Seeking Solace in Humanity’s Bounteous Bosom

I do believe that June 2015 will be a month that will be etched in my memory for a very long time. Most of it has to do with what happened in Singapore or to Singaporeans but epoch-making world events also helped to mark this month as a special time that would not be forgotten so easily.

Firstly, Singapore hosted the 28th SEA Games from the 5-16 June 2015. The successful hosting of the Games was a testimony to Singapore’s well known strengths in management and organisation. Our athletes did splendidly and managed 2nd place in the overall medal tally with 84 gold, 73 silver and 102 bronze to emerge as the nation with the most bemedaled athletes.

My most favourite moment of the Games was when Veronica Shanti Pereira took the gold in the 200 metre sprint in track and field, clocking a new National record of 23.6 seconds. Being a runner myself in my school days, I can appreciate that Veronica’s success came on the back of real hard work, sacrifice and a lot of sweat and tears. But winning the way she did, beating pre-race favourite and 100 metre champion, Kayla Richardson from the Philippines, in front of the home crowd at the new National Stadium, must have felt special, not just for Veronica, but for hordes of Singaporeans who have been starved of seeing a home grown talent win a track gold for a long time. Glory Barnabas last won the gold in track, incidentally in the same event, in 1973.

The spirit of the Games, the way the athletes performed and how Singaporeans from all walks of life came together to support the athletes and each other as spectators and volunteers, made this a special SG50 event, very aptly reflected in the songs of the Games, 2 of which caught my fancy – “Unbreakable” and “Greatest”, the latter sung by Daphne Khoo, who is a Mass Comm, alumna from the School of Film & Media, Ngee Ann Polytechnic

The celebratory and upbeat mood was dampened perceptibly early in the Games when tragic news emerged of the loss of lives following the 6.0 magnitude Sabah earthquake on the morning of 5 June 2015. 10 Singaporeans – 7 school children, 2 teachers from Tanjong Katong Primary School and 1 adventure guide, perished as boulders and rocks descended upon them at Mount Kinabalu while on a trekking expedition. Monday, 8 June 2015 was declared a Day of National Remembrance, with all state flags flown at half mast and 1-minute of silence as a mark of respect observed at all venues of the SEA Games.

What was truly remarkable of these 2 events – one evoking joyous celebration and the other infusing grief and melancholy – was that they served to rally Singaporeans of all races, religions and backgrounds, new citizens and born and bred Singaporeans, to come together and support each in a way that members of a close knit family support each other. The warmth of Humanity lifted the spirits of our athletes and soothed the anguish from the loss of fellow Singaporeans. Humanity triumphed wonderfully.

But then a few world events made me question just for how long can Humanity sustain the warmth emanating from its bounteous bosom.

A 21-year old white male from South Carolina, USA, Dylann Roof, shot dead 9 people in an African Methodist Episcopal Church in a racially motivated attack. One of the victims was the church minister Reverend Clementa Pinckney, a long serving South Carolina senator and civil rights leader. We are well into the 21st century, nearly 150 years after the end of slavery in the U.S. and it makes me wonder what made a young man like Dylann commit this heinous hate crime.

More recently, series of coordinated terrorist attacks across 3 continents, purportedly bearing the indelible mark of the militant group, the Islamic State (ISIS), shocked the world.

Scores of people were killed – 37 tourists, mainly Britons and Germans, killed on the beachfront of a hotel resort in Tunisia, a suicide bomber detonated a bomb in a Shite mosque in Kuwait after Friday prayers and the beheading of man, a manager who worked in a factory of a U.S. gas company near Lyon, a city in south-east France and whose decapitated body was found as police arrested a man, believed to be a worker at the factory, for trying to blow it up.

Such attacks, allegedly perpetrated by militants fighting for what they believe is a divine cause to right the perceived wrongs done unto Muslims and their God, represent Islam in a very bad light, especially since we all agree that Islam is, essentially, a religion of peace. By planning and executing these attacks during the sacred month of Ramadan, these militants sought to exact maximum damage and publicity for their twisted and misguided cause, attempting to write a narrative that runs counter to the basic tenets of Islam.

Has the warmth of Humanity’s bosom dissipated quickly, never to return?

As I pondered this question, agonising to comprehend the tragedies unfolding before me, in greater numbers and frequencies, I realised that, alas, Humanity is the net sum of all actions by every single human being on this Earth.

As Mahatma Gandhi once said, “You must not lose faith in Humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty”. As long as the number of good acts outnumber the number of bad acts, Humanity has a chance of surviving and spreading its warmth to all.

Another development that could very well re-define our societal norms and they way we look at the institution of marriage and the traditional family structure is the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision to allow same sex marriage in all 50 states of the country. The 5-to-4 Supreme Court decision to legalise same sex marriage was met with thunderous applause from gay rights groups and sparked immediate queues at the registry of marriages at local government offices.

President Obama said the decision “arrived like a thunderbolt” and called it “a victory for America”, obviously delighted that he’s come good on one of his earlier campaign promises to bring dignity and equal status to all same sex couples, even as he laments the embarrassing lack of progress on race issues.

I feel that this development in the U.S. is sure to test the unity and harmony of our largely conservative society in Singapore with a more active and vocal gay rights movement which is growing increasingly confident of pushing through its agenda.

My hope is that Humanity plays her part in calming our senses and giving all of us a chance to think through not so much of what divides us but seeking to accentuate that which unites us. And if this requires us to live and let live, then let us appreciate that there are just some battles we can never win and be prepared to take the losses as long as those who sit in the opposing ideological camps, do not launch missiles into the other camp, destroying their opponent’s right of abode in their own sanctuaries.

As long as Humanity endures, we have a chance to live harmoniously as one. I will like to end by taking heart from with this quote by Nelson Mandela from his book, Long Walk to Freedom: Autobiography of Nelson Mandela,

“I am fundamentally an optimist. Whether that comes from nature or nurture, I cannot say. Part of being optimistic is keeping one’s head pointed toward the sun, one’s feet moving forward. There were many dark moments when my faith in Humanity was sorely tested, but I would not and could not give myself up to despair. That way lays defeat and death.”

New Age Class & Cultural Prejudice Has No Place In Singapore

The Anton Casey saga that raged across Singapore over 6 days ending in the Briton leaving Singapore for Perth with his family, demonstrated the awesome power of the Internet. Not only did Anton leave Singapore, “fearing for his life” citing death threats but he also parted ways with his employer, wealth management company, Crossinvest (Asia).

For the benefit of those unaware of the biggest story both in cyberspace and our print newspapers over the past week, Anton Casey’s descent into self-immolation first began with his offensive Facebook post about public transport users (MRT), referring to them as “poor people” and saying he “needed to wash the stench of public transport off me”.

Enraged netizens slammed him for his remarks and some of them decided to become cyber-vigilantes and exposed details of his wife, former Miss Singapore Universe beauty queen, Bernice Wong and his Gilstead Road home address, mobile phone numbers and place of work.

In less than a week, the resulting firestorm which also attracted comments from a Singapore minister and calls for calm and restraint from an official from the Singapore Kindness Movement, parched Anton Casey’s initial bravado and he finally succumbed to the searing online vitriol and public scorn by fleeing Singapore for the safer clime of Perth.

Given the ongoing debate regarding the burgeoning number of foreigners in Singapore and the resulting keener competition for limited resources in Singapore, the Anton saga would work into the hands of those who have been calling for not only reducing the number of foreigners but also clearer differentiation between Singapore citizens and temporary residents through benefits and privileges.

Its interesting to juxtapose this local saga with what a Time correspondent described as a developing phenomenon in the United States. Suketu Mehta in her article The Superiority Complex, says there is a new strain of racism that  is emerging cloaked in the protective armour of cultural pride.

Mehta cites a book recently published by “Tiger Mom”, Amy Chua and her husband Jed Rubenfeld, entitled The Triple Package: How Three Unlikely Traits Explain the Rise and Fall of Cultural Groups in America.

Chua and Rubenfeld propose 3 factors as to why Chinese, Indians, Jews, Cubans, Nigerians, Mormons, Iranians and Lebanese are superior when it comes to succeeding in America:

a) a superiority complex
b) insecurity
c) impulse control

aka the Triple Package.

Those lacking this Triple Package include African Americans, Appalachians and Wasps.

So the Chinese and Indians in America (new immigrants) are doing well because they think they are superior to others, have a nagging sense of insecurity that forces them never to be satisfied and are able to control their impulses or resist temptation to quit in the face of adversity.

This proposition does not, from the outset, carry the usual racist slurs or diatribe, perhaps because it is presented as an intelligent piece of research work and also because the authors say that it pertains not to race or IQ but to ethnicity.

But Mehta views it otherwise calling it the “new American racism” and a “pernicious line of thought”.

Her chief criticism of the book is that it fails to take into account factors other than ethnicity, like historical, political and social realities.

So the new “racism” is now parading as cultural or class superiority. This seems to be evident from Anton’s ill-willed Facebook posts where he pours scorn on the “poor people” who take public transport. The new age “racists” do not appear to be attacking a particular race anymore but it seems to be targeting a particular class of people or  culture. In Anton’s case, it is even less comprehensible, as he is married to a Chinese Singaporean and the term “racist” will be a misnomer where he is concerned or so it seems.

Singapore has to be vigilant about this new strain of social disease and should stamp it out and not give it room to grow or take root.

Our new immigrants and temporary residents must learn to assimilate into our Singapore culture and respect our diversity of races, religions and cultures. Both Singaporeans and foreigners must acknowledge that there are different perspectives of what we define as success and that different classes of people and indeed different ethnic groups, may have vastly different life goals and expectations of what a good life should afford them.

Masala Too Hot For Singaporean Tastebuds?

[Singapore’s Films Appeals Committee  (FAC) has overturned the MDA ban on a controversial film imposed following a majority call for an NAR (Not Allowed For All Ratings) rating by its Films Consultative Panel. However, the FAC has given the film entitled, Sex.Violence.Family Values, a R21 rating with edits, something that the film director said was not ideal but still better than an outright ban.] – update TODAYonline | Culture & Lifestyle | Movies | Sex.Violence.FamilyValues can be shown with R21 rating.

The recent MDA banning of Ken Kwek’s film, Sex.Violence.Family Values, ignited a furore in the social media space. Many from the creative fields expressed their disappointment and anger that a film with good acting chops and daring enough to tackle issues deemed taboo in Singapore, was given an NAR rating or Not Allowed For All Ratings by MDA after consulting members of its Film Consultative Panel (FCP).

But after reading the many media reports and the social media chatter (some of which were harshly critical of the MDA), I have more questions than answers on the issue of the boundaries of artistic licence and whether Singaporeans are really ready for a no holds barred sort of development of the arts here.

The film’s premiere at Cathay Cineleisure Cineplex on Friday, 5 Oct 2012 was reportedly well received, after initially been given an M18 rating. According to media reports, the ban took effect on Monday, 8 Oct 2012. See the TODAY report TODAYonline | Culture & Lifestyle | Movies | Bitter pill.

Kwek’s film is actually an anthology of 3 short films of which the 2nd one, Porn Masala, was deemed the offending one. In that short film, a crass, uncouth film director played by Adrian Pang works with an Indian actor, played by Vasantham TV star, Vadi PVSS, to make Singapore’s first “arthouse porno”.

One part of Porn Masala, shows Adrian’s character spewing all the wicked stereotypes that one can think of about Indians (some of which emanating from contempt and some from purported ignorance), including classics like using ghee as hair cream, having bad body odour, being alcoholics and wife beaters and being natives of Africa.

The film reaches a climax (pun intended) when Vadi’s character,  is unable to “perform” on the set with a young Chinese girl and incurs the wrath of the film director (Adrian Pang) which leads to Vadi retaliating by hurling racial insults at him and Chinese in general.

Are the authorities afraid that more people will imitate the offensive behaviour of Adrian Pang’s racist character in the film, a case of anti-mimesis or the philosophy which states that Life imitates Art, robustly proposed by 19th century author, Oscar Wilde in his essay The Decay of Lying?

After 47 years of independence and  many more years of history behind us of working and living around people of many races and religions and social backgrounds, are Singaporeans unable to think critically and perceive for themselves the good and bad in a film like Porn Masala? And by extrapolation, may I venture to ask the even bigger question of whether Singapore can grow as a truly global city, embracing modern technology and the creative arts with equal voracity?

All very tough questions but questions that we Singaporeans need to ponder and reflect on seriously if we are supposed to progress as a united country. Perhaps these are questions that the current national initiative, Singapore Conversation, should consider asking citizens

Maybe the socio-political atmosphere in Singapore was just not right for the film to get a public screening licence, following the Amy Cheng saga.

The Minister for Communications and Information, Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, offered some clarifications on the MDA’s reclassification of the film after consultation with the FCP and the appeal process in Parliament on 12 November 2012. His clarifications seem to suggest that filmmakers could be asked to make representations to the FCP in similar cases in future. Please also see TODAYonline | Hot News | Stance on satirical film ‘not a step backwards’.

There are other issues in the film which are controversial (but perhaps less volatile) and which perhaps were not highlighted and not as hotly debated in the media. For example, the part played by the girl in school uniform taking on the role of Vadi’s sex partner in the porn film (in itself a controversial hot topic in Singapore following the indictment of several men for sex with an underaged girl) and the minor but nonetheless important issue of the girl wearing a pinafore which is so easily recognisable as that of a well-known Catholic school in Singapore.

I would not blame the school for taking offense in a such a case because it creates an unfair stereotype affecting all girls who wear the same school uniform. A similar but more serious incident led to schools taking legal advice against a private club for misuse of their school crests . Please read the following news article in TODAY newspaper, TODAYonline | Singapore | Filter Members Club apologises to CHIJ & ACS for use of school crests.

I am not trying to defend MDA’s decision to give a NAR rating to Kwek’s film in this blog. But neither am I fully in support of the vocal creative arts practitioners who were against the rating decision because frankly the issue is so much bigger than the freedom of creative expression and encompasses so many other issues, social, political and even economic.

I am truly sympathetic of Kwek’s plight in that he has to shoulder a substantial economic loss as a result of the ban. But I wonder whether the ban serves as a reminder to filmmakers once again, to develop more skillful and sophisticated techniques in tackling issues of race and religion in their narratives.

Kwek and Pang both reiterated that the film uses satire and parody to attack racism and stereotypes. But satire and parody are not easy techniques to employ in film if they are to be successful especially in the Singapore context. So even though Sacha Baron Cohen and the makers of mockumentary, Borat, were successful in the use of satire, this technique may have to be tweaked for the Singapore audience where it involves a Singaporean narrative.

This is apparent and can be inferred from the article by John Lui in the Sunday Times, “The Canary In The Coal Mine Of Racial Speech”, 14 Oct 2012, where he interviewed Ms Cheryl Ng, Film Consultative Panel member and paraphrased her as saying that it is “hard to remember what you are supposed to be laughing at when the jokes are so mean”.

Lui also said in his article that panel members think that “there will be enough people laughing with Pang’s character” and not at him, to cause offense. It appears from Ms Ng’s response that the Singapore audience may not be sophisticated enough to both understand and fully appreciate satires and parodies, especially in the film format.

So what exactly is the state of our community and inter-racial affairs in Singapore? Editor Warren Fernandez in his weekly Sunday Times commentary dated 14 Oct 2012, entitled “Are We Taking Racial Peace For Granted?” said time and again he was shocked to hear some parents tell their kids not to play with children of some other races as they might be a bad influence. Or others who say that they do not want their child in a certain school because of its racial make-up. Or businessmen who say they will trade only with people like themselves whom they can trust.

I got an interesting insight into the state of inter-racial trust in Singapore when I attended a MediaCorp event recently. At the event, the findings of a MediaCorp research study of youths aged 12 – 29 were released. 

One rather disconcerting finding was that only 67% of the youths surveyed can work with different races. This means 1 in 3 youths surveyed (33%) said they cannot work with people from a different race. That, to me, is a shocking statistic, given the demographic in question (our future leaders)  and given all the government has done and is doing to promote racial harmony in schools, in the workplace and in the community.

So whether Life imitates Art or Art imitates Life, we Singaporeans have a duty to play our part to enhance racial harmony and a truly united community in any way we can, whether it is as a parent or a child at home, or as a boss or a worker in the office or as a filmmaker, writer or an artist.

The Golden Rule To Live By On The Internet

Can we live in a world without any rules or laws? Perhaps this question is more rhetorical than anything else. I’m sure the most ardent freedom rights supporter will readily agree that no society can function without some rules or else there will be chaos.

So why have the recent debate on the net regarding the need for rules or guidelines to govern social media raised some concerns among netizens?

Is it because with the advent of the Internet many academics, technologists and sociologists have spoken vociferously about how this new technological platform is a “game changer” in terms of how business will be conducted, how society will be managed and, indeed, how all of us will live our lives.

For some time, these same people have also predicted that Internet could NOT be controlled or regulated and as such this spelled trouble for businesses, organisations and governments who were still tied to the old paradigms and top-down systems which concentrated powers in the hands of the elite few. Thomas L Friedman said so as much in his commentary in the Today paper, “The democratisation of expectations”, pg 12, 19 Dec 2011.

Friedman quoted Mr Dov Seidman, CEO of LRN, “The old system of ‘command and control’ – carrots and sticks – to exert power over people is fast being replaced by ‘connect and collaborate’ – to generate power through people…you have to have two-way conversation that connects deeply with your citizens or customers or employees.”

(You may want to watch this video for an interesting take on this argument, taking a slightly contrarian view)

RSA Animate – The Internet in Society: Empowering or Censoring Citizens?
– Watch more Tech Videos at Vodpod.

While by and large this argument still holds sway in today’s world, there is an increasing recognition of the need to bring some order to the frenetic pace of how information is formed and distributed in the Internet, particularly in social media platforms because of the confusion and potential disharmony that it may generate later.

Take recent examples of what happened in Singapore. Racists comments made by a blogger, Donaldson Tan, on Facebook against Muslims and particularly his post which had a picture of a “haram” animal superimposed on the Ka’ba – Islam’s most sacred site.

Then we had the much publicised incident of Jason Neo, a Young PAP member who had posted online a photo of a school bus with Malay children from Huda Kindergarten in Woodlands dressed in their uniform which includes traditional Malay headwear. Neo had posted an offensive caption for the photo saying, “Bus filled with young terrorist trainees?”. Neo has since resigned from the PAP and has drawn stern criticisms from PAP members themselves.

Even celebrities were not spared the consternation and criticism where the content is less controversial and may even be described as helpful to the public. For example, Radio DJ Hossan Leong was criticised for announcing a breakdown in the SMRT Circle Line based on information from tweets and for not waiting for the official confirmation from SMRT. But MediaCorp Radio clarified that it relies on both formal and informal channels, i.e. information from its listeners when reporting on traffic and public transport disruptions. Nevertheless, Leong admitted that he should have announced that the information was unverified and that he was still awaiting official word from SMRT

I suspect Leong’s reliance on social media to offer a public service drew such an uproar (largely from the transport operator) because of the recent furore over the train disruptions which saw SMRT being at the receiving end of commuters’ ire.

But it also raises concerns on how governments, corporations, employees, customers, teachers/educators, students and in fact people from all sectors of society should conduct themselves when using social media.

It is a concern that has been expressed from the very top. Last month, Minister for Information Communication and the Arts, Dr Yaacob Ibrahim called for some guidelines on a code of conduct for online behaviour. He felt that the guidelines will allow for more moderation in the views people and allow for discussions to be more “rational and sensible”.

In Singapore, the chorus for some guidelines for online conduct and the use of social media is gaining more traction. Of course, there are detractors who lament that once again the government appears to be solving an issue by introducing more rules or restrictions on what people can or should do.

But I support the formation of some form of guidelines as long as these guidelines are drafted with input from the grassroots or from academic institutions, civic bodies and/or voluntary groups with the same bodies acting as watchdogs to be on the look-out for offenders.

Just last week, Professor Ang Peng Hwa, Director of the Singapore Internet Research Centre, NTU, announced his proposed framework for such a code of conduct. For more information on his proposals, you can click on the link below:

http://newasiarepublic.com/?p=35105

Among the things that his proposal seeks to clarify are how you define “hate speech” or “offensive content” who is a “whistle-blower”, how to distinguish between those who advocate and those who report offensive content and how to specify punishment.

Aside from these guidelines, what I hope to see develop in Singapore are clear policy statements by the various government and civic organisations, academic institutions and companies on the use of social media. This has already taken place in corporations and institutions overseas.

Taking my own example as a lecturer in a polytechnic, there have already been much discourse on whether lecturers should “friend” their students on Facebook or whether lecturers should use Facebook as a teaching and learning tool. And the views have been divided.

Some students have been caught for flaming certain lecturers with their online rants thinking that their posts are private and cannot be traced and they were dead wrong.

Some lecturers feel that social media should be embraced rather than avoided as it is the platform of choice among our youth. Classes these days rarely run without the use of laptops and with the ubiquitous access to Internet in campus, it is almost impossible to prevent students from logging on to social media sites.

But fundamental to all these discussions have been the need for control and privacy and the need to distinguish between the professional self from the private individual. This is where a well thought out social media policy would be of great help to all parties and the national initiative to draft a code of conduct for internet content could serve as a larger umbrella framework for such policy statements.

One thing is for sure. The wheels have been set in motion and it is only a matter of time when the guidelines for code of conduct for online content will be formulated.

And as far as rules go, perhaps people’s online behaviour should be governed by what is widely known and accepted as The Golden Rule in many cultures around the world – “In everything do to others as you would have them do to you.”