| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
185506
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
We disagree with Humairah Zainal and Walid Jumblatt Abdullah that Chinese privilege exists in Singapore politics and that it is perpetuated by the political hegemony of the long-ruling People’s Action Party (PAP). Consequentially, we disagree that ‘Chinese privilege’ is thus a useful concept for understanding politics in Singapore. Our rejoinder argues that ‘Chinese privilege’ is under-specified and decontextualized by the authors, used uncritically as a shortcut for the consequences of the long-ruling party’s political hegemony for ethnic relations, and is therefore a polarizing distraction to the critical analysis required to advance anti-racism discourse and understanding in Singapore. We show that the authors have mistook incumbent political privilege for Chinese privilege. We argue that ethnic majority and minority Members of Parliament from both governing and opposition parties have had to simultaneously serve as community leaders and transcend ethnic affiliations to represent national interests.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
165702
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
For super-diversity to describe the diversification of Asian global cities, it should be discussed with reference to existing regimes governing diversity. In Singapore, the postcolonial state instituted the multiracialism of equality between the ‘races’ of colonial governmentality, so as to manage the ethnic diversity of ‘the plural society’. However, contemporary immigrations disrupted this multiracialism. The political response focused on managing the mobilities of low-wage migrant workers. Drawing on my research on urban change, I show that the this led to the bio-political management of migrant worker mobilities and articulation of the discourse of needs. I argue that the 2013 riot by migrant workers accelerated the production of dormitory space to exclude migrant workers from access to the city and reproduce their physical needs. The case of Singapore shows that we need to ‘moor’ the understanding of super-diversity in Asian global cities to the postcolonial management of diversity and migration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
099068
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This paper reads the debates of the Straits Settlements Legislative Council to trace the political contentions over policies affecting the Chinese community in Malaya. These contentions brought the Straits Chinese unofficials to engage the racial ambivalence of British rule in Malaya, in which the Straits Chinese was located as both a liberal subject and an object of colonial difference. Contrary to conventional historiography which portrays Straits Chinese political identity as one of conservative loyalty to the Empire, I show that the Straits Chinese developed multiple and hybrid political identities that were postcolonial in character, which would later influence the politics of decolonisation and nation-building after the war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|