The Rise of Xenophobia Part 2: when help comes with conditions

Well, I did promise to write a follow-up post on ‘The Rise of Xenophobia’, so here it is:

———————————————————

So a girl goes with friends to a pubbing/clubbing district. She gets harrassed by an older man, who, upon being ignored by said girl, begins to touch and act aggressively towards her. When she issues him an ultimatum (threatening to punch him), he attempts to physically intimidate her, and taunts her. She subsequently shoves him away and screams. Her friends scream and try to pull her away.

In the meantime, no one comes to her help. One person whips out his camera phone and films down the whole thing.

She posts about the incident online. There are the usual comments–those who support her and are angry for her about the harrassment, those who blame her and cast aspersions on her person, and some voices of reason in between. Someone reads the comments, gets riled at the misogynists, and posts an opinion on her blog. Flames ensue.

Sounds like your usual debate on sexual harrassment, no?

Well, not quite.

You see, the girl is a foreign exchange student (‘the student’), who’s been here for a term. The ‘aggressor’ is an older Caucasian male (perhaps an expatriate, or even a tourist–his status is not identified). The female ‘blogger’ is a Singaporean.

Is that supposed to change anything?

Wait, there’s more. You see, the student posted up how disappointed she was with Singaporeans (and in particular, Singaporean men) for not coming to her aid. The blogger’s piece was entitled ‘Today, I am ashamed of being Singaporean‘.

Throw in nationality to the mix, and suddenly, everything becomes different.

Suddenly, it is acceptable to bash the girl for expecting help. Suddenly, it becomes acceptable to refuse to help because she isn’t Singaporean. Suddenly, it is not acceptable to call out vile online behaviour because we are supposed to be Singaporeans and Singaporeans must stand up for each other regardless.

I’m not going to comment on the student’s blanket statement because it is offensive to tar all Singaporeans with the same brush. Let’s be honest: it’s not fair to generalize. I most certainly don’t agree with her–many of the Singaporean men I know, my husband included, would help in some way. I’m not going to comment on the misogynistic comments, because I believe that stupidity is something everyone is born with, and some people just choose to cultivate that part of it more than others. I’m not going to comment on the blogger’s opinion, although I have to say that while I am not ashamed to be Singaporean, I am ashamed that those vile creatures are the same nationality as me.

What I would rather comment on is the state of humanity as reflected in the comments, and what this portends for my country.

That some would actually believe that the foreigner status of both the student and the aggressor thus absolves Singaporeans of any responsibility to help. That our men are only obliged to protect our women. That since there are 40% foreigners around, she can’t expect Singaporeans to be around to help her. That since Singaporean males have done their part with NS, they don’t need to do anything for a foreign exchange student.

Is that it, then? What it boils down to? That our humanity only extends to those who we count as ours? Everyone else can go to hell because they’re not Singaporean?

You know how as a kid, you read stories about the past and wonder what it was like to live in those times? Well, it’s times like these that I get this awful, awful feeling that I’ve just gotten the answer to my question:

How exactly did interbellum Germany develop in such a way that Nazism flourished both prior and during World War 2?

I recently had a conversation with my best friend R about the rising trend of xenophobia in Singapore, and how it worried me that people felt they did not need to help foreigners (this was before the news of this broke). He noted that it was because Singaporeans, while not xenophobic in nature (he pointed out that prior to the recent influx in foreign workers, we had been fine with foreigners), had been made increasingly so by the PAP government’s policies. While he personally didn’t agree with the xenophobia, he felt that he could see why people would end up behaving in this way.

I disagree.

First, I disagree with the idea that Singaporeans are not xenophobic in nature, though not completely. The degree to which we have fallen to xenophobia is greater, but this is not a new phenomenon. Perhaps we don’t want to remember anymore, but we have always viewed foreigners with suspicion, and some derision. When it was the Caucasians, we envied them because they flaunted their expat lifestyles in our faces, pubbing and attracting local women. When it was the Thai and Bangladeshi workers, we turned up our noses at them, calling them dirty, smelly, always afraid that they would give in to their baser instincts and molest/rape our women or rob us. When the Filipinas and PRC women came, they were the husband-snatchers; the former, maids who slept with their employers to score a secure future, and the latter, pei du mamas who worked in massage parlours getting into fake marriages and trying to seduce old men out of their CPF retirement money (on a lighter note, I guess it backfired, since the government kept raising the minimum withdrawal sum…). Can anyone remember the epithets of ‘SPG’ and ‘乌鸦’? Or am I the only one? All these happened in the mid to late 90s, and beyond.

The newspaper articles in the paper at your doorstep, the coffee-table books, the exposés in the glossy magazines, the talk shows on your 49″ projection TVs. The complaints about maids crowding around Orchard and Lucky Plaza, the ‘gay’ behaviour of Bangladeshi workers holding hands and walking down Little India. The bum-proof planters by the roadsides. The raising of Ion Orchard.
No, it has always been there. The whispered comments, the nasty remarks. The mothers pulling their daughters away from the dark-skinned construction worker coming down the opposite end of the pavement, and eyeballing them as they passed, before warning their daughters to be careful of being followed by these lustful Thais/Banglas/Klings. The reluctance to hire Filipinas as maids because they were likely to argue back, they slept around, they stole husbands. The Indons, oh god, why are they all so slow, so stupid. The jingoistic Singaporean tourist, who would pass comments on how lousy other countries were compared to Singapore. It goes on.

We laid the groundwork for our xenophobia a long time ago,. We laid it in the media, in our homes, in our thoughts and words. We watched our parents do it, and we drank it all in. Many let the venom, so innocuous at that time, poison the wells of their minds, such that when the concentrated pollution of sites such as TRE, TRT and TRS was poured in, the resultant reaction began to froth and spew forth fumes that when inhaled, altered their view of everything (much like how LSD would work, just minus the purported positive aspects).

Secondly, I take offense at the idea that my personal behaviour should be dictated by what others do to me, especially in an eye-for-an-eye way. That is downright insulting. I am neither bound nor conditioned by anyone or any law of the land to lash out with vitriol and mindless hate just because wrong was done to me. To do so would be tantamount to admitting I am no better than a beast capable of no higher intelligence than instinct.

I remember the construction accident about a year ago where two PRC workers were killed, and the shocking comments of people saying that since they were PRCs, we should not bother to donate to them, that since there are so many PRCs in Singapore, let them help their own, that who cares about two dead PRCs, since there would be many more flocking to replace them. The ultimate jump in logic was made by those who somehow managed to link the Ma Chi incident to this, and use that as a reason to justify not helping.

Trading in one’s humanity in the name of nationalism–that’s what Nazism turned out to be, isn’t it? That somehow, those ‘greedy’, ‘filthy pigs’, the ‘dogs’, ‘rats’, ‘cockroaches’ are less worthy of life than us ‘good’, ‘nice’, ‘generous’ Singaporeans.

Almost as though they are some form of untermensch.

And when you are conditioned to consider someone less human than you, then it makes it easier to talk about doing violence to them. Like that silly young man who shoved an old lady off a bus for scolding him for scolding her about pressing the alighting bell so late, in which he somehow blamed foreigners (and specifically mentioned the Ferrari incident, by the way) for making him act in such a loutish behaviour. Like calling for ‘see one PRC. fucking kill one’ campaigns or burning down their houses, stalls, and killing their families (yes, I quoted directly from a comment on the Temasek Times–comments posted exactly 1 year ago). Like gloating over the PRC lady who was knocked down a month ago, saying “1 down, many more to go”, and “hope many more Chinamen die” (quoted directly off HWZ)

And every time some incident occurs, whether it be a PRC, Filipino/Filipina, Caucasian, whatever, suddenly all the vitriol starts spewing forth. Name-calling to the point where it blisters the eyes, telling them to go back to where they came from, making jokes about killing them… wow.

And when others call them out on their behaviour, the anti-foreigner brigade immediately brands them as foreigner-loving, telling us if we don’t like it, we can leave.

Are we allowing these people to claim our country as theirs? Their vision of Singapore as right?

Some will say that I’m over-reacting, that they are just a vocal minority. Might I point out now that most Germans weren’t fervent, spittle-flecked Nazis. But they had just enough resentment for the Jews to do nothing when the crazies came. Too many people still think that evil comes in the form of outright cruelty and atrocity. It is easy to demonise them (think hard: how many biographies of Hitler, or Slobodan Milosevic or Saddam Hussein have you read that portray them as regular human beings?).

I caution against that. By denying that we have anything in common with such people, we deny that we, too, are capable of similar acts. We gladly buy into the fiction that it takes someone extraordinarily evil to perpetrate crimes against humanity so that we never have to confront the reality that we all have it within us to do the same. We believe it fervently so that we don’t have to stick our necks out to call out the crazies. We would trade others’ humanity so that we can grasp on to our own.

Wanna bet that if you ask most of those people who post up xenophobic comments if they would support Nazism, they’d be shocked and say ‘no way’?

We want to forget the banality of evil.

And evil starts, and thrives, with conditional humanity.

A quick one on the GE13 in Malaysia

In the light of Najib’s remarks following allegations and visual proofs of Barisan National blatantly cheating (and attempting to cheat) its way to victory, the first thing that came to my mind was this:

Eh, Najib is damn bodoh sial. Put my PM in a spot. Cannot congratulate because the cheating was so in your face, later he seen as approving BN’s dirty techniques and kena. Don’t want to congratulate also cannot, later trade relations suffer and economy go down he also kena.

And if anything, that really just goes to show how much of an incompetent Najib is, which is probably the best proof of all that he cheated his way to winning.

I’ve probably become persona non grata in their books right about now.

A more serious post on GE13 later this week. Stay strong, Malaysia.

Btw, happy birthday to my husband, who turns 32 today.

To the zoo!

Just a quick one before I run off:

I’m at work, but not for long–my boss’s lab is having a field trip to the zoo, and I’m going along

Demonising one’s opponents and the state of political cartoons in Singapore

So, the person behind Demoncratic Singapore, Leslie Chew, has been arrested for sedition. Apparently, 1 of his comics pissed off the Attorney-General’s Chambers, while the other suggested that the government of the country in question (I mean, since he did put up a disclaimer that it wasn’t Singapore in the comics) discriminated against a certain ethnic group. Of course, the news has exploded across the local social media platforms, with loads of people sharing the news, and liking the Demoncratic Facebook page.

The commentaries have come in, of which Kirsten Han’s post is exceptionally thought-provoking. What I found particularly noteworthy is her point on how the arrest will only serve to whitewash the problematic aspects of Chew’s comic in a tidal wave of anti-PAP, anti-censorship sentiment. In her post, she pointed out that those of us (and I say us, because I fall into this category) who are uncomfortable with Chew’s brand of political ‘humour’ are unfortunately left with no middle ground on which to stand, in a debate where the hawks will dictate which camp one falls into, and those who express their distaste for his ‘cartoons’ will be placed into the PAP-crony camp.

And then there are those who have come out in full support of Chew, such as LIFT‘s post on the arrest, encouraging us to stand in solidarity with Chew for the sake of political freedom, free speech and free press. In it, he makes a point that the arrest has implications on the rest of the people who may hold similar views, or may have just simply shared it in the name of exercising free speech and freedom of press.

Well, since I am well-known among my friends to be a staunch moderate who leans towards the Opposition and freedom of press, as well as a person who hardly ever minces her words (hey, free speech, right?), let me be the first to say this:

I AM NOT A FAN OF DEMONCRATIC’S SO-CALLED POLITICAL CARTOONS. NEVER HAVE BEEN, NEVER WILL BE.

For one, I have no love for political cartoonists who have no grasp of the word ‘subtlety’. Reading a Demoncratic political comic is the equivalent of hitting someone over the head with a frozen prize tuna. Honestly speaking, it’s not a problem that is restricted to just him–it seems to be a problem in general with much of Singapore’s cartooning scene (see Lee Chee Chew’s Chew On It, for example of another unsubtly un-funny comic). There seems to be hardly any point to many of his comics, except to highlight yet another foreigner-related issue, or some perceived unfairness to locals, or some government hypocrisy ad infinitum ad nauseam.

I can appreciate that yes, these are real problems, yes, these are real perceptions, and yes, these are real feelings of disenfranchisement that many of my fellow Singaporeans harbour that he is simply reflecting in his comics–else, he would not be this popular–and I’m glad that someone is bringing up these issues.

What I don’t like, though, is how he panders to the anti-foreigner, anti-PAP crowd without any significant contribution to deepening political discourse beyond the black-and-white, for-us-or-against-us style that has dominated politics so far. It is one thing to (pardon the pun) draw attention to issues, it is another to actually engage those same issues. What I see in most of Chew’s comics is what he thinks must be going on in the ‘evil’ minds of Demoncratic Singapore’s Men in #FFFFFF, and their evil, demonic machinations against the people of Demoncratic’s  Singapore in question. Whether or not this is a deliberate strategy of his with regards to his political commentary to force a hard re-look, or a cynical attempt to pander to baser sentiments on the ground, it remains to be seen, but I suspect the truth is a point somewhere in a continuum between the two (or, given the fact that there is likely to be more than just two reasons for doing something in a certain way, in an intersection of these priorities).

The end-result is the same–a simplified political discourse, which, to borrow his comic’s title, ‘demon’-ises the Party Against People as stupid, greedy, hypocritical, cowardly, while his characters are good, rational, honest, etc.

This is in itself a false dichotomy. There are good people of all political stripes, as well as bad people of all political stripes. Even within a singular person, there are good things and bad things that s/he is capable of doing. Even what we consider as good may be bad to someone else, and how good may come about may be through evil means. The complex world and humans that we interact with are reduced to single representations. While we most certainly can’t expect fully fleshed-out characters in a comic that serves as political satire, turning humans into one-dimensional cut-outs serves no real purpose except to create straw men. Add in the thinly-veiled snarkiness, and the result is a political satire that, well… is less satire and more ranting.

Which is a pity, because from time to time, he does produce good commentaries, which I do enjoy and at one point hoped to see more of. But these are increasingly few and far between, and more often than not, I find myself rolling my eyes and skipping past Facebook posts sharing his comics.

As I once remarked to my friend Wens, the tragedy of Maureen Dowd (who writes as a regular op-ed in the New York Times) is that her articles are too often nothing more than snarky, poorly-written cheap-shots at her Republican target du jour, that it smothers completely the rare good pieces that make an excellent point, and turns off potential readers who could benefit from reading those.

And so it goes with Chew.

The other tragedy of Demoncratic Singapore becoming the latest ‘martyr’/beacon of free speech in Singapore is that his comics are hardly the representative of free speech without fear. Apologies, but the disclaimer about how it’s about a country that doesn’t exist and somehow that absolves one of all legal liability? Sorry, it just smacks of the usual ‘gotta somehow cover my ass let’s see what I can do okay I’ll put up this disclaimer that probably won’t stand up in an unbiased court of law due to the striking similarities of recent events and references’. I refuse to even say ‘thinly-veiled’, because considering that as even an attempt at disguising something is an insult. If you actually believe that disclaimer, or want to use that as a water-tight defense, that probably says more about you than it does about me.

Look, my point is this: if you have a point to make, then say it plain. If you want to cover your ass, then do it smart.

By including that disclaimer, one basically panders to the fear that free speech will invite retribution, when in reality, it is free speech that is not shrewd that opens itself up to (and to a certain extent, invites) retaliation.  Note that I refuse to use the word ‘responsible’, as irresponsible free speech e.g. hate speech is also enshrined in the rights of free speech. Also, the idea of responsibility in free speech has been appropriated by the majority party too often for the wrong reasons. So no, I refuse to use that idiotic term–free speech is not responsible or irresponsible, it’s just done stupidly or shrewdly.

To me, the purpose of a political cartoon is to draw attention to the state of politics and society in such a way that it invites intelligent and thoughtful discussion. It doesn’t have to be polite, but it must be incisive, and it must be done with a conscience. And I don’t just mean a political conscience, I mean a human conscience. Political cartoons should inspire thought to action, and not serve as a festering ground for distrust, hate and xenophobia.

The problem with Demoncratic Singapore is this–it is unable to lay real claim to, yet pretends to the high ideals of political cartoons and free speech, and by doing so, it unnecessarily demonises those it seeks to pillory by forcing the matter to its current state, and when the expected retaliation comes, cries foul. Thus, Chew has created a self-fulfilling prophecy, which serves no real purpose, except to widen the gulf between the people and the PAP, and to polarise political opinion even further. Worst of all, it draws an artificial battle-line on the ground that, as Ms Han pointed out, leaves no middle ground in the minds of the demagogues at the extremes, where everyone who does not support Chew (me included) is automatically presumed to be doing so out of political affiliation rather than for any number of rational, logical and ethical reasons, and those who do not censure him openly and demand that he be shut down automatically and/or arrested (which, surprise surprise to all those who may be reading this and getting ready to scream that I am a PAP crony, I don’t agree with because of logical, ethical reasons! Wrap your heads around that) are tarred and feathered as xenophobic.

Does it serve any political purpose? Yes, it does.

It unfortunately serves that of the PAP’s.

A polarised electorate that is unable to see past the battle-lines is unlikely to trust each other. And mistrust will prevent them from uniting effectively and rationally to achieve their common goal, thus perpetuating more decades of the status quo.

Now that’s truly demon-cratic.

Note to my readers: not all (political) cartoons and satire in Singapore are of the same type. If you have a penchant towards more subtle satire and more incisive critique, try The Cartoon Press.

Aaaaaaand.…

…I’m at the airport, looking at my flight as I take one last puff before I go.

See you in 4 days’ time, Singapore. Don’t get severely ponded while I’m away, okay?

A short break from the usual

So in 2 days’ time, I will be unemployed, albeit temporarily. To be honest with you, it isn’t a situation that I view with much distaste; I have been working for 5.5 years continuously, and I think it’s high time I took a short break from the usual. Ideally, I would have liked to take 6 months’ off, but neither my renovation loan repayment schedule nor my insurance policies would allow that (well, at least my home loan does), so realistically speaking, it would probably be more on the lines of 2-3 weeks, while I wait for the offer (I received 2) I really prefer to materialise in the form of the offer package. Given the legendary efficiency of the Office of Human Resource, it will probably find its way into my mailbox 2 weeks from now, which would leave me maybe a week more to bum around, with the option to start a little earlier.

In the meantime, I will be headed to Hong Kong for a very short holiday. I’m bringing my parents along, as they have never been there before, and I find it kind of ridiculous that my mum’s been to Norway and Turkey and Eastern Europe but has never set foot somewhere that’s barely a hop, skip and a jump away. I will be with them for the most part of the day, but at night I will be headed to dance at the Hong Kong Salsa Festival, and I have one day free, to let my parents explore around themselves.

And after that? 

Well, I shall mostly be at home, cooking, baking, painting, maybe reading and writing, getting back in touch with my musical side and stuff like that. 

I probably won’t be dancing much, because I will be occupied with training on Sundays and Thursdays. But I would like to go take photos, explore parts of Singapore I’ve never been to.

I would like to go fly a kite, sun tan on the beach, go watch the airplanes take off and land at Changi, sit by the roadside with my fags and a cup of kopi-o peng and watch the world go by.

But above all, I need time to heal. From the physical and emotional scars of the past 3 years. 

Life can wait for a while.

I knew there had to be a reason why I was getting multiple migraines the past 2 nights.

Down with the flu. BRB.