COMMENT: Hawker Heroes, representation and food nationalism
Kirsten Han is a Singaporean blogger, journalist and filmmaker, currently a Masters student at Cardiff University. A social media junkie, she tweets at @kixes. The views expressed below are her own.
Following Singaporean news online was practically impossible on Sunday. My Facebook and Twitter news feeds were all clogged up with updates and posts on Gordon Ramsay's visit to Singapore and participation in the Hawker Heroes challenge.
[IN PICTURES: Gordon Ramsay vs. Singapore hawkers]
Watch the highlights of the challenge here:
There's no doubt that it was ultimately a huge marketing gimmick and publicity coup for both SingTel and Ramsay, but the event did shine a light on the prevalence of food nationalism in Singapore (yours truly just as guilty as the rest). An interesting point made by observers on social media also attracted my attention: how representative of Singaporean street food is Hawker Heroes if all the dishes are Chinese ones?
It's true that race has not been completely erased from Singaporean food: we constantly refer to different dishes as "Malay food" or "Indian food" or "Chinese food". Food stalls even identified themselves as such when I was in school.
But is there any real point in drawing racial lines when it comes to food?
It was pointed out that the three dishes chosen for the challenge - chilli crab, chicken rice and laksa - were Singaporean Chinese dishes, and therefore not representative of the nation's food culture. Yet if we really look at it, how 'Chinese' is a dish like laksa? Is there any point in laboriously tracing the history to find out? Do we even care?
When you eat at the hawker centre, how often do you think about the origins of the dish?
In discussions with friends (both before and after Hawker Heroes), it has been argued that the provenance of the food is no longer a matter of much relevance. Fighting over whether a particular dish is Malay or Indian or Chinese (or "Others"?) is futile and a waste of time.
[See what Singapore eaters thought of Gordon Ramsay's hawker fare:]
What is more pertinent, though, is the accessibility of the dish, and who actually eats it. Many dishes that get held up as stellar examples of local food and symbols of national unity and pride actually exclude certain cultures and religious groups that make up Singaporean society. For example, bak kut teh or any other dish containing pork/lard automatically excludes the Muslim community.
Is there any point in food nationalism, then, when the food we are referring to are by nature not inclusive?
It's no secret that food features heavily in Singaporean society, and that many Singaporeans are massive foodies. But when we begin to expect "local food" to be a symbol that people are expected to subscribe to before gifted with the right to be Singaporean, we should not forget that food cannot really be representative or unrepresentative. So while we might derive plenty of satisfaction from the fragrance of nasi lemak or the spice of laksa, there is little point in trying to act as if our food defines us as a society.
Perhaps it would be better to just sit down, enjoy and eat.
Related stories:
