In the 2013 Singapore Miss Universe, there were no Indian or Malay women in the top twenty.
This actually felt a lot like cherry-picking to me. She didn't pick the most recent one (2014). She picked one in 2013. When I read this line, I started wondering whether she started cherry-picking her statistics (or points) to fit her view point (and she therefore conveniently ignored 2014). It strikes me as slightly dishonest (especially since she seems to be writing as an academic), but without more, I wouldn't say that she is actually being dishonest.
In any case, the net result of her picking 2013 is that I wonder whether it's a trend that few Indian or Malay women reach the top 20, or if she just picked 2013 because there was the only year that no Indian or Malay women reached the top 20 in that specific beauty pageant. In any case, I don't feel strongly enough about this to fact-check.
Lazy Natives: The Myth is something that the Government is still implicitly pushing, with the continued disenfranchisement of the minority races.
... I feel like you've missed my point here. I felt annoyed because this would be a good juncture for her to insert a reference to actual Southeast Asian research - specifically, the book "The Myth of the Lazy Native". But she didn't.
Are they writing for academics or general audiences?
I felt Thanapal was quite clearly writing for academics, actually. Her writing was filled with what I think of as "buzzwords" - words that could use with unpacking. She's writing for people who understood vaguely what "privilege", "intersectionality", "post-colonialism" meant.
Why does the state constantly racialize us and pit us against one another? This also obfuscates the intertwinement of race and class.
This quote jumped out to me, because it's exactly the kind of tone I've read in a quite a few Western feminist works. Rhetorical questioning, dense language. The second sentence can easily be reworded as "It also blurs how race and class affect each other" - and it wouldn't lose its meaning. I personally find writing in such a dense style pointless and unnecessary.
On the other hand, Singapore academics tend to write in a more accessible style. I like Eric Thompson and Daniel Goh; I love Theresa W. Devasahayam, I love Teo You Yenn's writing (she makes it almost worth going to NTU)... I've seen some of their books in the bookstore, and also in the national library at Bugis. Some specific books of note that explore race or gender that Thanapal could have mentioned: 1, 2, 3, 4 - has a specific chapter on Singaporean Indian women, 5, 6. These are mostly recent books; I'm not even linking journal articles (which, as an academic, she should have some access to). (Also, this linkspam makes me feel that I'm doing Thanapal's research for her. Maybe she would like to hire me on as a research assistant?? Except if she keeps writing like this, I wouldn't want my name associated with her. :( )
For other academics writing on Singapore, I would also like to recommend Lenore Lyons - a few years back, she wrote a chapter in a book about being Malay in National Service (the book is Men and Masculinities). She writes a lot on Singapore and Gender.
I feel that these authors do a much better job at writing for general audiences than Thanapal has. The language point is a big factor. The downside might be social media angle. :(
You know, for some weird reason, Thanapal's writing style really reminded me of American academics, not British ones. Prominent American academics (specifically those that focus on social sciences) have a writing style that tends to be less... hm... accessible (although that's not quite the word). So I was surprised when you told me that she's studying in the UK.
tl;dr: Fuck me, I spent too much time writing or thinking about this. Apologies if I sound slightly incoherent (but only slightly)!