Double-barelled Racial Classification

Singapore — A recent move by the Ministry of Home Affairs will soon allow for Singaporeans of mixed heritage to adopt what is known as a ‘double-barelled’ racial classification.

As opposed to the current status quo of a child belonging to a mixed heritage adopting her father’s race, the rules will be now altered to enable the child to adopt a racial classification that is a hybrid of both of her parents. For instance, a child with an Indian father and Chinese mother will soon be allowed to classify herself as an Indian-Chinese in official documents.

Until 2nd January of this year, a child may only classify herself according to her father’s race, whereas present rules allow for the child to be categorized either as belonging to her father or mother’s race. The introduction of a double-barelled racial classification is a further ammendment to the system.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong suggested that this change will not have a big impact on ethnic integration policies, but is more of a liberalization of the racial classification system to better reflect the social diversities resulting from inter-racial marriages in Singapore

Double-barelled Racial Classification — To what end?

Questions have been raised about the relevance of a double-barelled racial classification system in Singapore. The first concern sprung naturally out from issues regarding its implication on governmental ethnic policies, particularly those on racial integration in Singapore. As the demarcation between races in Singapore becomes finer and finer, how relevant would these ethnic policies that hinge their assumptions upon a clear and lucid bifurcation between races be?

One of the problem that has been highlighted in parliamentary debate is the issue of the racial classification system in public housing. Giving that a certain ratio of races needs to be preserved in public housing to prevent racial enclaves, would the introduction of a double-barelled racial classification aid or hurt this housing policy?

Much has been said on this that the classification of a family unit in this process will follow the dominant race i.e. of the father’s race. But this may not be a true reflection of the heritage of a family residing in a public housing unit. For all that can be effectively labelled by the racial matrix, the heritage of a family with a Malay father and Chinese mother may slant towards that of the Chinese. To term this family as a ‘Malay’ family and then allocate the family a unit in a housing block of flats hoping that this may prevent the formation of ethnic enclaves will be an exercise in futility.

What then, about the further ramifications of the double-barelled racial classification? Take a case in point of a thought experiment. Generations after this classification was introduced, an man classified as Indian-Chinese by the system marries a woman simiarily classified as Malay-Eurasian, and they both decide to a buy a unit of public housing. In effect, what classification of ‘heritage’ should we ascribe to this family? Should we follow a simple formula of calling this family an “Indian” family, and thereby allocating them a fraction to fulfill the ‘Indian’ ratio racial requirement?

Where Associate Professor Ho Peng Kee said, “So unlike other societies, for example in France, to be politically-correct, they do away with recording and reflecting race… But that does not mean that the problems will go away,” serious doubts must and will remain that with this added change, problems will go away. In fact, more may just arise.

Why call yourself a Indian-Chinese, rather than just an Indian-Indian?

Why the furore over a mere racial classification on one’s identity card? Afterall, why really should one care if one is clasified as an Indian-Chinese, rather just an Indian on a piece of plastic card? The real heritage and culture that we belong to are expressed in the things that we do believe, value and carry out in our daily lives. This runs full-blooded through our veins.

As in an analogous example, it is not uncommon of Singaporean children who are born of mixed heritage to choose to study Chinese as a second language in school out of beliefs in the pragmatic value of the language, however true those beliefs may be. To take a stand on this, whatever actions that are carried out are often made to the end of an increased marginal benefit to oneself, more so than anything else. It does not take much thought to understand that a child born of an Indian father and a Chinese mother, who has been previously categorized as an Indian in official documents, will not suddenly be more of a ‘Chinese’ following a re-classification of her race as an ‘Indian-Chinese’.

Whether she is more of an Indian or Chinese, or a balanced mix of both, does in effect depend on the kind of upbringing that her family inculcates in her.

The ammendments to racial classification Singapore may be the onset of more confusion, and challenges particularly in the questions of racial identity. As has been argued, does a Malay-Chinese child first seek help from a Malay organization, and thereafter a Chinese organization? What sort of pragmatic rewards can a hybrid racial classification in official documents bring about? Does this mean that more people will seek racial re-classification in order to exploit loopholes in the system — and dare we say, to gain more pragmatic benefits in various aspects of their lives?

Will we see the day when a child born of an Indian-Chinese father and a Malay-Eurasian mother, finally check all four boxes in official documents, as not belonging distinctly to any of the CMIO (Chinese, Malay, Indian and others), but instead to all four?

The problem may then rest on a more foundational issue of the need for racial classification in the first place, and the subsequent racial policies that revolve around that. One needs to simply question the relevance of these policies juxtaposed against the onslaught of increasing racial diversity from globalization that is happening more rapidly than previously assumed.

If these racial policies rest on a belief that races can be clearly demarcated, labelled and classified, and these very beliefs are now starting to be called into question, is not then the time ripe to the question these racial policies in itself?

Being a racially diverse country, Singapore ought to thread carefully. A slight tweak to the system may be adduced as means to liberalize the system and to better reflect cultural diversity. Our doubts must be thrown into that, if not for the sake of significant and even irrepairable consequences that may only rear its ugly head generations from now on, then for the simple matter of fact that a mere cursory change in racial classification on our identity cards will do not any better to integrate the races in Singapore.