I want to speak to my experiences as a judge on panels for literary prizes, whether for individual poems, or for book prizes. I will not divulge any identifying information about specific instances, because I am ethically bound to keep that information strictly confidential.

Some people might think that when a FNBPOC judge appears on a judging panel, it's about tokenism--that the judge has been included because of politically correct reasons, & that FNBPOC judges will simply pick FNBPOC books or poems to win. I would like to reframe this assumption.

Consider this: as human beings, we view the world through a limited lens given our knowledge, education, political leanings, lived experiences, & personal circumstances. It would be disingenuous to think we can separate any one of these elements from the other. There is a reason

why judging panels are often made up of 3 or 4 judges--the idea is that each judge will have their own implicit & explicit biases, not through any fault but that of our limited human knowledge. Together, a panel of judges form a consensus, which we hope is borne out of careful

reading, thought & reflection in the first instance, then open, honest discussion, & then a commitment & action of dedicated listening & often deep reconsideration based on the shared feedback. When FNBPOC judges are on these panels, we bring a way of reading poems & texts that

a white, middle class normative judge might not be able to access, by dint of their own limited knowledge & experiences. In other words: white judges might have a very different definition of what constitutes 'good' writing to FNBPOC judges. This now becomes a little fuzzy--

what is 'good' writing? We base our judgements on what is 'good' on what is generally valued in an interpretive community, which is a nebulous concept, broadly comprising: in increasing order of perceived power & status: readers, critics, prize judges. FNBPOC bring the power of

different ways of writing & reading the world. Even if we write in English, which is often the language forced onto us historically due to white colonialisation, we are, in essence, using the language in different ways to white normative uses of English. Consider speech &

writing in FNBPOC contexts-- for example, 'mob' in FN English is not the same as 'mob' in white normative English. Another example is that of Singlish: as a pidgin / creole, it confounds many who did not grow up speaking & hearing it, & is notoriously hard for angmohs to master

the nuances & elisions & shifts, which happen on a micro-linguistic level changing daily in response to everyday Singaporean culture. What I'm trying to say is: FNBPOC writers need equity in having our works read as they were meant to be read. We cannot fit our work into a

framework that does not understand what we are actively trying to do with language, ideas, narrative, meanings. When lit orgs have FNBPOC represented at all levels, it will vastly improve the interpretive community with regards to FNBPOC work. Same goes for prize panels.

Don't worry, white normative work will continue to be read--FNBPOC have, after all, had to read this work all our lives. But the framework will change--because it must. That is what equity means--not a raising up of FNBPOC work to 'good white' levels, but a LEVELLING of the field

to hold white normative writing to the standards that FNBPOC have every right to expect of writing today--that the work is not racist, for example. Here is why representation matters: the more FNBPOC writing there is, the more it will become apparent to a white audience that

there is no one FNBPOC monolith. FNBPOC have always known this to be true. But I don't think white audiences, including lit orgs, have quite caught up to this. Representation matters because the multiplicity of voices can only come through when FNBPOC are allowed to be themselves

& not representative of their race and/or culture. The pressure on FNBPOC goes both ways: internally I am aware when I am the only Asian in the room, for eg, & I need to try to use the platform to represent interests that otherwise might not be heard. But if there are 10 FNBPOC

in that room, FNBPOC can relax a little, knowing that they don't have to solely carry the burden of what they know, & worry about what they might miss due to their own limited skills, experiences, & knowledge. This is why the myth of 'tokenism' is so dangerous--it reduces FNBPOC

to faceless ciphers for the white imagination to impose interchangeable FNBPOC identities onto.
TL;DR
Representation matters.
FNBPOC are part of the community.
Equity, diversity, inclusion will strengthen our community & the literary work Australia will produce.
Stand for change.