50 Years of PAP : on Cultural Magnanimity as the Conclusion of Fascism
This article is an attempt to answer Simsplace.vox.com's question, "How can a booklet promoting inter-racial harmony claim to do so when it only illustrates 2 of the 4 local languages." which he put to me last night over a cup of cheap tea before we headed down to the pub.
It comes across as a Chinese state that is being magnanimous enough to include others. In that, it does not contradict their promotion of ‘racial harmony’ but rather enhances it....if one was to take the present as the starting point of history that is.
But,
Let’s
put it this way. If I was to migrate, for
instance, to Hong Kong, which has historically
been a Chinese state, I am not going to take offence at not being represented
in media broadcasts, in parliament, in various media, amongst a host of others. I would try my best to survive given whatever
opportunities that come my way or which is not perceived to a 'Chinese industry'. And if I
am given additional rights, I would be thankful whilst not seeking to have full
equality in all forms of
representation though I would still expect basic rights of citizenship. So, for instance, if I don’t see members of ‘my’
‘racial’ group being represented in ads, the television, etc, I wouldn’t really
mind. But
this would not be my approach if I perceive this country as mine, or myself as
equal to all in all respects, or where I equate 'majority' with 'nationality' and nothing besides.
That is the essential difference between being perceived and perceiving oneself as a ‘minority of foreign origins’ even though one might have shared nationality, and the perception that you are a part of the majority by virtue of nationality despite origins. If one perceives oneself in the former light, than most non-legal rights become ‘privilege’ and an illustration of the ‘magnanimity’ of the majority. However, the inverse is true if you perceive yourself in the latter light. In the case of the UK, the Asians moved from the first to the second and now may even, at times, be overrepresented in various parts of the social experience. However, given that a significant number of the British population perceive themselves and each other as ‘British’, ‘race’ becomes less a formula for distinguishing one from another. In this, the United Kingdom may be perceived as truly culturally magnanimous as they were originally a ‘white’ country which has included ‘others’ to the point that the distinction between ‘us’ and ‘them’ is generally perceived to refer to British nationals and foreigners.
In the local situation, one is detracted from the fact that Singapore moved
from a Malay country; then to a multiracial one; and then to a Chinese one with
the government stating that Singapore must always have a Chinese majority. More
than 3 decades have passed since this approach was taken and many non-Chinese
locals have moved from seeing this as ‘Multiracial Singapore’, to ‘a country with a Chinese majority’, and then to ‘a Chinese country’ - as indicated in my personal conversations in the course of 30 years.
Moving 30 or so years into the present, when people are accustomed to this and view it as 'a Chinese
country', the 'Chinese' can then move to 'include' the thus created 'others' or
what I would term, 'citizens of foreign origin', and then come across as being
magnanimous. In this, the 'others' are disabled from seeking those rights that
people who deem the country to be theirs would - as, for instance, an Indian might in India. Anything that is given to them
is hence perceived as a 'gift' as opposed to a 'right'. I do recall my taking to task the now-defunct site, 'Singaporeans for Democracy'(sfd) for making their site available only in Mandarin and English. Their response was, 'we cannot please everyone', and 'why do you think you deserve special treatment', or something to that effect. In that, we can detect the notion that I am elucidating upon here.
When the country is perceived in such a manner, opposition by those who view themselves as 'others' is reduced and Singapore as a 'Chinese state’ is
perpetuated as people who don't view this as their state, given a hierarchical definition of a nation along racial lines, will generally tend to
make do with what they are given as opposed to seeking equality in non-legal rights - not unlike the varying expectations of a member of the family as opposed to a tenant. Cultural magnanimity under such conditions
turns 'rights' into a 'privilege' or something 'minorities' ought to be
'grateful for' or wait a few decades for.
Whether it is intentional or not, the consequences are as I have stated. It is
in this light that a Malay finally becoming a general, or the Indians finally
getting their own channel, can be seen as a gift from a people whose country
they are inhabiting.
It is a paradox whereby a Chinese state, by including 'others' in a 'secondary'
way after the 'others' have been taught to see themselves as a 'minority', and moved
from seeing Singapore as a country with 'a Chinese majority' to 'a Chinese
country', can hence maintain itself as a Chinese state in perpetuity wherein
'minorities' will not seek for more than 2nd place in everything as do minorities
in, for instance, China or Hong Kong. This, of course, gives a whole other meaning to the term, 'meritocracy'.
A final point supporting this perspective is that in the past, Malay was given primacy in symbolic form given that Singapore was once largely inhabited by Malays and can be perceived as, originally, a Malay country. Now, in these examples, we are seeing Chinese characters being placed even above English. And we see such tendencies in manifesting itself in various forms online as evidenced in the 'sgblogawards.omy.sg' site, in singaporedaily.net's 'daily chiobu', in the Social Democratic Party placing options for viewing their site in different languages in respect of racial numerousness, or the Worker’s Party doing similarly on their banner. It is a pervasive phenomenon indicating Singapore in transition.
Amongst a host of other examples, the booklet above is the most significant example of this transition as it simultaneously does indeed promote
racial harmony, whilst impressing upon all that it is to take place
within the auspices of one predominant culture and with one predominant race. In this, less will be expected by 'minorities' who perceive this as a 'Chinese country' and, as a result, as 'citizens of foreign origin'. Hence, we can
plausibly state, in the light of these phenomena, that one is being
included, not as an equal, but as a 'minority'. And given this, they will take their 'rightful place' as do minorities in countries whose histories they were not a part of.
I'm not saying that this is right or wrong. It's just a simple sociological analysis which I’m
quite certain nobody in this country will appreciate to this degree, or care about enough to afford it any appreciation.
Ed
postscript: This article, amongst all others, is not constructed to 'incite racial hatred', but for the purpose of undermining the conditions for its emergence, or those conditions that might negatively affect any group's sense of self-efficacy. That is what ought to be expected of anyone who cares for the whole as opposed to the part. That, in essence, is that which underlies the Confucian, ren (jen), or 'human-heartedness'.
Comments
As always, Ed. Insightful, pointed, and emphatic.
I especially liked your title “50 years of PAP” because much of how our society has become a more sinicized nation is due to one political party’s (PAP’s) imposition of its beliefs (most likely, even of one man’s). One really cannot argue that the monocultural state of affairs we are seeing now is a natural outcome of the previously vibrant, dynamic, porous communities that Singapore had in the early 20th century and in the early years of nation-building. My belief and intellectual understanding is that this region of ours was always a highly syncretic region that has for over a thousand years creatively incorporated elements (people, religions, world-views, etc.) from various civilizations (I believe you have blogged about this before), a history that would not have been conducive to what we are seeing now. That the PAP could somehow make the masses believe that she “must have a dominant Chinese population” (with all its socio-politico-cultural implications) and to act upon it with impunity, is indeed an achievement against history.
Separately, one nagging question that I have, however, is this: as a Singaporean of a minority “race”, what is the best thought-out and convincing justification for all communities and cultures in Singapore to not be subject to state-sponsored hegemony of a dominant Chinese culture? How should we argue against turning Singapore into a Chinese country (if it has not already become one)? Or is there no reason to argue against it?
The older generation of Malay would argue that because Malays were the original inhabitants of our island and region, they should be given special rights or at least not be treated as cultural sideshows. Most of my Chinese peers find this unconvincing because history is just nostalgia to them and has no relevance to current politics (understandable because middle-class Singaporeans have not had the experience of being uprooted from their own homes, lands, and cultures yet – the influx of foreigners might change that sentiment). Others also retort that the Malays were not the original inhabitants of the region since the “Orang Asli” were here before the Malays. Nonetheless, I too reject this idea of rights flowing from claims of precedence mostly because I do not subscribe to the idea that any one group owns a piece of land and has an original right to it.
The more sophisticated minority friends of mine would then say that citizenship grants natural positive and negative rights for all including not being subject to state-sponsored cultural hegemony. With “citizenship rights” in Singapore not meaning much beyond mere token rhetoric on the one hand, and a tool of demographic control by the PAP on the other hand, I do not think this citizenship argument means much for the original question. “Citizenship” seems to be a farce in Singapore, so too must any discourse that depends on it.
Another potential answer is the importance of reducing group marginality. This is somewhat similar to perhaps your concept of upholding a group’s self-efficacy. In promoting any one culture of a dominant group, the state risks alienating another group and this alienation can lead to extreme marginalization in the case of the Malays who are already socio-economically dislocated (1 in 3 of Singapore Malays are either labourers, cleaners or factory workers; Malay girls are 7-8 times more likely to end up as unwedded mothers; only about 5% of the community have degrees in comparison to 20-30% of the other groups, etc.). But this argument I feel can be attacked as being paternalistic. That one shouldn’t promote a dominant culture because the poor minority groups may get hurt even more.
I think Ed you also have another answer that you bring up occasionally. One of perspectival sterility (don’t quite remember the exact phrase you used). That in promoting any one dominant culture, that domimant culture itself is deprived of any creative inputs it may get from other groups. I find this argument very potent, but I am not sure if it applies convincingly to Singapore where LKY has crafted all-encompassing “Asian (Chinese) values” that has everything good, nothing bad. In short, there’s nothing else that LKY and even the majority Singaporeans feel other groups can teach the dominant group. Even if false, it is fiction that has become non-fiction.
Another answer is to simply do away with the idea of a “culture” or a “community” and rephrase it at the level of individuals. The question posed then becomes whether an individual should be subject to the state promoting the dominant ideas/beliefs of other individuals. This question has of course been brought up in many contexts.
I have not formed a convincing personal answer, but I always grapple with the issue. I suspect most Singaporeans don’t see an issue with it either because despite evidence, they don’t think Singapore is going to be a Chinese country or that there’s nothing wrong with it (already) becoming one.
PS: The use of “Malays”, “Chinese”, “communities” in no way subscribes to the PAP’s paternalistic, top-down, hereditarian conception of races in their “CMIO” framework. My use of such terms is much broader, and invokes the dynamism and porousness of such communities in historical and even modern times. It is a bottom-up concept of people coming together to self-affiliate. My own personal experience bears testimony: while officially an “I” on my IC, I did not grow up as an “I”, was taught the “M” way and identify myself as such. Such dynamism in self- and group-identities and community formation are of course not allowed in the PAP’s rigid scheme of things. In short, what is “Indian”, “Malay”, “Chinese” to the PAP is not necessarily what is “Indian” “Malay”, “Chinese” or “Malay” to the people who really live it then and now.
Thank you for considering the contained views. This article is one of the final in the series.
I titled it with '50 years of PAP' not so much as to 'blame' them for anything, but rather to speak about what we now experience 50 years after.
I conduct a similar inquiry into myself on a yearly basis where i consider losses and gains and the interactions between both to produce 'x' results. I consider the starting point more than 2 decades ago, along with a my last self-evaluation, and again look at losses and gains, and reevaluate strategies of self-development for the following year. I simply applied that stance in this 50th year of PAP.
After 50 years, this country deserves nothing less. The changes have been nothing short of remarkable in varying arenas - as you have astutely noted in the first paragraph - and i hence feel compelled to study the losses and gains in various arenas, how these were delivered, at what price, and with what result. That, I'm sure, would be most helpful in enriching my perspectival arsenal as what this country has achieved has frequently been, and is still, undermined by the general populace in western countries. To know the variables that go into an achievement enables us to replicate it, prevent it, and predict it. In this, Singapore presents formulas that can be used to even discern the application of this formula in other countries in seemingly different and generally undetectable ways.
With regards to your question in the second paragraph, i believe i have quite adequately answered it in some essays in the '50 Years of PAP' series along with articles written much earlier where i discussed the elements that go into the production of intellectual vibrancy. The best example i can cite in s.e.Asia is India which is a product of constant cultural flux as opposed to monoculturalism. Their intellectual produce cannot be disputed with, but which inevitably renders them quite the 'untouchable' in states that abide by a top-down monocultural route which, as a corollary, frowns on popular intellectual individualism.
When you look at global history, the predominance of intellectual individualism in the populace correlates quite well with what i term 'cultural instability' and 'cultural miscegenation' whilst in intercourse with developed civilisations.
Your friends are definitely wrong in equating 'history' with 'nostalgia'. Just because the course of western-led history brings to the fore particular aspects of history, that does not render its other aspects socio-politically irrelevant. Also, the practice of particular perspectives in the present is most definitely a relic of history as well except that the belief that we have arrived at the promised land of 'modernity' detracts the masses from appreciating that certain aspects of history is being replicated in the present at the expense of others. The false idea of modernity leads many to believe we have 'moved on' as opposed to 'building upon' particular aspects of 'history'. The idea of the 'asian democracy' is itself a renaissance of China's authoritarianism shorn of western conceptions of humanity and human identity. Your middle class friends are living, breathing and cogitating through its paradigms despite their not being aware of it.
In fact, the environmental movement is itself a renaissance of the perspectives of some ancient cultures such as that of India, the natives of America, the aboriginals of Australasia, amongst others, that was formerly thought to be 'nostalgia' and hence irrelevant.
I am with you on the view that a people cannot claim preeminence because they are the original inhabitants of the land. And just as i am against preeminence due to 'originality', i am against preeminence due racial numerousness. My article on '50 Years of PAP : why the Chinese aren't the majority in Singapore' expounds on this. And, by the way, unless it can be proven that the Orang Asli did not interact genetically ;) with the Malays of today, we cannot say that the Malays arent' the original inhabitants. And we must also keep in mind that the subdivision of the Orang Asli renders one part 'proto-malay'. Culturally speaking, the Malays are a product of their own indigenous cultures as well as Indian (ref. 'Indianisation of s.e.Asia') and Arabic cultures. Amusingly, the discriminatory 'bumiputra' policy in Malaysia is a word of Indian origins.
“Citizenship” seems to be a farce in Singapore, so too must any discourse that depends on it."
I have to agree. People generally tend to play the role of superstructural tweakers as opposed to foundational philosophers. They don't question the foundations, and generally attempt to renovate that which are accustomed to. That is the fundamental problem i have with the so-called 'opposition' here. They are in significant ways a part of the problem themselves but their desire for instant gratification detracts them from complementing their approach with a much needed critical introspection. As i've said for a while, they're obviously being led by the wrong people.
"But this argument I feel can be attacked as being paternalistic. That one shouldn’t promote a dominant culture because the poor minority groups may get hurt even more."
It's alright if one was to promote a general culture so long as this culture does not lead to a compromise of the self-efficacy of any group. In this, racialised cultures can be a problem. This calls for an overarching general culture of inclusiveness and the promotion of the perspective that the many can gain much from the culture of one. That is what i termed, CQ, or 'cultural quotient' that is more significant that (R)'NQ', or (Racial) Numerical Quotient. Given that the Malays are quite disadvantaged, if i was to put in place a SAP school system, i would do it for the Malays as opposed to the Indians or Chinese. Not doing so, or doing otherwise can simply reinforce the status quo - which is the case at present. Malays, like Indians, need role models of stature in the media. But as it has been the case for a while, the more conservative Chinese were afforded more role models than others - whilst this declined from the 80s onwards for 'others'.
Given that the Malays performed far better in the entertainment field compared to the Indians or Chinese locally in the 70s, one cannot be blamed for wondering why they are not predominant in this field. And given that the Indians were far more adept at critique in the 70s and 80s, one wonders why local televised debating teams rarely include them. It seems that everyone has learnt to take their rightful and less visible place after close to 3 decades. And given that both the Malays and Indians are more overtly passionately impromptu, one cannot but wonder why they don't comprise most of the actors in english dramas. They already could do much in the past, but had less publicised role models. This leads to much underdevelopment, not only of them, but of all who could have learnt from them. In this, the 'majority' lose much. But as the standards via which loss and gain is constructed by what a people are taught to value, they will not be able appreciate such loss. In this, we can only utilise the examples of other countries that have practiced relatively greater degrees of cultural miscegenation.
"Another answer is to simply do away with the idea of a “culture” or a “community” and rephrase it at the level of individuals."
Unfortunately, to do away with 'culture' is to only render one susceptible to none other than the culture of the economic system of the day. Given that the culture of capitalism reinforces in highly innovative way the malaise of self-absorption, the only check on it are some of the cultures of the past, be it Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, Christianity, Indian/Malay/some western/African/etc cultures. Individualist culture, within a profit-motivated system basically turns juvenile and self-absorbed proclivities into a 'culture'. And that is one of the reasons why the scientific revolution did not progress to a point that individuals can think scientifically or access information that would enable them to. Hence, today, we are living in a climate that is not unlike that illustrated in 'Lord of the Flies'.
"I suspect most Singaporeans don’t see an issue with it either because despite evidence, they don’t think Singapore is going to be a Chinese country or that there’s nothing wrong with it (already) becoming one."
Oh yes. It most certainly is already one. In that sense, my series of articles is a 'meta-analysis' of what has already occurred. There are very few Indians of today whom are as critique-able as those i knew in the 70s or 80s. I use India as a standard and the divergence between the Indians of India and those 'Indians' here is significant enough for me to say that most are only 'Indian' in sight and sound but not sense. Going with the flow, not questioning, not rocking the boat, and being subservient, are some of the features of chinese civilisation that has enabled their power structure and perspectives to remain intact since 221 b.c. That leads to the depoliticisation of the citizenry, if not in law, certainly in perspective. That is the diametrical opposite in India. And it is on this basis that one can look 'Indian' and not 'be Indian'. It takes more than a penchant for curry to make one an Indian.
As for the Malays, to a significant degree, they have maintained their cultural vibrancy as their previous communalistic base enables them rely on each other for social support. This is not the case for the intellectual individualists that are 'Indians' and which compromises their communality. In that, i have always felt that Indian and Malay cultures combined might take the best of both worlds and help in creating a better world for all. The 'CQ' of the Malays when it comes to communality is higher than the Indians and Chinese, just as the 'CQ' of the Indians in critique is higher than either given their culturally unstable and popularly autonomous history.
Like yourself, I too am an 'I' in my IC. But at the age of 18, I told my parents that i was no more an 'I' as i wanted to personalise my culture with the best elements of all cultures. This was facilitated by my parents who never imposed self-diminishing 'cultural pride' in myself, and which i'm thankful for to this day. Hence, today, i can say that i'm part African, Aboriginal, Malay, British, amongst others. And it was only after 2 decades that i realised that such a venture was actually quintessentially Indian which embraces flux and constant self-destruction and recreation. In that, i realised that 'to be Indian is to not be Indian'. So, essentially, i have had 'Indian' thrust upon me the moment I vowed not to be one.
So I gather you are Indian-Muslim in public perception but Malay-indian in self-perception. Interesting. You are right. The idea of 'Malay', 'Indian' amongst others, is not as it might be if either are not developed within a scheme of things where one is made to feel apart whilst being a part. However, in the case of China, it has always been maintained, top-down, in a uniform and conformist way. Hence, to discount difference is one of its psychologically verifiable by-products - as it would be if a child was to be reared within similar conditions in a single family.
In that sense, logically, when a 'chinese' embraces difference, she immediately becomes, for instance, British or Indian. And, along these lines, when an Indian or Chinese embraces Islam, in perspective if not in religion, they immediately become universalists. As the value of difference has been kept very much alive in India for more than 2000 years despite the caste system, we can say that the British are becoming more Indian since colonial times.
Culture is a matter of one's choice of perspectives. Race, in this context, when the best of all cultures are appreciated as if it was one's own, leads to the formation of a singular race of sentience that includes both humans and animals. The current idea of 'race', given relatively isolated histories, are nothing more than adjectives denoting the perspectives borne of different histories.
Thank you very much for forcing me to give up an afternoon in front of the telly for thought FA :).
Ed, thanks for the response. And hope it was worth the missed telly (:
Yes, you have deconstructed and critically analyzed some of the narratives that I cited in response to my original question. I myself didn’t want to dwell too much on them because I didn’t think those answers were satisfactory in the first place.
I think you have brought up many good points, but I just thought I’d share my views in response to the following:
“Given that the Malays performed far better in the entertainment field compared to the Indians or Chinese locally in the 70s, one cannot be blamed for wondering why they are not predominant in this field.”
This is something that has been pointed out in the community before. I myself feel that Malays have been unable to adjust to the modern superstructure that is associated with entertainment and/or the arts such as the commercialization, marketing, funding, etc. aspects of it. I see a lot of vibrancy in youth cultural groups, dance groups, theatre groups, musical groups, calligraphy groups, etc. of my young Malay peers. They are many of these in the community. When I grew up, it was almost expected that one involves oneself in the cultural, performance, and artistic aspect of the Malay culture. Though I am sure my young “modern” Chinese peers do have their own versions of it, my observation is that they are less mainstream (during my JC days, some of my Chinese friends laugh when they see Chinese dance groups on stage). Sadly, beyond these little groups, not many in the Malay community get to the national stage either because of how they fail to master the other “hard” aspects of the arts and/or entertainment or refuse to play along and want to remain small. E.g., it will only be this year that the first Singapore Malay film will be produced after the heyday of the Malay film industry in the 1950s (even then, the industry was mainly funded outside of the community).
“In that, i realised that 'to be Indian is to not be Indian'.”
I find this interesting and true to some extent. There is a big part of me that I think is still Indian, e.g., in my intellectual restlessness, the desire to question even if for questions’ sake, (Amartya Sen’s ‘The Argumentative Indian’ comes to mind), even to the point of questioning myself and my own identity.
These are my preliminary written comments for now, but the thoughts never end (:
Yes, it was certainly worth the 'missed telly', thought that does not really matter as I was referring to my recordings of some sci-fi shows;)
There are quite a few reasons for this, but one of the reasons is that given their preexisting communality, prior norms of perception can be reinforced by the social support garnered from the said communality. Compare this, for instance, to the Indians whom are relatively quite fragmented. Hence, in the face of change, Indians would be able to adapt quite well - with India being the prime example in s.e. Asia next to Japan (but different reasons apply in the case of Japan). But given the lack of role models for the young by way of gross media under-representation or misrepresentation, amongst others, and the pervasive perception that this or that industry is a 'chinese thing', they moved on to whatever was thus deemed available.
Here are some 'case studies'
For instance, I knew a couple of Indians whom are in their mid 40s whom were pioneers in the audio-visual industry in the 80s and had quite high-profile experience - which I've seen for myself. But they could not get a job in the industry after their company, which was started by an Indian, wound down after some years, despite their having experience with productions in Japan, Malaysia, for the Sabah tourism board, etc, etc.
They approached quite a few new Chinese companies that were starting up after theirs wound down but were rejected.
One of them recounted an experience thereafter where he was employed to do magazine layouts. At the same time he applied for a higher position in another company. He was accepted by the British guy who was one of the partners and who was surprised that he could do in a day that which is peers in the UK took a few day. However, he was rejected by his Chinese partner. Then i asked him if he had ever been employed by a Chinese. After a moment's thought, he was quite surprised to say, 'you know, come to think of it, all my job opportunities came from the non-Chinese.' I then asked him what the proportion was between his job applications with chinese and non-chinese companies, and he said that he had applied with more of the former than the latter.
He recounted another experience when he answered an ad for a particular post, and upon entering the firm, he and his Sikh friend were basically 'shooed' away with a, 'vacancy already fill, no job, no job.' Incensed at this rudeness, he went to a public phone, called them and asked them if there was a vacancy for the job. They said they did.
One of them has since moved on to making ends meet with odd jobs, whilst the other, after taking an English-teaching course, tries to get teaching stints as and when. They were obviously very talented given their resumes and what i myself saw. They were quick-witted, very quick in producing ideas, versatile, very well spoken, could speak intelligently on any topic, extremely observant of detail, and adept at using computers - macs - before most of us knew what one was. Over the years, i began to get a nagging feeling that the more qualified one was, the lesser the opportunities.
I myself tried to get into the media industry at one time, but the moment I was introduced to the person running the company at an informal gathering, and who had already been informed earlier of my intentions and had agreed to speak with me, he gave me a look of disdain and turned away. And that was it.
I got my job in the Yellow Pages about 15 years ago because the job agency girl, who was Indian, lied about my race to the company. When i entered the office on my first day, I got a look of disdain from my boss who was curt towards me. Later, due to my ability to speak Mandarin, and being good at my job as 'legal assistant' he got quite friendly with me. Then i asked him why he looked surprised on my first day. His response was, 'I wasn't expecting a guy, and i wasn't expecting an Indian.'
Whilst I was working there, another staff was required as i was the only doing everything. An Indian woman walked in wearing a 'punjabi suit'. She spoke to him in very good English and told him of her 10 year experience in a legal firm. He rudely told her to go to the reception and apply for the post. After she had left, he turned to a colleague nearby and said, in these exact words, 'look at her. She should just go be a reception girl. Why she come here for.' The next day when i came in, i saw that a chinese girl had been employed. She was very nice and we got along very well. Then i asked her what she was doing previously, and she said that she was printing books in a printing firm for the past few years. That was my first experience with racism and i never thought that it existed in the working arena previously. I discounted it as a one-off, but over the years, and after relevant education and experience in the art of social observation, i cannot but conclude that it is pervasive and illustrated in different forms that has extremely untoward consequences at a subconscious level that can lead to the problems that it takes for all 'races' to blame the victim.
There are many more examples i can recount but as the purpose of the above is to put the following in context, I'll stop there.
The point here is that quite a few through such experiences, having heard of it, seeing mainly one 'race' being promoted as versatile in the media, etc, etc, etc, will tend to just make do with what is, or is thus perceived, to be 'left over'. For instance, all the Indian professional photographers that i met in photolabs are in their 40s, and when i go out to do shoots, i have never ever seen an Indian photographer - though i have quite a few times seen Malay photographers.
I told my Chinese acquaintance, whom i trained in photography and perspective, that the reason for us mainly encountering Indian photographers in the 40s and not younger ones of equal stature - though you get Chinese photographers of all ages - is because these guys are relics of a period when race didn't matter - just as I most certainly am.
At such a time, everyone thought they could do anything, and did just that. Amongst the English-speaking community, of which i was a part, we were valued in terms of what we could do, our wit, intelligence, creativity, etc, and nothing besides. Thus, i grew up without a conception of race and allowed my unfettered curiosity to determine what was was available as opposed to determining what was available from a racialised depreciation of reality.
However, as i stated, the reason why we still see quite a lot of Malay photographers, cyclists, amongst others, and not Indians, as it was in the 70s and 80s, is due to the potency of the Malay community and communality as a social support mechanism. The upside of it is that they will still keep up with quite a few trends that are community relevant.
But the downside of it is that given the under-representation or misrepresentation of non-chinese or the 'darker' variety of Singaporeans in the media; the increasing notion that 'this is a chinese country'; the decrease in exposure to others within the community who don't have a racialised perception of reality; the exposure to failure-due-to-race stories; knowing that 'mandarin speakers' are 'preferred', which is a synonym for 'chinese'; given the knowledge that the chinese are quite averse to difference given the monocultural tone of the Singaporean experience; having one culture as opposed to others with greater pomp,etc; and all of which the chinese do not have to contend with, it is to be expected that, as you stated, they 'are unable to adjust to the modern superstructure' per se, and specifically, with regards to the media industry.
All these factors go into affecting the sense of self-efficacy of the younger generation as adequately studied and illustrated through cross-cultural sociological and psychological findings.
Whilst the 'Indians' of today that i've encountered on the net and in the social sphere are doing, thinking and saying far less than the Indians of the 70s and 80s that I encountered, the Malays tend to stick to what is relevant to their community and not as much when it comes to what is relevant to an economy that is largely perceived as being 'a chinese thing'. Hence, for instance, photography, cycling, amongst others, is quite pervasive amongst the Malays as it is indeed community relevant - along with Malay gangs like the 'Omega' gang.
Of course, many 'Indians' and 'Malays' whom have 'made it' might say, 'hey, apa lu cakap? (what you talking about?...i think;) ) We worked hard, if you or others never make it, it is because it is your own fault.' I suppose that line works wonders for maintaining one's self-esteem as one is able to attribute one's 'success' to one's own efforts. But what i would say to this is, 'can you prove to me that you might not have done more, or better, if you were brought up to think your skills and personality is all that matter?' The chinese can say that, but can the Malays and Indians?
At the end of the day, 'being all that you can be is, in part, a function of perceiving yourself and having yourself perceived as no different from the 'all' as opposed to a 'minority' living within such conditions as discussed above. The latter logically undoes the former.
I would like to know why you would think that they were unsatisfactory....when you have the time that is.
Yes. That is indeed another case in point.
As both Malays and Indians come from an impromptu-vibrancy inducing culture, they would logically be more adept in those arenas where passion and vibrancy is a boon, i.e. dancing, acting. Besides south Indian films, i find such vibrancy in Malay films of the 60s and 50s. By the way, did you know that P. Ramlee (a really 'stylo mylo' in my books) was discovered by an Indian director?
Anyway, i loved the Malay films of the 50-60s for its vibrancy, wit, and storylines. I think the Chinese and English film industry here would have progressed to a far greater extent in terms of acting skills, plots, depth of dialogue, etc, if there was much input from the Malay and Indian community.
And in that, the Malays themselves would have developed further and incorporated other cultural perspectives in their productions as well.
Haha. As i was saying to my chinese acquaintance who read your comment yesterday, 'FA perceives her/imself to be a Malay, but s/he 'complains' like an Indian' - which you very aptly termed, 'intellectual restlessness'.
And in guessing whether you are a girl or guy, i said to sim that since you are introspective, empathetic, pay attention to detail, don't exhibit much of a masculine aggressive streak in your tone and language, you are probably, 1) a female, 2) a male who would score high in feminine traits in a psychology test (like myself), or 3) a 'gay'. Just kidding around.
Well, i certainly look forward to having 'teh' with you when you return if you'd still like to. :)
Nice chatting with you FA.
Interesting personal experience indeed, Ed. Thanks for sharing. While I don’t claim to have such direct personal encounters, in my everyday experiences interacting with my peers, the effects of racism can be quite debilitating. It’s not just that one job, that one position that is denied that can piss members of minorities off. It’s denying them the realization of what is possible. In psychological terms, it is group learned helplessness that I am really worried about. And if Singaporeans in general have suffered from this malaise to such a great extent, what more minority Malays who are politically, socio-economically, educationally underachieving.
“I would like to know why you would think that they were unsatisfactory…”
Unsatisfactory, not necessarily because I think the answers were not rational and thoughtful enough, but “unsatisfactory” because it’s not going to fly with the majority, to put it colloquially. So, that is why I made it clear in my question to search for not just a rational justification but also a convincing one that I can bring to my fellow Singaporeans. Your series of arguments on how one group can suffer from the lack of inputs from other cultures is like I said insightful enough, but it is may not be convincing enough because the dominant thinking is that there is not much the Chinese can learn from the other groups save perhaps idea of “relax one corner” from Malays (amusing and debilitating at the same time).
And regarding your trying to deconstruct my identity, I find it interesting. Let’s just say when in Rome, I do as the Romans do. So, you seem to be someone genuinely interested in truth rather than aggressive name-calling (I’ve done my fair share of that in other blogs), so I thought I should similarly give myself some respect and engage in a more moderate tone as well. Having said that, although some of my Indian friends accuse me of not knowing my tosai from my prata (that’s not true), but I’m very sure of my sex! A guy who is marrying a girl (yeah!) who is half-Indian and twice as loquacious!
Yea, let’s have teh when I drop by Singapore! Will message you in vox.
Yes indeed FA. There was one experiment done many years ago with dogs. These dogs were placed in an enclosed environment and periodically electrocuted through the matting on the floor. Whilst they would jump whenever were 'made part of the circuit', after a while, they just stopped jumping altogether even when the electricity was turned on. I think it is from this, amongst others experiments and research that 'learned helplessness' took its term.
What I'm additionally concerned about is not just 'learned helplessness', but the compensatory and recuperative means via which learned helplessness' will be countered thereafter - the formation of a 'coping culture' that will see the cessation of conflict within oneself and lead to personality modification.
Once that takes place, people would have lost much of the identity that it takes to make them 'jump' and they would see nothing amiss. Most difficult to wean people off this thereafter. Besides, this, the production of a 'middle class' comprising people of that group will also maintain their suppression by way of blaming them for not 'making it' as they did. These two are some of the most important factors that go into the perpetuation of a status quo in almost any context.
The underdevelopment of one group can, in later years, serve as the reason why 'others' have nothing to impart. Marginalisation > Underdevelopment > Actualisation > Production of a Rational basis for the continuation of the Marginalising tendency. That's, basically, the process. That is why, when i asked a Chinese acquaintance, who has tertiary education and had a 'respectable' career and position, why he thought there were hardly and Indians in English dramas, his response was, 'because they can't act'.
The Malays thought me, through example, and as opposed to the other cultural groups, the value of 'communality', and not just the 'relac one corner' bit.
I don't blame your aggressive 'name-calling' too much as it can be quite the 'vent' for the marginalised. But that simply reinforces the overarching status quo. I have never managed to really think up derogatory names for 'other' 'races'. The Indian gangsters and 'educated' ones i associated with in my younger years only critiqued on the basis of traits and not name-calling. In later years, I learnt, through psychology, that more mature minds tended to process information on the basis of traits, details, etc, as opposed to superficial qualities.
You're lucky to have found a girl who is twice as 'loquacious'. I have never met anyone who is a quarter of my persona and perspective.
Yup, look forward to you message FA.