TR EMERITUS

I have to say upfront that I am invested in this, having been on the receiving end of smear campaigns constructed out of selective quotations. In a statement released by the People's Association yesterday, it was alleged that Ms Sarah Bagharib had accused them of being "racist" for putting up that infamous Hari Raya decoration. Predictably, online debate is now raging over whether or not it was "racist" or *merely* "culturally insensitive" (spare us the semantic hair-splitting, this reminds me of assertions that someone is not a "racist" but only a "race realist"). Point number 3 of that statement says: "However, Ms Sarah has shared claims that this incident “perpetuate the racist culture”. She characterised this incident as “racist”. In her interview with Walid J. Abdullah, she also insinuated that our staff and volunteers did not find anything wrong with the standee as they might be “blind to racism”. One of the things that aroused my suspicion was how short the quotes were. I think if you wish to build a case against someone it is always important to be able to reproduce what they said in full. 1) Scanning through PA's statement, one would be forgiven if one thought that Ms Sarah was the one who made the claim that what PA did "perpetuate[d] [a] racist culture". But she was actually sharing something someone else had written, a female Chinese clinical psychologist who wrote: "This whole thread is written with much labour, can we Chinese Singaporeans please appreciate the labour and educate ourselves on our conditioned racism? It's long overdue towards our friends in minority communities who have to put up with our ignorance--which continues to perpetuate the racist culture that hurts them." Crucially, it does not say that putting up the decorations "perpetuate[d] racist culture". It says that it is *ignorance* that does this. 2) On that point that she had characterised the incident as "racist", this was what she said: "allyship plays a big part in promoting true racial harmony--one that goes beyond "racial tolerance". i am so, so grateful to allies who have used their voices to stand in solidarity with razif and i, and ethnic minority communities, in the aftermath of this incident (and other racist attacks and incidents that have been filmed)." She did not directly say "this racist incident", and neither did she say "and other similar racist incidents". Talk about missing the point. I think Ms Sarah has been at pains to assert that all Singaporeans, and not just minorities, are stakeholders in the issue. Hers isn't some kind of minority grievance whose aim is to indict an entire majority community. Of course the people at PA would want to distance themselves from "obvious" racists like Beow Tan, Tan Boon Lee and the gong lady. Because the model of "racial harmony" that they've been operating on would not recognise that something is racist unless it "disrupts" harmony--which is to say if someone or something is being a public nuisance. And thus pleading "cultural insensitivity"--otherwise known as "racism that is not tantamount to public nuisance". 3) That last bit about about "staff and volunteers" being "blind to racism". I listened through Ms Sarah's whole interview with Dr Walid Jumblatt Abdullah and couldn't find it. What I found instead was this, 9 minutes from the end. Walid jokes with her about whether she'd have a teh tarik with Melvin Yong (the MP on the banner) and she replies: "There was a light-up event, at Tiong Bahru arcade, where the standee was as well, and I wonder if he saw it? There was a light up Hari Raya event, at that very stage. With his face, and the kampung thing, coconut tree and all of it. So I wondered if he saw the standee, what he thought about it. If he did, and he didn’t say anything, or think twice, to think that something was wrong about it. If I had teh tarik with him then I’d like to know if he did see that. And if he did, and he didn’t say anything about it, then something is definitely wrong, right? And I think there was a comment there (on Instagram live) as well about internalised racism which…"it is what it is"…we’ve been so conditioned to think in a certain way…that there’s nothing wrong with this because people are colour blind, or blind to racism at play. Or there’s nothing wrong because it doesn’t impact them." There was no mention of PA staff or volunteers. It's a stretch, but maybe she was questioning whether the MP had noticed that something was wrong--and it's important to underline that these are questions, not accusations. I'd recommend that everyone listen to the interview on Instagram at @walidj.abdullah. If you don't have IG you can watch it here. What struck me was how articulate and composed she was throughout, sometimes with a twinkle in her eye, often a determined set in her jaw--and my guess is this was why PA chickened out. There's often talk about how "racial harmony" is supposed to be a work in progress, but I often wonder whether the emphasis is on the "in progress" part than the actual work. Because for me, one of the most important work is dialogue--real dialogue with those on the other side of the aisle, not stage-managed ones of vetted questions and screened guest lists. I dream of the day when PA can have a dialogue with Ms Sarah, or when Zaobao editors can have one with the scholars who wrote in to them on their coverage of racial issues. It's a dream that's entirely within reach.   Alfian Sa'at   * Article first apperared on the writer's Facebook page.      Read More →

OUR "WHOLE-OF-GOVERNMENT" NEEDS TO PROTECT OUR VULNERABLE & ELDERLY SINGAPOREANS FROM BEING EXPLOITED BLATANTLY BY UNSCRUPULOUS EMPLOYERS: When l last wrote about the hardships faced by our Singaporean workforce, a few friends and former colleagues wanted to know how widespread the issue really is. After taking a walk in Chinatown, everyone of them literally gave me a look of disbelief that the hardships and sufferings are so widespread. I am encouraged that they ended up discreetly giving those affected some monies, buy foods for them and some even suggested that a ground-up help be created to help affected Singaporeans. Yes, a couple of thousands are ready being pledged and some have since roped in other friends to help develop a more meaningful community based programme that is less onerous and to be delivered without hurting the pride and dignity of those in need since many of their situations are beyond their reasonable controls. In the video below, l am sharing the plights of an elderly worker, Mr Kho Chuan Aik. At 60 years of age, he works as a daily rated dish-washer at the hawker centre in People's Park Complex but was told to go on leavez without pay, until the Heightened Alert is lifted. His company did not even have the decency to help him appeal for the $500 or $700 Temporary Relief Grant given the fact that most of these elderly workers are not tech-savvy or may find making an appeal a daunting task. This is not an isolated case as workers in other hawker centres, coffeeshops and F&B outlets are equally affected too. Isn't this a clear case of business owners conveniently using the Heightened Alert to exploit these vulnerable workers out of their "bare-bones" livelihoods? Given how widespread this is, MOM ought to know about such exploits but why are they so silent and not taking any action against the exploiters? To see that this is also taking place right in hawker centres managed by NEA, NTUC and other " supposedly" social enterprises, shouldn't MOM be hauling up these entities to court for exploiting our elderly and vulnerable workforce? Living on US$20 A Day In Singapore: Assuming that these workers were successful in appealing for the relief grant of $500 or $700, this means that they have only US$20 to eat and feed their families in one of the world's most expensive city. How about those who do not know how to appeal? Why isn't the relief grants make more accessible and less onerous for affected Singaporeans, so as not to add to their burdens? Surprised that the new Finance Minister, Lawrence Wong, thinks that this is fair and tenable, and see no need to draw on our reserve for more supports to help affected Singaporeans. To make matter worse, the relief grants are being used as "backdoor" excuses by these business owners to defend themselves while they blatantly exploit these workers. What kind of example is Lawrence, who happened to be the former Education Minister, imparting to our youngs? This is morally wrong of the Finance Minister and is setting up very dangerous precedents that will surely turn our country into a soul-less nation in no time. I hope MOH will release data of suicides in Singapore in a more timely manner so that we can see the impact of our current economic and social hardships on Singaporeans and find ways to reduce those factors that are driving fellow Singaporeans to take their lives needlessly. Foreign Workers vs Singaporeans Workers: Given the international highlight on foreign workers, it is sad to state that foreign workers are having a much better quality of life than affected Singaporeans these days. This is thanks to the collective efforts of more boisterous NGOs in highlighting their plights and abuses, and who are also more nimble and agile in getting these issues addressed. But when it comes to our own Singaporeans, where and who can they go for help? If the helps and supports are indeed in place, why was this latest exploitation of our vulnerable and elderly workers possible in the first place? Can any Singaporean accept the reality that foreign workers are treated better than Singaporean workers right here in Singapore? Hope the new Labour Minister will act firmly with these errant business owners, including NEA, NTUC and those alleged social enterprises, so that such exploits will never be allowed to be repeated. Both NEA and NTUC need to rethink about their primary purpose of existence and make a conscientious effort to play their critical socio-economic roles. Like the prodigal son in the Bible, they have obviously gone astray but at the expense of great hardships upon the shoulders of affected Singaporeans. So let us ask ourselves a very hard question - who and how are we going to help our fellow Singaporeans who are in needs, abused or exploited? It is sad but true that Singaporeans clearly deserve better...   Joseph Nathan      Read More →

Ion Orchard will be closed for four days for cleaning and disinfecting works. A few workers were found to be infected. [LINK] I do not agree with this measure. It is an over reaction. The workers can be isolated. The spread of the virus should be small. The infection is also likely to be mild. We have to consider the impact on the business in the mall. Many small businesses will be badly affected. They will suffer more losses. Already, these businesses are struggling. This additional restriction will cause them further losses, and could be fatal. Will the infection spread, if the mall is not closed? It may, but the impact is likely to be small. Why cause so much economic damage, just to be extremely safe? We need to weigh the risk and benefits. We should not take restriction measures just to be "super safe" when they do not really help much to deal with the spread of the virus.   Tan Kin Lian      Read More →