Singapore Watch

In US, Singapore students, unlike others, have no issues, make no stand, live silently on the fringes of American consciousness. E Leung, Sintercom.
Jun 11, 2005

Whenever I ask my American friends what they know about Singapore, I draw mostly blank stares.

Here in the United States where I’ve lived for over two decades, most are terribly uninformed about The Lion City.

They may remember an American boy caned a while back or cite its ban on chewing gum or praise their experiences with Singapore Airlines.

But almost nobody is aware of Singapore’s role as America’s ninth largest trading partner, or that the two countries conduct joint military exercises or that President Bush lavished praise on Singapore for being a staunch ally on the war against terrorism.

I’d be surprised if half can even find Singapore on a map. The few Americans who volunteer additional impressions of Singapore usually express one of two extreme positions.

Some say Singapore is a medieval dictatorship where an evil sultan enforces his will with chains and torture chambers.

Others, particularly those who have visited, claim Singapore is an idyllic bastion of democracy, freedom and rule of law. “Disneyland with the death penalty”, a Los Angeles Times writer once put it.

The truth, of course, lies somewhere in between.

Singapore is undoubtedly governed by a one-party dictatorship led by the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP).

But unlike authoritarian regimes elsewhere, there are no surly government thugs kidnapping dissidents in the dead of night breaking bones and extracting confessions.

In the Lion City, Americans would find a more sophisticated form of dictatorship, a sort of dictatorship with a double latte. Dissent is crushed not with violence on the streets but with verdicts in the courtroom.

Opposition candidates rarely garner enough votes because Singaporean law, written by PAP legislators, renders it easy for government officers to sue their own citizens for slander - a concept laughable in genuine democracies.

Understandably, most Singaporeans prefer to remain silent (or at least temper their criticisms) than risk having their lives ruined by PAP-initiated lawsuits adjudicated by PAP-appointed judges.

But intolerance for dissent silences more than just the lions in Singapore. It also renders Singaporeans invisible abroad.

Singaporeans I’ve met here in Los Angeles are mostly good-natured people, speaking unaccented English and enjoying successful lives.

But while exemplifying the American dream, they’re also a people who seem painfully ordinary and unwanting of attention - like those desperately trying to avoid eye contact.

I remember my walks to class as a university student at UCLA a few years ago and passing recruiting booths for various student associations.

Almost every nationality had some sort of organisation: Hong Kong Student Union, Korean Student Association, Filipino Union, etc. That is, every nationality except Singapore, despite the several hundred Singaporeans enrolled there.

There was even one for Macau, a country with barely one-eighth of Singapore’s population.

Elsewhere in American society, Singaporeans seem equally invisible.

In the legendary Asian communities of Los Angeles, many Asians flaunt their ethnicity and wave their homeland flags with pride.

Most adopt a hyphenated label (”Taiwanese-Americans”, for example) to stress one’s heritage along side their American identity.

They may march against injustice inflicted on their people in street demonstrations.

Some even run for political office, touting their nationality and immigrant status as an asset. Asian-American pride can be boisterous, omnipresent and even controversial.

But not from Singaporeans. In the United States, they remain silent, going about their business on the fringes of American consciousness.

In all my time in America, I cannot remember ever seeing a Singaporean flag or political activity involving Singaporean issues. No wonder Americans don’t know anything about Singapore.

Perhaps Singaporeans appear absent because there are fewer of them in America than, say, immigrants from Hong Kong.

But it isn’t just a matter of less Singaporean pride in America. It’s a matter of NO Singaporean pride.

But this is hardly surprising. Most in Singapore also seem to choose apolitical and unnoticed lives.

This tendency remains a legacy of Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s dictatorial Founding Father who engineered a nation of people domesticated through intimidation and force.

“If you don’t fear me, then I’m meaningless”, he once boasted (let’s see an American president try to get away with saying that).

Even today, Singaporean sheepishness remains so stubbornly in place, the government must coax citizens into activism, like the Youth Consultation Exercise earlier this week.

Granted, it’s arguable Singapore’s apolitical nature contributed to the volcanic rise of Singapore’s economy.

But that was a different era, before the advent of globalized economies and when communism and despotism infested half the planet.

Today, almost all nations agree that true democracy, freedom and capitalism form the tripod for a happy, prosperous and enduring society. It’s an agreement that seems to fall upon deaf ears amongst PAP elites.

So while Lee succeeded in erecting a first-class city, he also succeeded in engineering a submissive population afraid to assert individuality, whether at home or abroad. And that’s unfortunate.

Their culture has much to offer here in the United States, with its exotic blend of East and West with a pinch of Islam.

A Singaporean stitch would be a treasured addition to the American cultural fabric - if only Singaporeans would cease hiding behind it.

(This will be my only essay for Sintercom. My blog is located at www.xanga.com/nathanroad)

(via LittleSpeck)

I spoke with a fellow Singaporean out here a few hours ago, and was exposed to how much pent up feelings she had, a result of being a quirk in the rigid system established by our Goverment, which left her feeling constrained. Once again, it made me wonder why I so desperately wanted to go back home. True enough, I have given some reasons before, but it runs deeper than that.

I know problems exist, but I’ve yet to give up all hope for change. I’m not coming back because I think prospects are a lot rosier in Singapore. Nothing could be further from the truth. Censorship and a limited market alone are reasons enough to keep any filmmaker from coming back. The real reason I want to be back is because I know that my country is ripe for change, and I want to see change happen. I really want this to work. Let’s make this work.

All I can think of, is this song to reflect what I’m feeling.

Some may see us as foolish dreamers, but somehow deep down, I still envision a better future, truly a Singaporean Singapore.

‘All our dreams can come true, if we have the courage to pursue them.’
- Walt Disney

It always starts … with a dream.

‘The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams.‘
- Eleanor Roosevelt

I guess that’s why I’m in the movie industry. Kids need the inspiration to be something greater than what they are.

If We Hold On Together

Don’t lose your way
With each passing day
You’ve come so far
Don’t throw it away
Live believing
Dreams are for weaving
Wonders are waiting to start
Live your story
Faith, hope & glory
Hold to the truth in your heart

If we hold on together
I know our dreams will never die
Dreams see us through to forever
As high as souls can fly
The clouds roll by
For you and I

Was walking back to my car last night, when I saw this sign on a trailer bed parked on the street. I couldn’t resist taking a picture.

I watched Singapore Rebel today. For those who are unfamilar with this film, here’s a short description from the Guardian Newspaper:

“Martyn See’s short film focuses on Chee Soon Juan, a frequent government critic who was ordered to pay S$500,000 (£160,875) to Singapore’s first prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew, and former leader Goh Chok Tong for defamation during the 2001 elections.”

I’m not here to comment about the contents of the film, though I have to say that I had a mild headache after watching it, due to the super shaky camera movements.

Why it was banned

“Party political films are disallowed because they are an undesirable medium for political debate in Singapore,” the Ministry of Information’s communications director K. Bhavani said in an open letter published in the local Straits Times newspaper Saturday.

“They can present political issues in a sensational manner, evoking emotional rather than rational reactions,” Bhavani said. “There remains ample opportunity for political parties and their supporters to express their opinions. (Ed: What ample opportunities are they referring to?)“

When I first read this, I thought to myself. Hmm. Kinda makes sense. Then I took a step back, and realized that ‘no it doesn’t really make any sense’.

Politic films in the US

I’m sure everyone has heard of Michael Moore and his controversial documentaries. Does it ‘present political issues in a sensational manner‘? Definitely. Does it reach the extend of ‘evoking emotional rather than rationanal reactions‘?

Farenheit 9/11

There are definitely some who will take it at face value, succumbing to their emotions rather than logical thought. The majority however, will take it to the next level - a public debate. When Michael Moore released his documentary Farenheit 9/11, the chatter was all around town, all over the internet, and everyone was talking about it. Was what he said on it really true?

First off, I have to admit that I haven’t watched Farenheit 9/11. I’m not a fan of Michael Moore, cause having seen his previous two documentaries ‘Roger and Me‘ and ‘Bowling for Columbine‘, I don’t quite agree with his manipulation of information under the guise of presenting pure facts. But I do know that that apparently brought to light issues that americans were not aware of.

Transparency in any government is very important. If Michael Moore was making wrongful statements, the government has every right to publicly refute them. The victor will destroy the slanderer’s credibility. They call it ‘ethos’ in greek. It’s like the boy who cried wolf. If someone cries wolf once too many times, he is going to lose the trust of his audience, regardless of what he tries to do.

The important thing really is, that he is heard, and that we are allowed to make our own judgements base on that.

Immature Singapore?

For Singapore to ban ‘political films’, does it imply then that Singaporeans take everything at face value, and do not know how to tell right from wrong?

If this law, calling for the ban of political films, was presented 35 years ago, when perhaps Singaporeans were still not all educated, and where information was not so freely available like it is today, with the media, the internet and all that, I would say ‘good law’! Laws are meant to protect the people, and if people cannot make an informed judgement, perhaps its better that they aren’t exposed to something which might seemed one-sided.

But this is 2005. Information is so readily available today, that sometimes it’s a problem of having too much info, and not the lack of it. The nation’s educational level has risen tremendously, since the birth of this nation, and students are taught to argue logically in school. Or has the government failed to implement proper systems that would ensure the ability of it’s citizens to make informed decisions on their own?

With this law still present, it warrants a single question:

Has the government’s efforts to create a more matured society failed, that such laws are stilll needed to protect it’s people?

Final words

After watching ‘Singapore Rebel’, I went online to search for chatter about the film. There I learnt about possible inaccuracies, due to the different interpretations of certain individuals.

After the ‘Jamie Han’ incident, I too went online to search for chatter. I had my own set of thoughts after reading the transcript. Somehow, I managed to obtain the actual video footage and I got to see the events unfold before my own eyes, and my judgement of things shifted.

You learn lessons when you do things like that. You learn that you can’t take everything at face value, and you learn of ways to fine-tune your decision making about situations.

The banning of any film kinda bugs me. I feel very strongly against censorship, because it’s stepping over the boundaries of the responsibilities of the government. It doesn’t help that it is my industry where these bans are being implemented.

I personally feel that the government should start trusting it’s citizens to think for themselves, instead of trying to shield them from everything they consider a ‘possible danger’. I don’t think its healthy to keep shielding it’s citizens, because today’s youths are tomorrow’s leaders. If we as youths cannot excercise our rationalities, when the time comes, we’ll end up allowing our emotions to take over, no fault to ours.

As they say with the ‘Speak Mandarin’ campaign: “Use it, or lose it.”

Let us think for ourselves, or let us not think at all.

Oh and guess what? ‘Singapore Rebel‘ got shown in festivals globally. It’s being advertised as ‘The film the Singapore censorship board don’t want the people to see.‘ I swear if someone comes up to me, finds out I’m Singaporean and starts asking me ‘isn’t that the country where they banned Singapore Rebel, no freedom of speech eh?‘ I’ll …. I’ll … I’ll probably punch the person due to the lack of rational thought.

Related Chatter:
- Singapore Rebel
- Rebel & Heroism (A Review of Singapore Rebel) (May 10, 2005)
- Rebel with a Cost (May 22, 2005)
- Party Political Films - Leong Ching Just Doesn’t Get It by Mr Wang at Commentary Singapore (May 25, 2005)
- Singabloodypore articles on Singapore Rebel
- Asia Cases 2005
- Singapore says politically motivated movies undesirable
- Singapore Rebel (World Premiere) screens at the West Hollywood, Film Festival
(Ed: It actually screened in the Director’s Guild of America itself! That is one of their screening locations.)
- A peek at unravished Singapore (Taiwan)
- Singapore Rebel at the Human Rights Film Festival (New Zealand)

* I do not endorse nor bear any responsibility for any of the linked site listed above. Put on your thinking cap instead of leaving your brain by the door.

Animation:

“The west is looking at Singapore, cause they think we might contribute an asian style and feel to animation. Most Singapore Animators, however, prefer to imitate the western style.”

“Japanese anime is unique, and yet it still appeals to the US Market. They have the advantage of a unique culture and language. Subtitling Japanese is totally okay, though the average American still prefer dubs.”

“It seems that Singlish has it’s disadvantages, as being predominantly English, it’ll be rather odd to subtitle a Singlish animation.”

Cultural Development:

“Cultural development has always taken a back seat to technology and financial developments, and now that we’re advanced technologically, we start to realize the existence of that emptiness in culture.

Other countries have had hundreds, if not thousands of years to develop their own sense of identity, while developing gradually with their technology. Singapore had 30 years to accomplish all that, and we failed miserably.


esplanade by joto25

The government tries to fill that void now, by trying to promote interest in arts, by pumping money into cultural centers like the famous durian Esplanade. They try to force feed culture to students, with the promise of points giving them advantages in school placements. Defeats the whole purpose.”

Unique Culture/Voice:

“Singlish is a very unique language, because it reflects the diversity of its people. I bet the West would love to do a detailed study on this language.

It’s a pity that Singaporeans have trouble switching between proper english and singlish though. How can you have troubles switching from a root and a dialect? It’s like confusing Mandarin and Hokkien or Cantonese. It’s unfortunate that the Goverment feels that quashing Singlish is the only way to get students to start learning proper English.”

Do we complain we aren’t unique?

Kiasu-ism. Another unique characteristic of a Singaporean. In the environment of competition, can prove to be a very useful quality.

I remember on my last trip to SF, on our trip to Cupertino, Apple’s HQ, everyone was lining outside the Apple store, waiting to get in. My fellow travelmates decided that to make it more efficient, they would go grab food while I waited in line.

They returned with enough food to feed all of us to the max, due to some miscommunication as to who was to get what. Before we got into the store, we had already finished our dinner.

Thank God for kiasu-ism! When we got out of the store, there wasn’t anymore food left at the party! If not for their efficiency, we would have all gone hungry. See in some ways, it is a good characteristic.

Singapore is unique. We just have to stop looking around us in search of an identity and start looking within us instead.

The true lessons not taught in school:

1) It’s all about connections. Even to the closest level, people are more willing to do things base on friendship then on authority. I’ve had friends who sacrificed their time to help my organization do something when they could have easily said ‘i’m sorry we can’t help you with such short notice.’

2) Social skills are more important then good grades. In other words, being street smart gets you further than being book smart. Or having a high EQ is better than having high IQ.

3) The purpose of education is to show you that the acquisition of knowledge is a life-long process. The motion of going through school is suppose to equip you with the skills of acquiring knowledge throughout your life, and not to make temporary encylopedias out of you.

Universities:

Earlier this year, Goh Wen Zhong, a 2nd year law student at LSE suggested there be some kind of career guidances for students before they enter into tertiary education. That is a good suggestion as most students end up spending 3-4 years in school barely scrapping through, and not getting the most out of their education. After they graduate, they go into a sector completely irrelevant to their major.

It would be helpful if Universities in Singapore were more flexible too, like those in the US. It’s not uncommon to see undergrads in the US switch majors 5-6 times throughout the course of their stay in college. It encourages exploration and a wider spread of knowledge, and an atmosphere of learning. You’re never too old to go back to school here, and most students don’t go to college because they have to, but because they want to.


my campus, the university of oklahoma

It’s about the pursuit of knowledge, not the collection of papers.

Kids:

If given the choice, most parents might not want to bring their kids up in Singapore. For one, it isn’t cheap, and kids don’t exactly have happy and enjoyable childhoods these days. It’s enrichment after enrichment, tuition after tuition. We place so much emphasis on books, we churn out stereotypes.

Kids should at least have the chance to be happy-go-lucky when they are young.


i’ve no idea who this kid is, but she sure looks happy.

Some parents send their children overseas, hoping it would enrich them. Some students spend all their time overseas, mugging in their room, losing out on the very enrichment their parents hoped they would be exposed to.

Kids need to be brought up respecting others. We hear reports of maid abuse all the time, and I’ve seen kids treating their maids as if they were third class citizens. It’s not totally their fault, because their parents act the same way towards maids. It seems like we have legalized slavery by just adding pay to it.

Censorship and Impossible Laws:

Seriously, censorship has to go. There are limitations to censorship, and these limitations should be kept to public TV and Radio. Cable, DVDs, they should be subjected to censorship. I mean come on, we paid for it! We know what we’re getting ourselves into.

I’m not suggesting we start allowing porn on cable. I’m just suggesting that the censorship board stop exagerating the need for scenes to be cut due to ‘censorship’ because it really disrupt the viewing experience, and destroy’s any artistic whatever present.

And you wonder why people get pirated uncensored dvds from across the border.

The government also has to start lightening up. They have to start letting it’s citizens express themselves freely. Singapore belongs to the people, not the government. It should stop acting like an overbearing parent.

Also, I’m sick meeting people who actually know where Singapore is, only to tell me that ‘it’s the country that bans chewing gum and is really strict‘, the draconian society. Surely we can protray a better image than that! As much as I love Singapore, it’s really very paiseh to be identified as one, in situations like that. Give me opportunities to be proud to declare myself a Singaporean while abroad leh.

This entry is brought to you by the letters H E L P.