This article certainly smells like more SJW shenanigans. Assertions everywhere without proof. The sources that she cites are not data that is thoroughly researched, but news reports and essays from other like-mind writers that do no conclusively prove anything.
The premise of the entire text is that "if x minority group is excluded from, or is under-represented, in a certain position of power, then it must be due to discrimination, not anything else."
Example: "This year, there was not even one minority on the English short list, either for fiction or non-fiction". The writer thinks that this is evidence of discrimination, but has no proof. Must there be exact representation by every minority group on this list in order for the writer to be placated? Did it ever cross the writer's mind that gasp the others simply weren't good enough? Ridiculous.
The writer also seems to be very passionate in seeing everything through tinted lens: "Religion, specifically Islam, is not spared from racist attacks: ‘In those days, you didn’t have a school tuckshop, so you bought two cents of nasi lemak and you ate it. And there was a kway teow man and so on. But now, you go to schools with Malay and Chinese, there’s a halal and non-halal segment and so too, the universities. And they tend to sit separately, not to be contaminated. All that becomes a social divide. Now I’m not saying right or wrong, I’m saying that’s the demands of the religion but the consequences are a veil across and I think it was designed to be so. Islam is exclusive." The writer considers this a racist attack, but how is it one?
Again: "we try to understand how the Chinese work, we give in to them when they speak Mandarin around us, never asking them to be sensitive towards us." Isn't this true for every racial group?
"Heterosexual patriarchy is also at work here. Women are expected to marry up wherever possible." No link is drawn between this invisible "patriarchial" force and women marrying up in Singapore. Expected from whom? Again, assertions without proof.
After reading the article, I'm not surprised that such a stance has been taken. This stuff is crap straight out of /r/tumblrinaction[1] , masqueraded in convincing and assertive language. I'm not denying that discrimination exists, but there exists nothing concrete within that wall of text that proves any sort of connection between reality and the author's presuppositions.
Having been an art major myself, I am very sceptical of "studies" conducted by liberal arts majors. They tend to formulate the conclusion first ("we are being oppressed, maligned, etc"), then conduct "research" where they cherry pick data that suits their conclusion, after which they nod their heads in collective agreement, satisfied with the "proof". This is a disgrace to academia and to the scientific method.
If you criticize a jew, or disagree with the doings of Israel, you're an anti-semite. If you criticize feminism, you're a misogynist. Arrest a black, you're racist. They see racism where there is none; they see oppression the way some religious nutjobs can see god in a potato. I'm tired of this shit.