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. © 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

This chapter offers a critical inquiry into the intra-racial inequality amongst ‘Indians’ in Singapore – a heterogenous community that is formally recognized as a race group under the state’s multiracial framework. It does so by providing a longitudinal analyses of statistical data that confirm upward mobility to be ensconced within the selective Indian migrant group while also locating economic and educational disadvantage amongst the local Singaporean (i.e. second generation onward) Indians, a majority of whom are sub-ethnic Tamils. This is then followed by narratives from the ethnic community that expose how the lack of structural resources impede educational mobility for disadvantaged local Singaporean Indians, which gets reconfigured as an intrinsic or cultural problem amidst both the uncritical acceptance of race-cultural determinism reinforced by public policy as well as the current identity politics within the ethnic community. In particular, it reveals that the amplification of regional/linguistic and cultural divisiveness between the local Indians and their newer migrant counterparts obscures the classed experiences and material disadvantages that underlie them in the first place. The chapter concludes with future research and policy implications.

While no longer associated with colonial economic and political privilege, Peranakan Chinese identity is now often viewed as an ‘authentic’ heritage in contemporary Singapore that is made visible through hybrid cultural and material markers. But for the Peranakan community, what does it mean to be authentically Peranakan in post-colonial Singapore? This paper explores concepts of hybridity and authenticity for Peranakan individuals, highlighting how being Peranakan is informed by ideas of belonging, mixedness and purity, from being ‘true blue’ to generational shifts towards being part Peranakan. Drawing on critical mixed race theory, the paper provides an historical overview of Peranakan identity in the region, tracing how ‘authentic’ Peranakan-ness has changed over time. Using a series of narrative interviews with self-identified Peranakan individuals across three generations, the paper explores public and private representations of identity, and how mixedness and purity are seen as being ‘authentic’ aspects of Peranakan culture. © 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

Despite evolving social and political attitudes, many countries, including Singapore, still do not recognize couples in same-sex relationships. Much remains to be understood about the processes and strategies that help these couples maintain their relationships, especially in Asian societies. This study explored the ways in which gay men in intimate relationships safeguarded their relationships and remained resilient in Singapore. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine gay men in long-term relationships. The data were analyzed using interpretive phenomenological analysis. The analysis generated three superordinate themes, a) Making do with things we cannot change, b) Remaining resilient through social and financial capital, and c) Our love is stronger than the challenges we face. The emergent themes pointed to the ways in which participants coped with or shielded themselves against socio-political stressors that negatively impacted their relationships in the Singapore context. While some participants sought solace in families of choice, many learned to accept socio-political situations beyond their control. Most participants made do with implicit recognition as they were unwilling to disrupt social harmony. Others used their financial security to overcome structural barriers such as obtaining legal elements of heterosexual marriage. Findings may further current understanding of the ways in which gay couples remain resilient despite the relational challenges in different cultural contexts.

This article considers how socio-political prescriptions can bring about the queering of futurity in Singapore. In Singapore, state-sponsored narratives of progress view futurity in terms that are bound to place, and reproduced through the heteronormative family unit. These factors have caused constructions of masculinity to be tethered to the family, and placed within public housing. Recently, this narrative has become an increasingly inflexible and marginalizing construct that can cause straight males to be queered by their prescribed futures. In contrast, gay males are more likely to be untethered from their families, and thus occupy “unplaced” positions in Singapore’s social structure.