The Response of a SINGAPOREAN – Indian

This article is written as a response to a recently circulating blog article that you can access at this link: http://mohdnazemsuki.blog.com/2012/02/14/no-chance-for-singapore-indians-and-malays/

I have always felt Singaporean. Not in a patriotic, national anthem singing way, but I have always been comfortable with it being my primary identity marker. I was born here, and I have never lived anywhere else. I have become myself here, in schools, street-soccer courts, under void-decks and in food courts. I have made friends, fallen in love and fought in this concrete jungle of ours. This is my home. It is not perfect, not by a mile, but it has never stifled my growth and never because of my cultural or ethnic roots.

Mr Gopalan’s article is a nefarious beast. Much like a wolf in sheep’s clothing, he attempts to paint the picture of a fascist Chinese supremist state that has meticulously attempted to stifle and suppress the growth of minority races in Singapore while propagating the very principles of racial discord and bias that he accuses Singapore of pursuing. Mr Gopalan is quick to note that there has been a concentrated attempt at promoting Chinese culture and language in Singapore. While I agree that the State’s CMIO racial policy has been somewhat flawed and simplistic, I cannot agree that the government has systematically attempted to make Singapore “a predominantly Chinese city with Chinese language, culture and traditions at the expense of Indians and Malays.” Mr Gopalan further contends that” people were encouraged to speak Mandarin, radio television and other media were told to increase Chinese broadcasts while that of Indian and Malay was suppressed.” This too seems to be a ludicrous accusation as Tamil mass media platforms have only grown from strength to strength in the last few years, with Vasantham in particular becoming a full channel and managing to gain considerable popularity amongst the local Indian population.

Mr Gopalan’s accusations of Chinese chauvinism are unwarranted. Endemic to any country or society is a propensity to favour the majority and Singapore is sadly sometimes no different. Equating this to systematic racial profiling and discriminatory policies is akin to likening a tiger to a pussy cat.

Perhaps far more disconcerting is Mr Gopalan’s accusation that Singapore practices “racial cleansing.” According to the United Nations Security Council resolution 780, racial cleansing refers to the “purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas.” Singapore is not guilty of ethnic cleansing and I think there is little need to defend it from such an accusation but we must indeed ask ourselves why Mr Gopalan attempts to paint such an image of Singapore. Is he not attempting, through his rhetoric to fashion an impression of our country that plays to the insecurities of the minorities and fosters racial discord? We are better than that as a people and we must let mischief mongers like Mr Gopalan know that we are.

I find his article to be a malicious attempt at fostering and fanning the flames of racial hatred and I argue that it is reflective of a disturbing trend in political culture in Singapore that could potentially fracture the very fabric of our society.

I do not deny the presence of racism in our country. Indeed, in an earlier article, I have argued that we should move from trying to be a socially tolerant state to a socially accepting state. I agree that there is much we can do to improve social unity and acceptance amongst the various cultures and ethnicities that share this country but Mr Gopalan’s rhetoric is not the way. Fighting fire with fire will only result in our city-state erupting in flames. We need to engage one another, not disengage and indulge in rabid racial rants. Mr Gopalan’s article offended me deeply as a Singaporean and it pains me to see other Singaporeans purchase the hate-engulfed racist poison that he is trying to hawk at an intellectually discounted price.

We as a society must realise we are living in exceptional times in Singapore.

The 2011 elections was in many ways a watershed election in Singapore’s political history. It witnessed, in many aspects, a populace awakening to embrace its place in political discourse and engagement. It reflected long standing tensions that existed within our political framework and has helped foster in a realisation that the ruling party must indeed learn to engage and not just provide. Singapore is in many ways in its infancy in terms of its political history and culture. As a people, we have perhaps for the same time let ourselves be heard and established our place within the active political discourse of the nation.

We have found our voice.
Now let us not shout in vain.

As mentioned above, we are a generation tasked with the duty of engaging political freedoms and openness previously inexperienced. We have, thrust upon us the joyous burden of nursing a political culture in its infancy. How we nurture this political culture will reflect the nature of our politics for decades and even centuries to come. It is essential that we engage politics constructively and avoid the easy seductions of a deconstructive, abusive and reactive political culture.

The seductions are real. There are frustrations within our society that simmer under the surface, waiting to burst forth and like a liquid, it often takes the shape of its container. The frustrations we feel, towards the government, certain laws, foreigners, can often take the first form of container presented to it. We must therefore be careful how we address these frustrations. Racially divisive politics and xenophobia are perhaps the easiest means by which these frustrations can manifest in a deadly and devastative way. This is the seduction Mr. Gopalan seems to dangle our way, and one that we must avoid at all costs.

Let us not succumb to the seductions of racial hatred. Let us mend fractures in our society by constructively engaging one another and creating a political culture that facilitates constructive engagement. The rhetoric of racial revulsion will only promote and further project disunity, hatred and eventually violence.

Words and ideas have the power to create realities. Let us not fashion our own nightmare.

Pravin Prakash
The Social Swami

What Lies Beneath

Sex is in the air.

In Singapore, forty-eight men, including businessmen, a former school principal, a Navy captain, a police superintendent, were charged in court this week with having paid sex with a minor. They allegedly procured the services from an unlicensed online vice ring, which had employed the under-aged girl or girls.

Concurrently, President Obama’s advance Secret Service detail have been recalled from Columbia, where the President is currently attending the Summit of Americas, over allegations of misconduct involving local prostitutes. The United States Southern Command has announced that five members of the U.S. military may have also engaged in “inappropriate” behavior at the same hotel as the recalled agents.

In Rome, Italy, former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi is on trial for allegedly having sex with an underage prostitute. A witness even recounted in court that strippers in nun costumes danced for him at his villa.

Salacious (and clichéd) details aside, it is usually nobody’s business what anyone does in their personal lives.  However, it becomes state prerogative when it involves an illegal act such as solicitation, sex with a minor, and using the services of an unlicensed prostitution ring.

(In the case of US, the Secret Service takes all allegations of misconduct seriously, having an image of propriety and protocol to uphold in keeping their President safe.)

This raises the question – why paid sex? It is not as if the most powerful man in Italy could not have found himself a lover or two if he so wished. In Singapore, where people never seem to date but rather fall into relationships, perhaps it is a bit harder to find the willing woman for a one-night stand or a purely physical fling. Yet, there are many a men who have managed to do so without resorting to solicitation.

So what makes the world’s oldest profession still exist? Why the ageless ceaseless demand for sex which is paid for?

Perhaps, it comes down to the bi-polar image of women as the virtuous versus the prostitute. Perhaps, this dichotomy has never truly departed from our collective psyches, in spite of the outward changes of laws and legislations and attitudes regarding women and their place in society.

In the classic Iranian Literature Blind Owl by Sadegh Hedayat, the author articulates the impotent male psyche unable to deal with the shifting reality that formulates itself around the shape of a woman. In fact the women in Blind Owl symbolise the two polarized images of the classical Iranian narrative – the inaccessible ethereal women and the all too accessible temptress. There is no integration of the different aspects of women, no understanding that they can exist as a cohesive whole rather than as individual extremes.

The fact is no matter how liberated women are in today’s modern society, there still exists a demand for prostitutes – this shows the need for a type of sexual possession and power which pervades time and modernity.

To pay for sex means you can demand anything you desire from the person you own for that period of time. It is ironic that in the past it was traditional and religious notions which prevented one from exerting such demands on their wives whom they viewed as good, non-sexual, virgin women and now, principles of equality and freedom for both sexes cause men due pause in making such requests to their wives and girlfriends, no matter how sexually liberated the woman may be. The question men now grapple with on a subconscious level is – how do you demand sexual degradation from a woman you are supposed to treat with respect and as your equal?

Perhaps the reason paid sex is always so hotly debated and contentious is because it reflects a depravity in society which will always need to exist, to feed the collective desires of our inner beasts. It is an unavoidable reminder that we are eternally man and animal all at once.

Reena Devi

Duty vs. Love

Lately, the use of the word ‘duty’ seems to cover all manner of sins.

In last weekend’s Sunday Times, a soon-to-graduate university student wrote an article about giving up her choice to pursue her personal dreams so as to be there for her ailing father, an act she considers her ‘duty’ because her father apparently gave up his ‘freedom’ to raise three daughters. She even ends the said article stating that she is putting her plans to go overseas on hold not because she is a Daddy’s girl but because she is her father’s daughter. Essentially, she is emphasizing the fact that she is doing her ‘duty’ as a daughter.

The overall tone was of a young adult fulfilling the obligations of a contract bound by ties of flesh and blood, in spite of her own inherent aspirations, just because that is what is expected.

Furthermore, having children is admittedly a responsibility with its own fair share of challenges but your children should not be viewed as a liability, a loss of freedom. It is a startling reflection of our society that we have come to deem the idea of having children in such cold, harsh terms. If everything is about duty, social expectations and fulfilling obligations, where is the humanity and love behind it all?

The fact is we often make practical decisions and choices based on such social expectations but never prepare ourselves for its emotional consequences.

It is not easy caring for a sick parent, it takes moral courage and sensitivity to commit oneself to it. Ideally, it has to be done not just out of duty, but devotion. The latter is crucial. Putting aside one’s dreams for a loved one is admirable but it has to be done as an act of love so that at some point in the future the regret that gnaws within you about a missed opportunity does not escape and consume you and the person whom you consider holding you back. Even worse, that regret can mutate itself into guilt on the part of the person ‘holding you back’.

It is time to look at ourselves as human beings and be aware of our dichotomous natures. We can only aspire to be better than ourselves when we comprehend our inner demons. Unconditional love exists within our scope of emotions but it is difficult to maintain in this world that pushes and pulls against our better instincts. Yet it is imperative that we constantly strive to give it and receive it, rather than succumb to regret, or worse, envy.

We see the pursuit of dreams by individuals free to engage in the sort of lives some of us do not even dare contemplate. They are untethered by family ties and that cruel and inescapable word ‘duty’. So we take on a moral superiority, a self-sacrificing air that, unlike these carefree individuals, we are abiding the tenets of family piety, being there for our family, be it emotionally or financially or both.

Well, the reality is that unconditional love and self-righteousness do not make good bedfellows.

Admittedly, there are days when duty outweighs love but the overall aim has to be less about being a martyr and more about being a good daughter/son on one’s own terms. There are children who have pursued their future overseas and wound up being able to support their family and help them advance socio-economically because of this choice. Are we to deem them neglectful and chide them for not doing their ‘duty’?

For social cohesion to exist in a society with an increasing aging population and limited working adults, it is crucial to view filial piety as a double edged sword and engage in a healthy dialogue about what it means to unsheathe it. It varies with each individual and it is time to take these subjective contexts into consideration rather than impose a stringent, overall morality clause on familial relations.

Reena Devi

The Intolerance of Tolerance

The last few weeks in Singapore has been marked by a flurry of racially insensitive remarks splashed across cyberspace. The Racist remarks have been shared, equally bigoted responses have been written and many people have written commentaries much like this one on the issue. Should we not then just let the matter rest?

We do however need to meditate on what this tells us about our society and the philosophies that shape our society. Hence, this article is not an attempt at an angry response nor is it a spirited defence of Singaporean Indians against the slanderous accusations of being odorous terrorists. Rather, it is an attempt at trying to figure out if there is a causal factor in all of this. Are we not after all a racially tolerant society? Do we not at least strive our hardest to be a tolerant society?
That I would suggest, is precisely the problem.

The very foundations of our diverse society is premised on the notion of tolerance. We must be tolerant of other races and people who we deem different from us. We must tolerate their differences, their presence, their cumbersome customs, their idiosyncrasies. If we can tolerate one another, surely we can live our lives in peace, never having to fear the potential conflict that an intolerant society would create.

Tolerance however is premised on an intolerant presumption. It suggests, rather insidiously, that there is inherently something wrong with someone who is different. It, on a subconscious level, dictates that the differences that people have in our society, cultural, biological and spiritual differences that are essentially negative in nature. We tolerate that which we cannot naturally accept. Smelly lavatories and rude behaviour are examples of things we tolerate due to our need to either get things done or due to our better nature. Tolerance is not what our ethnically and culturally diverse society should be based on.

A tolerant society is much like a dam that is built to prevent a village from flooding. It will continue to hold water till it can no longer and will then one day explode, resulting in the devastation of the community that had built it to prevent such a catastrophe in the first place. When seen from such a perspective, is the actions of the much maligned Shimun Lai that difficult to comprehend? From her perspective, she had tolerated for a long time the assault on her senses from people of a community she had been taught to tolerate for the good of society. On a given day, when her nerves were already frayed, and her tolerance had already been tested, she burst forth with words I am sure she has lived to regret. I am by no means endorsing her behaviour or telling you that it is in anyway acceptable. I am merely saying that there is a method to her madness, a causal factor that exists within the philosophies that have shaped our society.

We must not confuse a tolerant society for one that is based on acceptance. A society based on acceptance celebrates differences and is based on respect and mutual admiration. A tolerant society is based on false notions of magnanimity and deeply entrenched (but sometimes subconscious) prejudice. Society is hence divided by its tolerance. Everyone thus essentially becomes the ‘tolerator’ and the ‘toleratee’. Tolerance is premised on the othering of people who do not share similar practices and physical attributes. It is a mask that we put on to hide our bigoted conceptualisations of others. We mask our intolerance with tolerance and hope for peace in a society of painted smiley faces, not realising that paint much like our tolerance fades over the years.

Let us not attempt to paper the cracks of our fragile tolerant society and instead let us move towards a society that is based on accepting differences as reality and learning to celebrate them. It will not be a gentle learning process. Acceptance is a harder pill to swallow than the pretence of tolerance but it is a suitable cure to intolerance. Let us not live in masks but learn to accept one another for the varied beasts that we are.

Pravin Prakash
The Social Swami

An edited version of this piece was published in TODAY newspaper and TODAYonline.