Beating some sense into stereotypes

The other day, I was having a casual conversation with a group of Chinese friends when one made a passing remark on how Indian men were known to be wife-beaters. I had mixed reactions to that comment. On one hand, I was shocked that he had made such a sweeping statement about an entire racial group, in front of me no less. On the other, I wondered if there was some truth to it. I’ve had several similar encounters – from taxi drivers who state with conviction that Indians are “troublemakers” to even Indian friends who accept that we consume more alcohol than other races.  Such stereotypes have come to be accepted as open secrets of the community. We speak about it among ourselves, but become defensive when other races highlight it.

As such, I was surprised to see a report in the Straits Times on SINDA seeking to deal with high spousal abuse rates among Indians. It was unusual that SINDA, which is better known to focus on the educational performance of Indian students, had opted to highlight a non-educational issue plaguing Indians in the national, English media. Although SINDA does have services catering to social ills and broken families within the community (it is the only self-help group to run its own Family Service Centre), such services have traditionally been kept out of the limelight.

The reactions among my Indian friends were mixed. Some were glad that pressing social issues were no longer being “swept under the carpet”. Others were worried that it would only serve to fuel the stereotypes of Indians. What bothered me the most though, was that the report seemed to have singled out the Indian community for high spousal abuse rates.

SINDA’s Role in “Saving Face”

When self-help groups were first set up in Singapore, the driving rationale was that people were more likely to help those within their own community. Likewise, people were more open to accepting help from those within their community. SINDA volunteers who say that speaking in Tamil when they go on door-to-door visits allows them to establish trust with troubled families more easily. Moreover, keeping issues within the community would allow Indians to “save face” in front of other races.

Despite this rationale, there are merits in addressing a community issue on a national platform. Other than openly talking about an issue so that the community can take a hard look at itself, it also allows the wider national community to provide its inputs for a solution.

I am Indian. Therefore I am an Alcoholic.

However, the problem with the concept of a self-help group is that the issue at hand will always be dismissed as one that is the “pasal” of a particular racial group. In Singapore, this has led to a scenario where if a certain racial group demonstrates a penchant for selected social ills, it is more often than not, attributed to the community’s cultural predisposition towards the social ill. I am Indian, therefore I am an alcoholic. This creates a perception that one’s behaviour is a natural result of culture, absolving the individual of any responsibility. 

In the case of spousal abuse among Indians, comments in media reports have attributed spousal abuse rates among Indians to “sub-culture”. Coupled with the Indian’s alleged tendency for alcoholism, this has merely served to reinforce the notion of the drunk Indian wife beater.

This is where stereotypes are born. At an extreme level, this may lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy where the community accepts that it is predisposed to certain traits and deems it futile to rectify a problem. I see this among many Indians who proudly proclaim of their ability to handle liquor better than other races, or plainly attribute spousal abuse to the patriarchal nature of the community. (The latter, especially, is a weak argument as most other Asian societies, including Singapore, are largely patriarchal.)

The Way Forward

The solution ultimately lies in our ability to separate the social ill from the community. Yes, a community may demonstrate an unusually high trend of being affected by a certain issue. However, this should not be attributed to a cultural failing within the community. The way forward would be to advocate a community’s issues on a national level, but seek to address it as a national issue without singling out the community. SINDA’s announcement on spousal abuse rates within the Indian community could possibly have been an attempt to do so. The report included statistics on spousal abuse among other races and an acknowledgement from SINDA that the high rates reported could be due to Indian victims being more aware of their avenues for redress. What is key though, is to emphasize that no one community is predisposed to a problem because they are from a certain racial group, religion or culture.

Nav

The Social Swami

Looking Beyond the Riots

The Little India riot has definitively shaken the core of Singaporean society. The first riots in decades, it is an anomaly in the socio-political culture of Singapore, long famed for its law, order and lack of violent outbursts. Yet, rather than label it as a one-off, singular incident, fuelled by the excesses of alcohol, it is essential to delve deeper into the incident, identify the causal mechanism and identify factors that could have potentially been long term causes for the violence that engulfed Race Course Road on the 8th of December 2013. It is even more crucial that we see the bigger picture, and look beyond the riots to understand the social dynamics of our changing society.

An earlier columnist noted that “we should not play socialist too readily”, but I would counsel otherwise. The riot must be studied in create depth by academics, policy personnel, and most importantly perhaps by the general public in order to discern the key lessons that can be learnt from such a tragic and regrettable incident. The Maria Hertogh riots of 1950 and the race riots of 1964 were crucial lessons on the potential fragility of race and religious relations in Singapore while the Hock Lee bus riots of 1955 and other riots in the 1950s were definitive lessons in the capacity for socialist trade unions to bring the state to a standstill. These lessons have played an undeniable role in shaping the perceptions and policies of the government in Independent Singapore. The ghosts of history demand that we treat the Little India riots with the same caution and respect.

Locating the role of alcohol in the riots

It has been suggested that alcohol was the primary cause of the riot. The death of a fellow worker, Sakthivel Kumaravelu, an Indian national, at the hands of a bus, roused passions already doused with alcohol, which led to violent protests by approximately 400 workers, which eventually led to the destruction and torching of an ambulance and several police patrol cars.

There can be no denying that alcohol related nuisance has been a permanent fixture in Little India in the last decade or so. There is also little argument against the fact that both Sakthivel Kumaravelu and a vast majority of the rioters were heavily intoxicated. Alcohol consumption must thus be seen as an important factor in terms of understanding the riot. However, one must also question if firmly placing the blame on alcohol alone is a somewhat simplistic argument. Alcohol was perhaps an enabler, with the workers’ intoxication, pushing them to go further than they would usually dare to, however, it cannot be seen as the cause for the riot. Alcohol consumption does not lead to rioting, otherwise, both Clarke Quay and Boat Quay along with other popular nightspots would have seen numerous riots rather than the usual incidence of nuisance.

Furthermore, such violence, at such magnitude has never been seen in Little India before, despite excessive alcohol consumption being a permanent fixture. Nuisance, small skirmishes and open rioting are very different phenomenon and must not be grouped together with a perception of path dependence. It is my argument that there are far more deep lying factors that lie at the root of the dissatisfaction and unhappiness of the workers’ that manifested itself in the form of violence on the 8th of December. Social norms and the perception of foreign labour in Singapore is a key issue that must be addressed.

The social stratification of foreign workers in Singapore

Social stratification is a reality of all societies, where divides based on socio-economic status exists. Singapore is no different and indeed, in recent times there has been active debate on closing the widening inequality within Singapore. However, while this debate has included Singaporeans, PRs and expatriates, it has largely excluded the position of transient foreign workers, who arguably have the worst living conditions in our country. This largely has to do with the negative social perception that we accord the foreign worker population in Singapore. It may sound harsh when articulated but it is an undeniable truth that we largely conceptualize these workers as a necessary nuisance, which we need but would rather not see. We do not see them as part of greater Singaporean society, but rather as units of labour that we must uncomfortably accommodate.

This mentality must change. Much like the samsui women and coolies of yore, these worker populations form the foundation on which our nation’s growth is based on. They perform the tasks and do the jobs that our population is not prepared to do, tasks which are largely back-breaking, uncomfortable and largely undesirable to a vast majority of the population. They sometimes lack the sophistication and poise that we have come to expect in a largely educated First World nation but they are an essential part of our national fabric, a crucial factor in our success and growth. We must shed the ‘pariah’ label that we have accorded them, but in order to do so, we must first take the uncomfortable step of acknowledging that such a perception exists.

We must review the living conditions of these workers as well as the wages accorded to them. Beyond such tangibles however there are other intangible factors that must be addressed in Singapore and much of this has to do with social welfare and creating conditions that make it possible for them to be part of our imagined community, our nation rather than outliers on the fringes of our state. Firstly, there is a need to provide living space of these groups of workers. The term ‘living space’ here encompasses more than just the crowded dormitories that we pack workers into but rather avenues for them to comfortably spend the few hours of leisure that are accorded to them. The right towards the pursuit of happiness must be extended to everyone, and this can only be present when living space is accorded.

Many of them, I argue turn to alcohol and crowding around small fields in Little India due to a lack of alternatives. Banning alcohol consumption would stifle incidents in Little India, but do little to solve the bigger problem, which is that these workers have little else to do in their leisure, that is affordable with their meagre salary. Every human being deserves rest and recreation and we must realise that these workers are no different.

Let us be a truly first world nation, not just in terms of economic growth and prosperity but also in terms of social welfare. We should strongly consider building community centre equivalents for these workers or expand our present community centres to include activities and options for recreation and relaxation for them. Also, workers who come here, contribute to our economy and perform largely unpleasant and back-breaking tasks should be offered options to better themselves at negligible cost. This would include courses and other educational options. Let us aim to create social institutions that embrace these segments of population rather than cast them into the shadows, which encourages deviant behaviour. If we make them partners in the nation-building process, they are more likely to subscribe to the same social contract that has largely been the basis of the relative peace and order that has defined Singaporean society.

This nation was built by our forefathers, many of whom first came here with the idea of being transient labour. We bettered ourselves, strove and broke socio-economic barriers at an unparalleled rate. As a new generation of Singaporeans take over the helm of our now resplendent and prosperous nation, let us not forget to offer the same opportunities to the less well-off who come here and work tirelessly to provide for a family thousands of miles away, much like our ancestors did.

Pravin Prakash
The Social Swami

The lion, the haze and the people

Civil society in Singapore stands at a crossroads. Sociopolitical issues are actively debated, opinions are readily offered and there is, in general, a constant clamour for increased engagement and space for debate in the public sphere. But, for all the noise, is there real impetus towards taking the initiative on action?

Over a month ago, for instance, there was much furore over the resignation of Singa, the mascot of the Singapore Kindness Movement (SKM). Singa’s “resignation letter” noted that he was “too tired to continue facing an increasingly angry and disagreeable society” and that “it (was) time for real people to step up and for the mascot to step aside”.

The campaign polarised public opinion, with criticism directed at the SKM for Singa’s cynicism. While the dust has since settled, it is worth revisiting matters through the lens of civil society in Singapore. Why not, for instance, interpret Singa’s “resignation” as a shift away from government-initiated and run campaigns?

One critic had fretted that Singa the Lion was setting a bad example for his young son by “giving up”. If a make-belief mascot has more influence on the personal development of a young boy than do his parents, family and greater society, well, it is a damning indictment of our social responsibility.

Some also argued that Singa was a failure because he was a plastic representation of a top-down movement that lacked connectivity. So should we not then celebrate the fact that Singa’s inability to relate to a different generation has been recognised, and the responsibility of making this society a gracious one passed on to “the real people”?

FILLING UP SOCIAL SPACES

Civil society in Singapore is evolving and, in many ways, in a positive fashion. People are coming together, mobilising to react to issues, policies and events. This is to be lauded and is a phenomenon that must continually evolve as people seek a place in the country’s sociopolitical sphere.

However, it is also worth wondering if this evolution has been rather limited to a possibly vocal minority, or to issues that are pressing or generate a certain amount of political controversy.

A politically active and reactive civic society will be taken more seriously when it makes itself more socially relevant and assertive. As we demand more political space, it is good to also see social spaces being filled with initiatives that have taken on life apart from state-prescribed campaigns and programmes.

Individuals and groups have been mobilising to address social issues such as (and this makes Singa’s exit timely) advocating graciousness and kindness. Groups such as Mission: Singapore and Project Awareness organise activities to raise awareness, aid those in need or simply bring a smile to people’s faces through flash mobs, giving out free hugs and other fun programmes.

The Stand up for Singapore movement holds various events to “build a culture of love, gratitude and graciousness”. Last National Day, for instance, volunteers travelled on MRT trains distributing red and white badges with the slogans “Stand up for our Elderly” and “Stand up for our Mothers”.

Student initiatives, too, are on the rise. The Singapore Management University’s Initiatives for Social Enterprise, for example, comprises students who use their business knowledge to nurture social enterprises, by teaching members finance, marketing and other business skills.

The Tamil Language Society at the National University of Singapore runs the Saadhana tuition programme in collaboration with the Singapore Indian Development Association (SINDA) and the Singapore Indian Education Trust, offering subsidised high-quality tuition to junior college students.

The scope for student initiatives is growing and no longer limited to small-scale activities, and young people are increasingly showing a keen interest in being part of a civil society that takes ownership of issues.

This dynamism often does not make the headlines and many Singaporeans may remain unaware of the shifting sands in society.

During the peak of the haze last month, as PSI readings reached previously unimaginable levels, it was met with alarm and the expected panic. The Government moved to address concerns and to reassure Singaporeans that it was doing all it could.

There were those, though, who thought action was not being taken swiftly enough. As has been well-publicised, netizens and groups of people mobilised and helped get N95 masks to those who needed them the most, or even offered up air-conditioned rooms to those without that benefit at home.

A group of undergraduates from the National University of Singapore’s Tembusu College gave out masks to underprivileged families; other student groups distributed masks to elderly people and children.

These are encouraging signs that civil society in Singapore is capable of social action while also functioning as critics. While the haze was a temporary crisis, the clarity it offered must be permanent.

Pravin Prakash
The Social Swami

This article was written for the TODAY paper and was published online on 23rd July 2013