Singapore to nominate hawker culture as ‘intangible cultural heritage’ for UNESCO listing

On Aug 19 2018, at Singapore’s National Day Rally, PM Lee Hsien Loong announced that Singapore would be nominating its hawker culture as an ‘intangible cultural heritage’ for UNESCO listing. Amongst the many reason cited were preservation for progeny (“help to safeguard… for future generations”), national identity (“cultural institution” “help bond Singaporeans, make us feel even prouder to be Singaporean” “cure for homesickness”), international recognition (“put Singapore on world stage”), a leveling space for unity and equality (“how Singaporeans of all races, faiths and income groups are able to eat together in hawker centers”) amongst others. In particular, the article opened with PM Lee’s announcement during NDR, then cited Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Grace Fu and National Heritage Board CEO Chang Hee Nee’s rationale, finally rounding off with mass statistics that indicate overwhelming support from the public (“85% felt that hawkers play an important role in community building”, “9/10 feel hawker centers are integral part of Singapore’s identity”). In closing, the article doesn’t forget to highlight the shadow side of this nomination — the pressing current issue of labor shortage that the hawker profession faces, thus encouraging more young people to become hawkers (“its a difficult and arduous trade”). 

This article is revelatory on many levels. For one, it is interesting to break down the announcement of the nomination and look at the persuasive elements it employs. Apart from starting off with PM Lee’s declaration, the article goes on to cite the justification of other office holders in high position, such as MCCY Grace Fu and NHB CEO. One can’t resist drawing the link between the appeal to authority in a paternalistic state. In addition, a strong case is made for existing mass support from members of the public, exerting subtle “majority-supports-it-so-should-you” vibes. Finally, one wonders if the nominating its hawker culture is part of the broader insecurity Singapore faces around defining its ‘culture’ and to what extent this is an attempt to reify intangible institutions which can be held up as symbols/ products of Singapore. In particular, I am interested in the reasons cited for the preservation and what it shows about the key role food plays in the politics of building national identity, forging common narrative and reinforcing current rhetoric (of meritocracy, multi-racial harmony etc.)