Singaporeans debate whether ‘No cooking curry’ rule is racist if it applies to all races

Singapore—Given how racism has been in the news lately due to a recent spate of racist acts, some people have asked what exactly counts as racism.

On a June 16 Reddit thread, one netizen brought up what he called the “the Josephine Teo defence”, referring to a remark the then Manpower Minister made last year, after the outbreak of Covid-19 cases in migrant worker dormitories.

Ms Teo said in Parliament on May 4, 2020, that she had “not come across one single migrant worker himself that has demanded an apology”.

Redditor u/onpensetousmonnaie wrote, “The implicit assumption, of course, is that racial harmony is defined as merely an absence of loud protests and violence.”

The Redditor added that this is “considered to be a useful working definition of racial harmony” because people are seen as members of races first, before they’re seen as individuals.

Calling it a “cardinal sin,” the poster added that “that these differences (non-physical ones) rooted in race are assumed to be at least one of the following: a) real b) meaningful, c) permanent and d) insurmountable/inherently conflict-inducing.”

Racial Harmony: the Josephine Teo defence from singapore

One commenter called the latter part of the post problematic, as it suggests that “cultural differences are almost a defence against being racist”, which leads to minorities doing their utmost to fit into a larger society.

The commenter added, “It implies that it would be ok for landlords to specify ‘no cooking of pungent curries’ instead of ‘no Indians’.”

Another commenter then chimed in to ask, “Is that requirement of ‘no cooking curry’ racist though, if it applies to all race?”

One replied that it’s not racist.

Another person refuted this, calling it “racist in intent”.

A Redditor argued that such a requirement would not apply to all, but would “disproportionately affect people of certain races”.

He added in a later comment that this is a “gray area.”