “race-blind” multicultural meritocracy, what would it look like? How would this register in quotidian life? What changes could we imagine to work, school and leisure? What is at stake if Singapore was to divest from race? Would it be better or worse?
These speculative inquiries led to conversations about the official languages taught and those that were spoken, the role of race in HDB housing allocation, the ironies of “affirmative action” programs, the legacies of British colonialism and the policies of Lee Kuan Yew—the so-called architect of modern Singapore. One consultee discussed the social boundaries that exist between citizens and migrant workers, which piqued the Bureau’s interest.
In April, I was introduced to the Bangladeshi migrant worker, poet and organiser Ripon Chowdry, Despite having lived in Singapore for over 15 years, Chowdry claimed that he rarely socialised with Singaporeans. Indeed, migrants holding Work Permits issued by Singapore’s Ministry of Manpower (MOM) have conditions imposed on the types of relationships they can form. They are prohibited from marrying citizens and permanent residents without the permission of authorities, and domestic workers who fall pregnant must be repatriated by their employers before they give birth. [10]
With its aging population and dwindling fertility rate, Singapore addresses shortfalls in its workforce by drawing on a readily available supply of labour in the region for manual and domestic duties; some say to “do the work that Singaporeans don’t want to do,” alluding to issues of class. Migrant workers make up around 30% of Singapore’s workforce. [11] Those on employment-sponsored Work Permits are not subject to Singapore’s CMIO racial categories but they are racialised as foreigners from less-developed parts of the world, with specific nationalities recruited for particular kinds of work, eg. Bangladeshi men for construction labour, Burmese women for domestic work. Contracted workers, reliant on employees who can fire them at will, experience great difficulty asserting rights. They are paid below-average wages, are not afforded the same work standards as citizens, nor offered pathways to permanent residence or citizenship that is available for professionalised “foreign talent.”
Philosopher Michel Foucault described two functions of racism at the emergence of the modern state. The first is to “fragment” and “create caesuras within the biological continuum” of the human species, in order to differentiate and govern. The second follows a fundamental logic of war: “In order to live, you must destroy your enemies.” Noting the new forms of regulation and control that the modern state was exerting over populations (which he terms “biopower”), Foucault proposed that this second function concerned health. That is: “the death of the other, the death of the bad race, of the inferior race (or the degenerate or the abnormal) is something that will make life in general healthier: healthier and purer.” Thus, racism arises from concerns about the biological condition of the species and its evolutionary progress. As in colonialism and slavery, certain races are thought to be less developed, biologically inferior and less-than-human. Foucault noted how race legitimises the sovereign power’s right to kill, however in the modern regulatory state, this does not necessarily mean to put the racialised to death, but can also mean to expose them to injury and illness by subjecting them to greater risk. [12]
An issue that has gained some attention in Singapore is the transportation of construction workers in open-back lorries. With no safety belts or measures they are exposed to the elements and to injury. Workers are crammed in together, often alongside equipment and work materials, and there have been several accidents, some of them fatal. “Human beings are not cargo”, declares one campaign slogan. [13]
Migrant workers have died due to work site accidents, domestic abuse and self-harm prompted by stress and depression. A recent report, Behind Closed Doors: Forced Labour in the Domestic Work Sector (2019) by the Humanitarian Organization for Migration Economics (HOME) includes accounts of migrants working long hours without adequate sleep and food, having their documents confiscated, rest days suspended, and being subject to verbal abuse and physical violence. [14]
Migrant Worker Death Map was made by an anonymous team in collaboration with representatives of migrant worker communities and the data storytelling agency, Kontinentalist. Covering the period of 1 January 2000 to 3 August 2022, it collects and makes accessible records of migrant deaths, humanizing the data with names, details and video interviews. Its organisers write:
Migrant workers have blurred into our landscape through the normalisation of unacceptable things: from the transportation of human beings like cargo, to the ubiquity of domestic worker abuse. None of these things are normal, and none of them are inherently invisible. The lack of regulatory practices tend to be justified by appeals to economic constraints and attractiveness to a global market; this rhetoric depersonalises and depoliticizes such issues, positioning them as forgone conclusions, beyond our scope of visibility and ethical responsibility. [15]
Another consultee remarked: “Even if we get rid of race, another category will be used to divide us.” This made me think that many Singaporeans are comfortable with familiar state-endorsed racial hierarchies. I argue that to achieve fair and just societies, a persistent enacting of race, must be overcome. In Singapore, “race” is often used interchangeably with “ethnicity”, yet this usage is ambiguous. Simply using a different word does not remove underlying prejudices nor shift policies that leverage certain groups of people above others. Instead, it obscures how race interacts with class and economic disadvantage to produce systemic inequalities. My concerns also resonate with those raised by sociologist You Yenn Teo and journalist and anti-death penalty campaigner Kirsten Han in their respective books This Is What Inequality Looks Like (2019) and The Singapore I Recognise (2023), which I came across at SAM. So, while I’m advised Singaporeans find it difficult to discuss issues of race and class, there have been some considerable efforts made to make these issues accessible.
Of course, racialised inequality and prejudice are not unique to Singapore and they manifest differently around the world. In Berlin, where I live, deep-seated anti-Muslim and anti-Arab sentiments have surfaced following Israel’s war in the Gaza strip. Germany’s remembrance culture of the Nazi genocide of Jewish people compels it to support Israel unwaveringly. In cultural spheres, this has manifest as the cancellation of Palestinian artists alongside others who might seem to be sympathetic with their struggles, such as those from Indonesia, Bangladesh and Pakistan. While ethno-nationalist white supremacists and leftist Antideutsche (Anti-German) groups are commonly opposed to Palestine, Jewish voices critical of Zionism are being targeted, policed and accused of anti-semitism; a charge which has serious consequences in Germany. Simultaneously, the populist far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) political party is gaining power. Furthermore, the top-down coercion of institutions to not raise these issues, an emergent culture of self-censorship and the consequential erosion of Germany’s public intellectualism have made it difficult to discuss how these developments interact.
These complications are just one example of why it is necessary to have robust public discussions about race. The Bureau made some preliminary efforts to open such exchanges using artistic methods of hospitality, publishing and performance. With Singapore as a case-study, I am now making plans to open the Bureau in Berlin. Given the rise of the far-right in Germany and much of Europe, it seems urgent to analyse modes of racialisation and determine who benefits, how it used to gain political advantage, and so that ultimately this violence can be undone.
Drafting in progress and select Completed for review from the dropdown menu.
For posts flagged out for content editing, change the status from Requires editing to Completed for review after all necessary edits and revisions have been made.Add footnotes section button below to create footnotes for your post. We recommend typing the in-text citation number directly after the relevant text and making it bold within [ ]square brackets, for example:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.[8]
If your post does not require footnotes, leave this section as is.Footnotes
11 National Population and Talent Division, “Population in Brief 2023.”
Related
Filter at the top
2) Click the Related projects dropdown and select / deselect the relevant projects
3) Click Save for everyone
4) If the post does not have a related curatorial project yet, we suggest leaving all existing projects selected, in order to show a range of cards in this section.Filter at the top
2) Click the … button next to New and click on Group dropdown and select / deselect the relevant themes
3) Click Save for everyone Comments