‘Stretching out the categories’: Chinese/European narratives of mixedness,belonging and home in Singapore

Abstract

Racial categorization is important in everyday interactions and state organization in Singapore. Increasingly, the idea of ‘mixed race’ and new conceptions of mixedness are challenging such classification along racial lines. Although contemporary Singapore is extremely diverse, the underlying ideology of multiracialism remains grounded in distinctly racialized groups, leaving little space for more complex individual identities. This paper explores the identifications of individuals of mixed Chinese and European descent in the Singaporean context, looking at how complexity is lived within firmly racialized structures. Drawing on a series of 20 narrative interviews, this research examines the relationship between categorization and identity, focusing on the identities of individuals with multiple national, cultural and ethnic ties. The practical impacts of racial categorization shape many aspects of life in Singapore, and individuals of mixed descent illustrated a constant tension between official categorization and personal mixedness, seen in the frustrations experienced and strategies developed by individuals around race and belonging. Individuals negotiated their connections around race and nationality both in practical terms around language, social policies and culture, and personally in terms of symbolic feelings of connection.

Keywords

Race ethnicity mixed race belonging Singapore

Introduction

The meanings and experiences of ‘mixed race’ have been the subject of increasing attention in many societies over the past two decades. Growing numbers of individuals are choosing to identify themselves outside of traditional racial categories, calling into question current systems of racial classification, and the wider significance of the concept of ‘race’. In Singapore, the categorization of race is particularly important in everyday life and in state organization. While contemporary Singaporean society is extremely diverse, the pervasive underlying ideology of multiracialism remains grounded in distinctly racialized groups, leaving little symbolic or practical space for more complex individual identities.

Despite this, notions of complex identities and mixed race remain important. Singapore provides a key case study in exploring mixed race as a context where everyday multiplicity exists against a backdrop of singular race categorization, with far-reaching symbolic and practical outcomes. Furthermore, the Singaporean category of ‘Eurasian’ which both encompasses and excludes individuals of mixed descent highlights the complexity of mixed race identifications, and the potential limitations of such a hybrid racial categorization. This paper examines the relationship between categorization and identity by exploring the identities of individuals with multiple national, cultural and ethnic ties in the Singaporean context. It focuses on how individuals of mixed heritage negotiate and narrate their racial identities within a racially structured framework, and how the institutionalization and classification of race affects this negotiation and narration (see Siddique, 1990).

Race and ‘mixed race’

The broader topic of mixed race falls under a number of interconnected research areas, from micro-level investigations of identity to broader analyses of the future of racial classification. Any work on mixed race is tied closely to understandings of race itself, and the balance between recognizing its constructed nature and importance, and perpetuating its social construction (Rockquemore et al., 2009). The concept of mixed race highlights race as a biologically meaningless, yet socially and institutionally powerful, form of categorization and identity, providing a unique lens through which to review and deconstruct existing racial paradigms, illuminating the everyday permeability of racial boundaries.

Addressing these issues, a specialized area of mixed race research has developed, particularly in the North American and British contexts (see Ifekwunigwe, 2004; Parker and Song, 2001; Root, 1996). Literature on mixed race has a long history, beginning with early pathologies of ‘mixed blood’ and marginality, through psychological models of correct racial identities, to the present-day proliferation of ‘multiracial’ research, advocacy and autobiography. As a deeply gendered and power-laden concept, understandings of mixed race are closely related to the context of social relations and have shifted significantly since the beginning of the 19th century (Rockquemore et al., 2009).

The most recent perspectives on mixed race take an ecological approach, as they work to highlight both exclusion and new forms of belonging; searching to understand the fluidity of identity while stressing the importance of context. Based on the idea that mixed race identities are products of the contexts in which they emerge, such research moves away from previous models of mixed identity development to better capture complexity. This body of work indicates that mixedness is influenced by an ecology of factors, including ethnicity, age, gender, class, history, family and location. Thus, while race continues to exert significant power over a (mixed) individual’s experiences, it is far from the only salient aspect of identity (Root, 1997: 34).

Few contemporary studies on mixed race identities in Singapore have been carried out, with the exceptions of PuruShotam’s work on disciplining difference (1998), and Siddique’s study on the strength of the Singapore system of categorization, as reflected in individual lives (1990). The pre- and post-colonial category of ‘Eurasian’ has, however, been the subject of much research, looking at historical meanings of the term, and the contemporary differences between ‘new’ and ‘old’ Eurasians (Braga-Blake, 1992; Pereira, 1997, 2006). Such research illustrated how a category which began as a categorization of mixedness, eventually developed into a more fixed ‘racial’ categorization, with the accompanying specific ancestral and practical criteria for membership. This paper brings together historical work in Singapore with wider literature on mixed race, building on the ecological approach to mixedness by drawing out the relationship between categorization and identity. It expands the scope of broader theoretical research, moving away from American and British contexts, and adds a post-colonial dimension to include Singapore: a country in which race has a particularly central place in the national narrative.

Racial categorization and mixed race in Singapore

Racial categorization has a long legacy in Singapore. The national narrative of multiracialism is a founding precept of Singapore’s nationhood, as a self-declared constitutionally multiracial state espousing a unique form of multiculturalism (Benjamin, 1976; Chua, 2003). Racial categories were instituted under British colonial rule to manage diversity while maintaining colonial power. These divisions were carried over post-independence, firmly positioning the same classifications within the new state framework (Hirschman, 1987; Pereira, 2006). Such colonial/post-colonial continuity not only provided institutional consistency but also translated racialized boundaries into independent Singapore, with important consequences officially and socially.

Along with race and multiracialism, mixed race has been of significant interest to the state. In managing race for the entire population, the colonial government first attempted to control and curtail mixed race. As the outcome of intermixing within a diverse population, individuals of mixed heritage subverted ideas of purity and authenticity, frequently finding themselves outside singularly racialized groups on the grounds of difference by blood and lineage (Jayawardena, 2007). The category, Eurasian, was an attempt to describe and encompass complexity in a gendered and racialized framework, originally describing individuals with European fathers and Asian mothers. This provided a category into which European/Asian mixes¹ could be consolidated, as an official marker of mixedness (PuruShotam, 1998).

For independent Singapore, the multiracial framework served to manage multiple racial groups in the process of nation building and rapid economic development. As an important tool for governance, multiracialism conceived of distinct racial groups as separate, but equal, making up a uniquely meritocratic Singaporean identity for the new nation (Chua, 1998; Moore, 2000). This organizational structure built national identity around ideals of multiracialism, multilingualism, multiculturalism and multireligiosity, simultaneously acknowledging diversity and constructing Singaporean society as the sum of racially distinct parts (Siddique, 1989).

Contemporary Singapore is administratively categorized into four racial groups: Chinese, Malay, Indian and Other (CMIO): 74.1% of the population identify (or are identified) as Chinese, 13.4% as Malay, 9.2% as Indian and 3.3% are in the category Other (Singapore Department of Statistics, 2010a). These categories play a significant role in everyday life and organization, from the level of state policy down to the individual, ranging from the availability of housing and educational choices to social welfare (Barr and Skrbis, 2008).

Public housing has been strongly informed by racial categories, playing a significant role in the development of the new, independent state from 1965 (Loh, 2009a, 2009b; Moore, 2000). Housing estates were built to be deliberately multiracial, breaking up racially based enclaves around the country as the population was resettled post-independence. After 1980, this intermixing was even more strictly enforced, through monitoring of quotas. This ensured that the CMIO proportions were maintained, and no racial group was over-represented within any housing estate, curtailing where citizens could live, down to the level of each apartment block (Chua, 1995a; Lai, 1995).

In the sphere of social welfare, racial divisions are also important. In the absence of a state-provided welfare system, ‘self-help’ groups are organized along racial and religious lines, fitting neatly within the multiracial model of distinct and bounded races (Moore, 2000). A form of welfare is provided for each major ‘racial’ group by MENDAKI for the Malay population, SINDA for the Indian population, CDAC for the Chinese population and, more recently, the Eurasian Association for some of the ‘Others’ (Chua, 1998; Lai, 1995).

The bilingual education system is equally shaped by the CMIO framework. In particular, the second language policy, which mandates the learning of an official ‘mother tongue’, organized education by assuming that race and language are inherently associated. A ‘natural’ second language was ascribed for each student based on patrilineal racial lines, whether the language was spoken within the family in question. Thus, racial groups have been understood as having a ‘true’ racial essence, reflected in language: Mandarin for the Chinese, Malay for the Malays and Tamil for the Indians (Pereira, 1997; Wee, 2002).

Such state projects of categorization, then, have practical impacts on the day-to-day lives of individuals and are very much present in everyday life consciousness. This is further reinforced through recording of race on official forms and national identity cards and symbolic representation in national events (PuruShotam, 1998). This results in narratives of racial singularity being highly visible at both macro and micro levels, reinforcing racialized boundaries, and, until recently, limiting options for multiple racial identifications (Rocha, 2012). Until early 2010, individuals of mixed descent were classified according to the race of their fathers (Leow, 2000), a gendered tradition of patriarchal descent which reinforced an unambiguous racial framework. However, reflecting the changing demography of the population and increasing levels of intermarriage (18.4% of all marriages by 2009), classifications of mixed race have recently shifted (Singapore Department of Statistics, 2010b). From 2011, children of mixed descent could be registered as the race of either parent, as a mix between the two (Eurasian) or as having a ‘double-barrelled race’ (Immigration and Checkpoints Authority, 2010). This move caused much debate, leading to the caveat that in order to fit within the established multiracial framework, individuals with ‘double-barrelled’ classifications must also select a primary race – the race before the hyphen.

This change was then largely symbolic: a way to recognize complex identities, without disrupting the established system. The current classification system combines ascribed and maintained racial identities – allowing for a form of official recognition of mixed race, while at the same time reinforcing the CMIO system at the institutional and societal levels, by keeping quotas and structure intact. Personal identities and official categories may then contradict or even clash, highlighting the potential for dissonance between private and public forms of identification for individuals of mixed heritage.

Identity and narrative

This research approaches the concept of mixed race through a narrative lens. Narrative analysis draws out the racialized and gendered aspects of mixed identities, through a focus on the stories of individuals who do not fit comfortably into existing racial categories. Rather than simply reflecting experience, stories and narratives construct and give meaning to the social world (Riessman, 1993). Narrative provides a conceptual link between individual accounts of identity, and symbolic, historical and institutional practices at societal and state levels. On the individual level, narratives provide stories which actors use to make sense of their lives, embedding identities in social life over time (Ewick and Silbey, 1995). At the macro level, identity constructions are inevitably constrained by context. Public narratives develop from the level of the family to the level of the state, at the highest level providing a network of narratives around ideas of national identity, hierarchy and belonging (Somers, 1994). Such narratives are pervasive, and in constructing identities, individuals imagine themselves as part of ‘the narrative of the nation, as told and retold in national histories, literatures, the media and popular culture’ (Hall, 1992: 293).

In the case of mixed race identity, the intertwining of narratives and power is particularly important, looking at the ways in which individual narratives can subvert or reinforce the status quo. Dominant narratives function to provide a common form of identity at the national level, often leaving aside alternative stories of what it means to belong (Goh, 2008: 315). Such narratives of mixed race have frequently been pathological or have even erased mixedness from national narratives altogether. Collective racial identity is frequently based on narratives of exclusivity, stories of belonging to a single group with firm boundaries. For those whose stories sit outside of such public narratives, adjustments and negotiations must be made in order to make sense of narrative dissonance and powerlessness, situating the self within a wider social, cultural and institutional framework.

This paper draws on a series of 20 in-depth interviews with individuals of mixed Chinese and European² descent. This particular population (but not necessarily cohesive group) is sizeable and growing and illustrates important social dynamics in the Singaporean setting, reflecting post-colonial power relations and sociohistorical assumptions around race and gender. Thirteen women and seven men were interviewed, with an age range of 19 to 64, encompassing a wide range of backgrounds, locations and occupations (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Research participants.

Age	Gender	Current location	Occupation	Mother^a	Father
19	F	Australia	Student	Singaporean Chinese	Anglo Australian
20	F	Singapore	Trainee customer service officer	Peranakan Chinese	Portuguese Eurasian
21	M	UK	Student	Singaporean Chinese	English
22	M	Singapore	National Serviceman	Singaporean Chinese	Anglo Australian
23	F	Singapore	Student	German	Indonesian Chinese
23	F	Singapore	Student	Eurasian	Singaporean Chinese
24	F	Switzerland	Intern	French	Singaporean Chinese
25	M	USA	Student/company director	Singaporean Chinese	Anglo Australian
26	M	Singapore	Military instructor	Filipino Chinese	Anglo Australian
27	F	UK	Doctor	Singaporean Chinese	English
27	F	Holland	Student	Russian Chinese/Japanese	Hong Kong Chinese
27	F	Singapore	Drama teacher	Singaporean Chinese	English
28	F	Singapore	Librarian	Singaporean Chinese	New Zealand European
30	M	Singapore	Research engineer	Singaporean Chinese	Anglo Australian
30	F	Singapore	Designer/retail manager	French	Singaporean Chinese
33	F	Singapore	Trainer	Singaporean Chinese	Welsh
36	F	Sweden	Account manager/research fellow	Hakka/Peranakan Chinese	Chinese and Portuguese
36	M	Singapore	PR executive	English and German	Eurasian
37	F	Singapore	Administrator	Sikh/Chinese	Eurasian
64	M	Singapore	Airline pilot	Singaporean Chinese	White British

Parental designations are as described by the participant.

This study was limited to a select population, including some overlap with the Eurasian population. Out of necessity and in line with much previous research on mixed race, selective sampling was used, with a potential snowballing effect. Participants were recruited through educational institutions, community organizations and web-based groups, in four phases in 2011. Advertisements asked for individuals with one Chinese and one European parent, without using the term ‘mixed’ or ‘race’, to avoid biasing the sample by recruiting only those individuals who self-identified as mixed or those who focused on racial identities³ (see Root, 1992). This form of purposeful sampling sought to recruit a diverse group of participants who would best be able to assist in understanding issues around mixed race in Singapore. Given the qualitative nature of the research, the sample was not representative in any statistical sense of the word but rather drew out key aspects of the unique narratives of this group of individuals.

The interviews themselves were designed to more fully understand the complexity and fluidity of how narratives of mixed race are constructed and positioned, asking general questions around heritage and identity. The diversity in ages of the participants allowed for insight into how perceptions and experience of mixedness had changed over time. Importantly, this research did not seek to generalize about mixed race for the entire Chinese-European population(s) of Singapore. For all participants, race was one of a myriad of ways to identify, and participants illustrated the complex interplay between different forms of identity, including ethnicity, religion, gender, class and culture. However, for this group, race and mixed race were very much present in their stories. Personal narratives around mixed race (and other identities) illuminated key experiences and narrative themes, and the simultaneous undermining and reinforcement of static racial categories.

Narratives of singularity and mixedness

Several key themes emerged from personal narratives of mixed race in Singapore. Overarching stories illustrated a constant tension between official categorization and personal mixedness, seen in the frustrations experienced and strategies developed by individuals around race and belonging. Individuals negotiated their connections as Chinese and/or European, both in practical terms around language, language policies, and culture, and personally in terms of symbolic feelings of connection. Public and private dissonances were particularly evident when it came to quotidian forms of categorization, such as identity cards, which influenced personal strategies of belonging. Similarly, the category of Eurasian illustrated how a hybrid racial categorization can serve to both exclude and include. The meanings of citizenship as racial and non-racial were particularly important for participants, inflected by gendered experiences of military service and generational shifts. Wider understandings of home within personal stories then highlighted different ways to belong, set against this backdrop of inclusive/exclusive racial and national identities.

Public and private locations of self

While a unified national identity is promoted at the state level, Singaporean society remains racialized and divided for many communities and individuals (Barr and Skrbis, 2008). The ever-present nature of race in policy has translated to race being commonly used as a marker of belonging at a social level, a shorthand around the complexity of different identities (see Siddique, 1989). The multiracial system has then been efficient for organizational purposes, but it has also constrained and concealed the complexity of everyday life identities for Singaporeans. The blurring of boundaries between groups has often been ignored, as well as the myriad of hybrid cultural practices of everyday life in Singapore (see Benjamin, 1976; Chua, 1995b).

Personal narratives highlighted this dual blurring of boundaries and reinforcing of race. Individuals of mixed descent described how their families and experiences often defied singular racial classification, yet also frequently described these experiences and families in racial terms. The CMIO framework was seen as well entrenched in both public and private life: almost all official forms have a section for race, and participants described ‘what race are you?’ as a common question in everyday interaction (see also PuruShotam, 1998). Despite recent moves towards symbolic acknowledgement, many individuals described being uncomfortably situated in the practical dissonance between public and private identities.

Individuals of mixed descent spoke of being particularly affected by this tension, often being unable to identify with their allocated label and or even feeling displaced by the category of ‘Other’. The language around being mixed was important, reflecting the links between labelling and identification. Individuals used a variety of terms in their own stories to describe this. Eurasian was a popular term but often carried significant baggage, while mixed and mixed race were also used casually as more complex descriptors, in contrast to the rigidity of state racial classifications. Individuals navigated being ‘raced’ by a bureaucratic system through these descriptions, aligning administrative process with their personal experience and construction of identity. A key form of classification was the race listed on national identity cards (IC). This remained strongly gendered for many people, linked to the race of their father, which did not always correspond to how they perceived themselves.

One young man rebelled against the Caucasian classification on his IC, insisting to his friends that he was Chinese:

Race, yeah, I don’t know. On my card, it says I’m Caucasian. Which kind of sucks, like, can’t I just be like both, Eurasian … but I had to follow what my dad is. And I used to get made fun of, because I would always pretend to be like, ‘guys, I’m all, I’m so Chinese’, but they would just, all the local Singaporeans would just laugh at me [laughs]. [ … ]

I don’t know, maybe, maybe Singapore should start considering you know, stretching out the categories.

(21, male, Singaporean Chinese/English) ⁴

His personal subversion of his official label was a way for him to assert his feelings of belonging, despite this claim not being recognized by his peers. The amused reaction of his friends highlighted the strength of racialized boundaries at both state and community levels, and his position as a young male moving between ‘foreign’ (or expat) and local circles. Although he mentioned this form of dislocation with a laugh, his concern with race and fitting in (to both boxes and social groups) and his use of ‘pretend’ illustrated the importance of racial belonging to him, combining his subversion with a belief in distinct racial categories and stories of reinforcement. The dissonance between personal complexity and singular categorization became more apparent to him after leaving Singapore for London, as he filled out the UK census, which allows for the selection of multiple ethnic groups. He found that he could fit himself more easily into multiple categories, rather than the singular selection available in Singapore, calling into question the rigidity of the Singaporean framework.

By way of contrast, one young woman was happy to have a singular racial category to identify with. Having grown up in much more local circles than the previous participant, she had always assumed she was Chinese and was told only as a teenager of her ancestry.

Well, I never questioned, I always put Chinese. Um, until my mum told me … and my sister … then I knew. But then I also looked up online, like, I think I was applying for the identification card, that kind of the thing. I think it says somewhere like if your father is Chinese, you just put Chinese. So, yeah. I’m glad they made it easy for me. I don’t want to have to, on the form, think about what I have to fill in. Yeah. So, I just put Chinese, yeah.

And yeah, I have a Chinese name, and I have um, yeah, I guess I look, I think I look mostly Chinese, anyway, so …

Um, I don’t, I wouldn’t want too many people asking so ‘what is Others?’ and ‘what Others do you mean?’

And that Others term is something that I would never want to fill in with.

It’s a weird category. Like, a alien, it’s just not, not human or something,

I don’t know, it’s really strange.

(27, female, Russian, Chinese and Japanese/Hong Kong Chinese)

The news of her mixed ancestry was a shock for her, almost revealing a dark family secret: ‘ … then I knew’. This knowledge of the potential for a complex racial identity had a significant effect on her, and she felt strongly that simple classification was better, reinforcing the CMIO framework in her personal life. The patrilineal rules of racial categorization were a relief in this case. In contrast to the previous narrative, she saw the simplicity of Singapore’s system as positive, allowing mixedness to be easily concealed as she positioned herself as a local Singaporean. This reinforcement continued in her distaste for the category of ‘Other’, which went against the neat categories, and to her, seemed a non-defined, or non-human (by being non-racial) category.

For all participants, classification had practical impacts on their lives. The gap between social and state labels and personal reality meant that participants needed to negotiate their sense of being mixed within this pervasive categorization. This felt constraining for some participants. They sought to identify themselves in more fluid ways, repeatedly coming up against an inflexible bureaucracy. One woman stressed:

But there is this like, it’s like … you know, in Singapore they just brush over it, well, let’s not talk about it.

You know, you’re aren’t allowed to talk about racial issues. But … we’re going to box everybody up into a category before they’ve, as soon as they’re born.

(27, female, Singaporean Chinese/British)

She fought against the racial label assigned to her, finding such singularity stifling. Her criticism of the pervasiveness and strength of the racial framework reflected her positioning as an outsider and an insider: a young woman who grew up primarily with her Singaporean extended family, and went to both local and international schools. In this way, she sought to reconcile public and private identifications, hoping to allow for public forms of mixedness.

For other participants, labels affected the way they had learned to describe themselves, yet they were able to make a clear distinction between public and private forms of identification. One young man, despite being labelled Caucasian, made a point of emphasizing his Chinese heritage in his personal life. As a result, racial categorization became a more abstract form of classification: race categories were an administrative requirement for him and for others, rather than a definition of identity.

State-sanctioned mixedness

The strength of singular categorization meant that mixedness was difficult to publicly assert, even when an ostensibly hybrid label, Eurasian, was available. Originally meaning ‘European’ and ‘Asian’, the term came to encompass both cultural and ancestral criteria, defining a more particular community. However, after independence, Eurasian identity was largely excluded from dominant national narratives, as it did not fit easily into the multiracial model. To combat this marginalization, the Eurasian community attempted to assert its distinctiveness as a defined racial community, rather than a broad term to encompass ambiguity. The government supported the community’s efforts, acknowledging the Eurasians as a distinct cultural group, both politically and symbolically (Pereira, 1997, 2006). However, despite this simplification to fit within a wider framework, much like other racialized groups, the social reality of Eurasians remained much more complicated.

As well as seeking to assert mixedness, some participants focused on Eurasian as a term that was both inclusive and exclusive. Eurasian provided a separately racialized category which encompassed a multitude of backgrounds and experiences (see, for example, Choo, 2007; Zimmern, 2010). Participants used the term in both a casual sense to describe mixed ancestry, and in a more precise way, to illustrate the category of Eurasian within the government’s classificatory framework. Some participants were very aware of the historical meaning of Eurasian in Singapore, and the essentialization of a distinct Eurasian identity within a racial framework.

Like I said, on my IC it’s written Chinese.

I can’t say I’m Eurasian because …

(although I am Eurasian) because the term Eurasian defines the person half/half, Europe and Asian, right?

But in Singapore if you’re Eurasian, it’s not even what I am. Because that group of people, that doesn’t describe the kind of mix that I am.

So I can’t really, that doesn’t apply to me as well. I’m not pure Chinese.

But it’s written Chinese because I have a Chinese name after my father.

(30, female, French/Singaporean Chinese)

For this woman, Eurasian was another racial category into which she did not easily fit. The race of her father simplified her categorization, but left her personal identity at odds with her official label: a simplification she struggled with, having grown up in both Singapore and in France, where race was not a pertinent form of categorization. Her narrative reflected accommodation around the term Eurasian, as she worked to accommodate the racial framework with a public/private divide.

Others, however, saw Eurasian as a way to subvert singular racial categories, a form of recognizing mixedness (perhaps unintentionally) through the state framework.

Well, I’m proud to have Eurasian on my IC.

Cause ah, back then when they gave me my IC at first, it said Chinese.

And I was like ‘no, I’m not Chinese, can you change it?’.

And the lady looked at me and was ‘are you sure? Are you sure you’re not Chinese?’ and I was like ‘yeah, I think I am’ [laughs]

(22, male, Singaporean Chinese/Anglo Australian)

This young man used the categorization to acknowledge personal mixedness, pushing for a Eurasian label to encompass both sides of his heritage. He utilized the category to accommodate his feelings of belonging as local Singaporean, while staying within the defined framework. His story of persuading the government official to change his assignation not only shows how he subverted expectations through humour but also reflects a serious point: the power of external perceptions in reinforcing a racialized framework.

For one woman, her personal feelings of mixedness transcended her racial classification.

I mean, it’s fine to be classified under mixed …

And um … I think being Eurasian is fine.

Listing that category or the Others category. Yeah.

But I mean, when filling out forms and stuff, I just instinctively tick Chinese, because it’s stated Chinese on my IC.

Yeah, because, back then Singapore hasn’t had the rule that you can state Eurasian.

But now they have that rule. So if both parents are agreeable, it’s fine.

So my friends have told me ‘why don’t you just go and change it’ and I said ‘I don’t want to spend the money changing my IC!’

It’s not important what is stated on a form, as long as you know inside of you, where you are and what you are.

(23, female, Eurasian/Singaporean Chinese)

Although she now had the option to change her classification to Eurasian to acknowledge her heritage, this was unimportant. She felt at ease with her identity as a Singaporean and her ‘instinct’ to choose Chinese, and her feelings of mixedness did not contradict her feelings of belonging. For her, external labels did not need to match her private sense of who (and what) she was.

Eurasian then provided an interesting space in which participants could manoeuvre. For some, the implications of a bounded, culturally specific Eurasian community provided another form of exclusion from a racialized framework. However, for others, Eurasian could be re-purposed into its component terms of European and Asian, allowing an acknowledgement of mixedness even without identifying with the Eurasian community as a whole.

Being Chinese and European

Reflecting this complexity around categorization and mixedness, participants referred to their heritage in different ways, asserting that they often felt both Chinese and European. However, it was often stories of ‘Chineseness’ that came to the fore. The category of Chinese is extremely broad and difficult to define, linked to nationality, ethnic group, ancestry, diaspora, tradition and culture (Chow, 1998; Matthews, 2002). For participants, ‘being Chinese’ also meant many different things, shifting and changing over time. For some, Chineseness was linked closely to linguistic ability and cultural upbringing: practices and family traditions which would reinforce assertions of authenticity. This question of authenticity was key for one young man, as he sought to position a complex identity within a singular framework:

[I would say] ‘I’m as Chinese as all of you!’, but they don’t believe me [laughs].

They just laugh.

Which is kind of why I want to learn Chinese as well, just to kind of support everything that I’m saying.

Cause I can’t just go around and ‘yeah, I’m Chinese’ without being able to speak Chinese, or even look as Chinese as everyone else.

An arsenal of, just, just to back up whatever I’m saying.

(21, male, Singaporean Chinese/English)

As he alluded to, language was important in how participants related to either side of their heritage. Many stressed the importance of language in transmitting culture, as well as a way to fit in within Singaporean society. More than three-quarters of participants spoke two or more languages, regardless of which parent was Chinese, and speaking Mandarin in particular was seen as an important link to Chinese culture. One woman saw language as a way to assert the reality of her Asian heritage, and ‘prove’ to others that she was half Chinese, and connected to her heritage. Other individuals were bilingual, usually those with regular associations with both sides of the family, and they moved easily between English and Cantonese or Mandarin, code-switching depending on context. This allowed for a closer connection to both sides of the family for many people.

Language also allowed for feelings of connection or dislocation from wider Singapore society. Many participants described switching between English and Singlish (a local dialect) with their families, friends and in local neighbourhoods. Some participants mentioned that others would not expect them to speak Singlish, assuming that their phenotypes and backgrounds excluded them from this Singaporean mark of identity. However, language carried with it another set of connotations, drawing on the shifting government policies on language, racial identity and national belonging. The bilingual educational framework not only served to promote language learning but also further essentialized racial groups. The allocated ‘mother tongue’, the official language for the race, was frequently not the home language for families, who often spoke different languages or regional dialects. For individuals of mixed parentage, this policy (like many others) assumed that both parents come from the same group. In reality, the designated language of the race of the father often had no resonance with their daily lives (Chua, 2003; Wee, 2002).

The oldest participant illustrated how language and language policies affected his feelings of belonging, as compared to some of the younger participants.

So I got familiar with Cantonese because that was the language spoken in the house.

Until the Mandarin issue came in, then everyone went haywire.

Even now today when I go to Hong Kong, it sounds very familiar.

The words sound familiar because we grew up listening to those kind of words and

I don’t feel threatened.

But I walk down in Taiwan or whatever I would not know what they were talking about. China also I wouldn’t know and to a certain extent even here.

In some housing estates I don’t know what they are saying.

I can walk there, I have no clue what they are talking about.

They’re talking in Mandarin and I have no way of understanding and it feels very …

I would say threatening, you know, because you do not know what they are saying.

They could be saying anything, you know, that’s the trouble.

(64, male, Singaporean Chinese/White British)

Born in 1947 in colonial Singapore, to a British father and Singaporean Chinese mother, he grew up speaking English, with some exposure to Cantonese. For him, the later government emphasis on the Chinese group speaking Mandarin left him feeling excluded and foreign, having not learned Mandarin in school and not associating it with belonging in Singapore.

The predominance of Mandarin in everyday life was also difficult for another man in his 30s who was closely associated with the Eurasian community, and for whom speaking English was a point of pride. He saw a disconnect between the emphasis on Mandarin and the status of English as an official language in Singapore, making him feel that he needed to uphold English for himself. Tellingly, he spoke of needing to ‘arm’ his children with Mandarin, providing them with the necessary tools to fit in and belong in Singapore – something that he continued to struggle with. Language for him was something of a battle, a negotiation between the public and private aspects of his identity.

The emphasis on language as connected to heritage in Singapore was emphasized by the requirement to learn a mother tongue at school. For participants who spoke English at home, the requirement to learn Mandarin, as the mother tongue of their race, was weighty. For these individuals, Mandarin had no connection to their home lives and families, and they felt at a disadvantage compared to those who spoke Mandarin in their daily lives. One woman found herself confused by the category of mother tongue itself, and its connections to her as a person.

Bilingualism was introduced into the education system, so apart from the English language as the administrative language and teaching and all that, children were encouraged to take on what you would call their mother tongue.

And that term in itself confused the heck out of me, because what is my mother tongue? [laughs]

I mean, I grew up with English at home, so English is my mother tongue.

But then I, I had grandparents, great-grandparents from Portugal, and from China, so, I was, it was difficult.

I mean, as a child, to figure out where you actually belong, I mean, what slot.

(36, female, Hakka and Peranakan Chinese/Chinese and Portuguese)

Coming from a particularly diverse background, this woman deliberately distanced herself from Mandarin as a language, and the culture that she saw accompanying it. As a young child, she felt that her identity and her heritage were not in any way connected with this language, and she emphasized the role of English in her life. Interestingly, in doing so, she reflected the state discourse regarding language and heritage, questioning for herself what her true mother tongue would be.

Moving away from language, for some people, being Chinese was less a matter of practiced behaviour and more a feeling of connection, or a form of symbolic ethnicity (Gans, 1979). However, for others, their sense of being Chinese was balanced by not being Chinese: contrasting and juxtaposing ideas of Chineseness and whiteness in the post-colonial Singaporean context. One man highlighted how he grew up around Chinese culture and language, but never felt connected to either as part of his family or his own identity, feeling closer to his British heritage. Although European culture and ethnicity were in the minority, they carried with them historical associations of colonialism and privilege, as well as a significant socio-economic separation from the local Singaporean population. Experiences of whiteness and European cultural practices often went in tandem for participants with not being ‘properly’ Chinese, reflected in physical appearance, food preferences and names.

Highlighting the complexity of identification and cultural belonging, ‘Asian’ and ‘Western’ were terms often used by participants when discussing their ancestries and identities. Participants used these signifiers in a number of ways, referring to cultural, spatial, historical and geographical bases for identity, yet also glossing over the complexities and diversities inherent in both terms. Individuals spoke of being Asian more frequently than being Chinese, perhaps because of ambiguities of nationality, culture and immigration status. Several participants described how they felt more Asian than Western, as a result of their life experiences and feelings of belonging in Singapore. Despite this, for the majority of participants, being both Asian and Western (however each was defined) was something they negotiated in their everyday lives, without necessarily privileging one over the other.

This negotiation was frequently expressed in terms of ‘values’, as related to family, morals, social norms and culture. Participants typically saw traditional values as Asian, while more flexible and ‘modern’ notions were assigned as Western. The national discourse in Singapore around ‘Asian values’ has been prolonged and pervasive. Such values and traditions have been portrayed as a form of cultural grounding, providing a moral base for an Asian population in a rapidly modernizing (and Westernizing) city-state. Asian values have been conceptualized as integral to being Singaporean, equating a Singaporean identity with a wider understanding of being Asian (Barr and Skrbis, 2008; Kong and Yeoh, 2003). This was reflected in participants’ discussions of their relationships within their family as a way of being Asian: respecting elders, living close to family, meeting family regularly and a wider sense of responsibility for the family’s well-being.

Participants also contrasted what they saw as Asian values, and how they understood Western values. For one woman, the difference in the families’ reactions to her sexuality was marked, with the Western family being accepting of her relationship with her girlfriend, and the Asian family disapproving of her lifestyle. For her, Asian family values were more constrained, illustrating traditional expectations of her role as a daughter and as a woman.

And, it’s so interesting, because the difference is so huge.

You know, you’ve got one family who, they leave you to do whatever, but they’re so accepting and accommodating of whatever you do, which is my dad’s side.

And then you’ve got my mum’s side, who are so in your face, and so like ‘what are you doing? What’s going on?’ and just like want to know everything all the time, but then judge you so much on what you are doing.

(27, female, Singaporean Chinese/British)

Ancestry was thus interpreted in different ways for participants, encompassing aspects of Chineseness, understandings of being European and the meanings of whiteness, and what it means to be Eurasian. State policies around language and values had significant impacts on the everyday lives and experiences of individuals, as they worked to understand mixedness through practical and symbolic strategies. Through not belonging easily within a single category, participants found themselves dislocated by official markers of race, balancing their own understandings of Chineseness, not being Chinese and being European.

Citizenship and home

Citizenship, as a potentially non-racial form of belonging, had an important place in the narratives of participants. The intertwining between race and national identity was reflected in many stories, as participants described how they fitted, or did not fit, within the racialized structures available to them, and how this impacted their identifications as Singaporean. For all participants, citizenship and national identity played key roles in their descriptions of self.⁵ Tied with ideas of a geographical home, the nation provided an important space in which participants developed ideas of mixedness, linking place, culture, home and personal identity (Blunt, 2005).

Emphasis on citizenship illustrated both subversion of the CMIO framework, and reinforcement of the state narrative of one unified Singapore, as participants used ‘Singaporean’ as an identifier over and above, or even in place of, racial categories. An interesting generational shift was noted. While the oldest participant lamented that Singaporean should be available as a non-racial identity, some younger participants described themselves as though it were already available.

Maybe in the next generation or in the future generations there will be a time they will say, ‘I’m a Singaporean’, rather than a …

Because when you think about it an Indian refers to someone that comes from India. Chinese, someone comes from China.

But when it comes to Singapore, you’re born in Singapore and you’re not a Singaporean?

You know, can’t you be called a Singaporean?

(64, male, Singaporean Chinese/White British)

In my pink IC there’s, the state has called me a Caucasian, because my father is Caucasian.

But in my military IC it calls me European, because … I don’t know why also.

I guess the way they classify, ah.

So inherently, at times, I think it doesn’t matter.

Yeah, I subscribe to the fact that it doesn’t matter who I am racially, but it matters who I am, which country I stand for, lah.

So I’m Singaporean, lah.

(26, male, Filipino Chinese/Anglo Australian)

This shift in perspective reflected the differences in social context around mixedness and belonging, as experienced by the 64-year-old and the 26-year-old. State narratives around race and antipathy toward mixedness were strong during the older participant’s childhood and young adult years. The younger grew up as national identity was increasingly emphasized around race, allowing him to transcend racial labels in a more personal way. This difference reinforces Siddique’s (1990) claim that younger individuals in Singapore are choosing national identity over racialized labels. For the younger man, classification was administrative and abstract, while his sense of belonging to Singapore was practical and demonstrated in his personal identification. This civic identification as just Singaporean was echoed by several of the younger male participants, as they described race as a public classification that had little personal meaning. National identity was perceived as a way to belong to the nation, transcending racialized categories.

However, while Singaporean was a strong form of identity, it was not a simple or uncontested form of belonging. One participant felt that being Singaporean was a constraining rather than an enabling form of identification. This was linked to her position within her family and issues around acceptance of her sexuality, leading her to disassociate herself as much as possible. Reflecting the lack of acceptance of her mixed background, she described how she sought to break out of the Singaporean framework, as an identity she could not subscribe to. Another participant made a distinction between feeling Singaporean and holding Singaporean citizenship.

So I think, I don’t want to be clever, but for me, to live with myself and in order to be, to sleep well at night, when people ask me ‘are you Singaporean?’, maybe I come out with a very wise-ass answer.

I say ‘no, I’m not Singaporean, but I’m a Singaporean citizen’.

Because I don’t feel Singaporean, in terms of my, of the nation at large.

I don’t think I can identify with that.

But I’m happy to say that I’m a citizen of this country, and I enjoy the privileges of being a citizen here.

(36, male, English and German/Eurasian)

Having experienced significant discrimination and social displacement throughout his life, this participant was content to assert his citizenship, but stressed that being Singaporean was not something that he identified with, primarily because he did not feel as though he belonged within the racialized structures. For him, racial categories remained an important part of Singaporean identity, and as someone who did not fit into these categories neatly, he felt distanced from belonging to Singapore as a nation.

This importance of racialized Singaporean identity was echoed in the stories of a number of participants, who explored the interplay and conflation of race and nationality. As in the CMIO framework, some participants described being both racially and nationally identified, without being able to separate one from the other. Many participants, men and women, across all age groups, described how they did not feel they belonged easily, as a result of not fitting within strict categorization systems and not being seen as an authentic Singaporean.

Gender was closely related to national identity, particularly because of the compulsory military service for men when they reach 18 years old. A small number of participants chose to leave Singapore, renouncing their Singaporean citizenship and getting out of their military service obligation, while several stayed in Singapore and undertook their training. One individual then joined the military professionally, and saw serving the nation as a way to belong, regardless of race. For a second participant, national service emphasized the dissonance between his personal feelings of belonging, and his exclusion from Singaporean citizenship. As Singapore does not allow dual citizenship, participants with parents from two different countries are required to choose once they reach 21 years old. For this young man, having to choose felt like a denial of his identity, after his sense of belonging to Singapore was strengthened during his two-year national service period.

The fact that they’re trying to take it away from me, it’s like making me really like “ugh”.

Really, angry.

But … more disappointed in the fact that it’s probably going to happen.

Like, I can’t really do anything about it.

I have both now, but obviously I’m going to have to give up one.

But I mean, Singapore’s making me give up one.

The UK doesn’t really care [laughs].

Just so, like what, what, why? Citizenship is important, for me [laughs].

(21, male, Singaporean Chinese/English)

This forced choice illustrates another form of singularity, into which individuals of mixed descent do not always fit. While most held a Singaporean passport, some had given up Singaporean citizenship or were being asked to choose between two nationalities. Despite this, many would still describe themselves as Singaporean, regardless of their official status, illustrating another form of dissonance between public and private identifications. Along with race, national identity can involve intimate and complicated connections, which singular forms of belonging cannot always encompass. For young men of mixed descent in Singapore, national service evoked a strong sense of belonging or dislocation, and either way, forced a choice regarding national loyalty. National identity provided a way to belong for some, yet at the same time reinforced the limits of asserting mixedness in a Singaporean framework.

Other ways to belong

Against these backgrounds of racial and national identifications, participants negotiated more personal ways to belong. As discussed by Chua, day-to-day practices in the Singaporean context are multicultural and diverse, highlighting the potentially hybrid nature of everyday life experiences (Chua, 1995b). Such experiences illustrate the importance of agency within structure, as unofficially Singaporean traits of mixture and mingling, through food, language and experiences of economic development, can come together to provide an unofficial way to belong (Chua, 1998; Ortmann, 2009). However, the multiracial framework remained powerful in shaping how participants saw their positionings in society. In the absence of simple markers around race and nationality, individuals frequently spoke of conscious negotiations of belonging as they drew on some of these unofficial traits.

While experiences of being dislocated were common in everyday life, participants worked to locate themselves in other ways. Importantly, many felt that the idea of ‘home’ was key and could be understood in a more fluid and personal fashion. One woman, living in the Netherlands, stressed that she creates her own home, with her family and the traditions she chooses, regardless of where she is located geographically. Another young woman created a virtual home through an online community, as a result of feeling excluded and isolated in her everyday life.

But I feel like, rather than trying to find a place, more like I try to create one. Like in the online community.

Um, because I don’t think, like I could really find one in real life [ … ]

I like it here, and it’s like my home, but I don’t know if I sort of belong. Like, um …

I don’t feel like I don’t belong, but I don’t know if I do.

Like, but I mean I feel like, um, you have to be embraced by everyone to belong.

And that’s like, I guess, maybe I wouldn’t be.

(19, female, Singaporean Chinese/Anglo Australian)

Currently living in Australia, she felt that she would not be accepted by Australian or Singaporean society. As a result, she created her own space, an online forum for people of mixed heritage, in which she felt she belonged. Another man also described creating his own version of home with his fiancée, but expressed regret that this sense of home could not include a wider community or even a nation.

I don’t know where home is. I think maybe my case is very specific, maybe home is what we make of it.

And maybe home has been very narrowly defined for us. I think home is just, she and I building a home, in any one place in Singapore.

But for me, home needs to be more all-encompassing. Like home used to be, um, rooted in something much larger. A community I suppose. Um, and maybe one nation state, if you want to be academic about it.

(36, male, English and German/Eurasian)

In the face of wider racial and national dislocation, personal stories often drew together different strands of belonging and individual experience. Participants spoke about how their backgrounds had influenced them, grounding them with a feeling of being both in-between and connected to multiple groups. One woman made a distinction between heritage, ancestry and lived experience, showing how her sense of belonging stemmed from her life experiences.

It’s not where my parents are from, or how I look like, it’s where I spent all my life, and you know, memories, and experiences.

(30, female, French/Singaporean Chinese)

Many people spoke of a surprising degree of personal flexibility around identity, located within the rigidity of racial categories and public impacts. Although public and private identifications were often at odds, individuals found ways to work around or within the CMIO framework, allowing for some degree of dissonance. Participants spoke of how their mixed heritage had shaped their lives and their identities as adults, giving them cultural links and insights that they felt others lacked. They described themselves as open-minded, flexible in their judgments of others, and occupying an in-between space that left them both excluded and encompassed by multiple groups. Several decided they did not have to choose between the different aspects of their heritage, developing an identity which was not ‘just black and white, but grey’.

I feel like I’m quite like a sort of open-minded, flexible person.

And I feel like um, I think being like biracial has sort of affected that.

Like, because I’m sort of, I believe in everything, sort of not just black and white, but grey.

I feel like I don’t have to choose one or the other, when it comes to things.

(19, female, Singaporean Chinese/Anglo Australian)

Different ways to belong in the Singaporean context provided different opportunities and constraints for participants. National identity both served to include and exclude participants, allowing a form of transcendent identity, but one which remained heavily influenced by notions of racial belonging. In reaction to this, participants prioritized different forms of identity, sometimes leaning towards citizenship, sometimes racial communities and sometimes other forms of belonging altogether. As seen in these stories, there were multiple ways to belong and to express connections as Chinese, European, neither and both. Mixed heritage was both challenging and enabling for many people, as they negotiated creative ways in which to belong. Through embracing personal mixedness and subverting wider racial structures, many individuals found value in difference, and a way to locate themselves in everyday life.

Conclusion

Multiracialism remains a powerful ideology in Singapore. Wider social understandings of racial and national belonging continue to frame and constrain the identifications of those with multiple affiliations and connections across groups. The CMIO framework has both symbolic and practical impacts for the population and is pervasive and well established. Despite the continued rigidity of racial categorization in Singapore, individuals of mixed heritage illustrate how this framework can be subverted, resisted, or simply accepted as a public/private divide.

In the face of external perceptions and categorizations, mixed race identifications proved complex. Participants illustrated how their identities required considerable thought and negotiation, as individuals balanced different aspects of identity around their public and private constructions of race. As in research in other national contexts, the Singaporean case highlighted the diversity within mixedness and the differential effects of racialization at state and social levels. Individuals in this study spoke of how they negotiated their identities as Chinese, European and both at once, and how these negotiations were shaped by narratives of national belonging.

Conceptions of race at the state level had significant impacts on individual understandings of race and mixed race. Policies around language and housing affected how individuals lived their daily lives, while the everyday reality of categorization was highlighted by the centrality of labels, such as on individual ICs. The strength of this framework meant that individuals were compelled to either work within it or around it, and many participants negotiated with feelings of dissonance. The category of Eurasian illustrated the difficulty inherent in official acknowledgements of mixedness. In practice, Eurasian proved equally exclusive as inclusive, demonstrating how even complex categories struggle to adequately encompass the fluidity of identity.

The gap between categorization and everyday life provided an important narrative thread across all stories. Feelings of mixedness were complicated, bringing together different personal and social narratives to fashion a unique sense of belonging based on multiple experiences and cultures. Participants sought, and sometimes found, a form of personal flexibility within a rigid framework. A combination of symbolic shifts and personal accommodations meant that many individuals worked around the public/private dissonance, expressing mixedness by drawing on changing understandings of belonging and home.

Footnotes

Notes

References

Barr

Skrbis

(2008) Constructing Singapore: Elitism, Ethnicity and the Nation-Building Project, Copenhagen: NIAS Press.

Benjamin

(1976) The cultural logic of Singapore’s ‘Multiracialism’. In: Hassan

(eds) Singapore: Society in Transition, Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, pp. 115–133.

Blunt

(2005) Domicile and Diaspora: Angle-Indian Women and the Spatial Politics of Home, Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Braga-Blake

(1992) Eurasians in Singapore: An overview. In: Braga-Blake

(eds) Singapore Eurasians: Memories and Hopes, Singapore: Times Editions, pp. 11–23.

Choo

(2007) Eurasians: Celebrating survival. Journal of Intercultural Studies 28(1): 129–141.

Chow

(1998) On Chineseness as a theoretical problem. boundary 2 25(3): 1–24.

Chua

(1995a) Communitarian Ideology and Democracy in Singapore, London: Routledge.

Chua

(1995b) Culture, Multiracialism and National Identity in Singapore, Working Paper No.125. Singapore: Department of Sociology, National University of Singapore.

Chua

(1998) Racial-Singaporeans: Absence after the Hyphen. In: Kahn

(eds) Southeast Asian Identities: Culture and the Politics of Representation in Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand, Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, pp. 28–50.

10.

Chua

(2003) Multiculturalism in Singapore: An instrument of social control. Race and Class 44(3): 58–77.

11.

Ewick

Silbey

(1995) Subversive stories and hegemonic tales: Toward a sociology of narrative. Law & Society Review 29(2): 197–226.

12.

Gans

(1979) Symbolic ethnicity: The future of ethnic groups and cultures in America. Ethnic and Racial Studies 2(1): 1–20.

13.

Goh

DPS

(2008) Protecting Chek Jawa: The politics of conservation and memory at the edge of a nation. In: Sodhi

Acciaioli

Erb

(eds) Biodiversity and Human Livelihoods in Protected Areas: Case Studies from the Malay Archipelago, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 311–329.

14.

Hall

(1992) The question of cultural identity. In: Hall

Held

McGrew

(eds) Modernity and Its Futures, Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 273–325.

15.

Hirschman

(1987) The meaning and measurement of ethnicity in Malaysia: An analysis of census classifications. The Journal of Asian Studies 46(3): 555–582.

16.

Ifekwunigwe

(2004) ‘Mixed Race’ Studies: A Reader, London: Routledge.

17.

Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (2010) Greater flexibility with implementation of double-barrelled race option from 1 January 2011. Available at: http://www.ica.gov.sg/news_details.aspx?nid=12443 (accessed 30 December 2010).

18.

Jayawardena

(2007) Erasure of the Euro-Asian: Recovering Early Radicalism and Feminism in South Asia, Colombo: Social Scientists’ Association.

19.

Kong

Yeoh

(2003) Nation, ethnicity, and identity: Singapore and the dynamics and discourses of chinese migration. In: Ma

LJC

Cartier

(eds) The Chinese Diaspora: Space, Place, Mobility and Identity, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., pp. 193–219.

20.

Lai

(1995) Meanings of Multiethnicity: A Case-study of Ethnicity and Ethnic Relations in Singapore, Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press.

21.

Leow

(2000) Census of Population 2000: Demographic Characteristics, Singapore: Singapore Department of Statistics.

22.

Loh

(2009a) Conflict and change at the margins: Emergency Kampong clearance and the making of modern Singapore. Asian Studies Review 33(2): 139–159.

23.

Loh

(2009b) History, memory, and identity in modern Singapore: Testimonies from the urban margins. The Oral History Review 36(1): 1–24.

24.

Matthews

(2002) Deconstructing the visual: The diasporic hybridity of Asian and Eurasian Female images. Intersections: Gender, History and Culture in the Asian Context 8: 1–16.

25.

Moore

(2000) Multiracialism and meritocracy: Singapore’s approach to race and inequality. Review of Social Economy LVIII(3): 339–360.

26.

Ortmann

(2009) Singapore: The politics of inventing national identity. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs 28(4): 23–46.

27.

Parker

Song

(2001) Rethinking ‘Mixed Race’, London: Pluto Press.

28.

Pereira

(1997) The revitalization of Eurasian identity in Singapore. Southeast Asian Journal of Social Science 25(2): 7–24.

29.

Pereira

(2006) No longer “Other”: The emergence of the Eurasian Community in Singapore. In: Lian

(eds) Race, Ethnicity and The State in Malaysia and Singapore, Leiden: Brill, pp. 5–32.

30.

PuruShotam

(1998) Disciplining difference: Race in Singapore. In: Kahn

(eds) Southeast Asian Identities: Culture and the Politics of Representation in Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand, Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, pp. 51–93.

31.

Riessman

(1993) Narrative Analysis, London: Sage.

32.

Rocha

(2012) Multiplicity within singularity: Racial categorization and recognizing “mixed race” in Singapore. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs 30(3): 95–131.

33.

Rockquemore

Brunsma

Delgado

(2009) Racing to theory or retheorizing race? Understanding the struggle to build a multiracial identity theory. Journal of Social Issues 65(1): 13–34.

34.

Root

MPP

(1992) Back to the drawing board: Methodological issues in research on multiracial people. In: Root

MPP

(eds) Racially Mixed People in America, Newbury Park: Sage Publications, pp. 181–189.

35.

Root

MPP

(1996) The Multiracial Experience: Racial Borders as the New Frontier, London: Sage.

36.

Root

MPP

(1997) Multiracial Asians: Models of ethnic identity. Amerasia Journal 23(1): 29–41.

37.

Siddique

(1989) Singaporean identity. In: Sandhu

Wheatley

(eds) Management of Success: The Moulding of Modern Singapore, Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, pp. 563–577.

38.

Siddique

(1990) The phenomenology of ethnicity: A Singapore case study. Sojourn 5(1): 35–62.

39.

Singapore Department of Statistics (2010a) Census of the Population 2010: Statistical Release 1 (Demographic Characteristics, Education, Language and Religion), Singapore: Singapore Department of Statistics.

40.

Singapore Department of Statistics (2010b) Yearbook of Statistics Singapore, Singapore: Singapore Department of Statistics.

41.

Somers

(1994) The narrative constitution of identity: A relational and network approach. Theory and Society 23: 605–649.

42.

Wee

(2002) When English is not a mother tongue: Linguistic ownership and the Eurasian Community in Singapore. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 23(4): 282–295.

43.

Zimmern

(2010) The Eurasian Face, Hong Kong: Blacksmith Books.