#growingupsingaporean | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

thelocalrebel · 6 years

Text

If you’ve been living under a rock, you may not be aware of Marvel’s ‘Black Panther’ which was recently released this year and scoring many box office milestones including topping $1.28 billion worldwide. Black Panther, directed by Ryan Coogler with an (almost) all-black cast garnered lots of love and support worldwide. I, myself, have caught the movie four times and in all those four times, I enjoyed myself. From the visuals, to the soundtracks, and the plot - it was holistically a movie that was long overdue in terms of representation.

This article won’t review Marvel’s Black Panther. Instead, I’ll talk about the representation of black people in the movie. In this context, representation means the portrayal of Black Culture in the movie - which is quite rare in whitewashed Hollywood. Black Panther depicts various African culture through Wakanda, a fictional country located in East Africa. Despite Black Panther’s success, we have to keep in mind that this does not put an end to racism.

China-Africa Relations

Take for example, China’s moviegoers reviewing Black Panther. Though most of them might be trolling, they’re still racist - the same way people are lying about Black Panther fans attacking white people. Plus, that trolling takes a racist slant reflects the social structures that enable and normalise such behaviour. Their online reviews were mainly negative, expressing their strong dislike towards how the cast members were mainly black. They even accused Marvel of trying too hard to be “politically correct” with the Black Panther cast.

Surprisingly, people in China know about American racial dynamics enough to criticise political correctness the same way racists in America do! To groups that won’t benefit from PC-ness (usually white people or the dominant majority), their definition of political correctness is so that “people won’t get offended”. In proper terms, being PC simply means to be more wary of how things are presented to not further marginalise people disadvantaged in society based on their race, sexual orientation, gender, or disability (etc). Below are some of the negative comments from the site - originally in Chinese and translated into English.

Fig. 1: A moviegoer expressing their colourist view of the dark-skinned actors in Black Panther (src)

Fig. 2: A moviegoer attempting to justify their racism towards black people by claiming that the movie was trying to be politically correct (src)

Fig. 3: A misogynistic and racist moviegoer (src)

Other negative comments by moviegoers as reported in Quartz Media include, “I’ve never been in a theater so dark that I couldn’t find my seat”, as well as, “The film is filled with black actors and actresses. Also, because the film’s colors are a bit dark, it’s nearly a torture for the eyes to watch the film’s 3D version in the theater.”

It’s no surprise that the people of China have such narrow-minded views towards Black Panther. With Han Chinese comprising 91.59% of the population, their perception of race and nationality is limited. White people have no trouble in claiming their nationality when in China. However, for Black People, they are always assumed to be from Africa. People in China have negative views towards black people; seeing them as a “parasitic” race. China’s understanding of Africa is also backwards, whereby they think that the continent is poorer than China and is constantly receiving aid from China’s government. This leads to them thinking that they are more superior than Black peoples, aside from feeling resentment because their government is not doing enough for their people. Instead, they use national resources to aid Africa.

Their standard of beauty is also Sinocentric. A common Chinese saying goes, “A girl can be ugly, as long as she has white skin”. To them, whiteness represents purity. In February this year, a Chinese woman on China’s Spring Festival gala donned blackface to portray a black person. Instead of acknowledging that what they did was offensive, a dean from a local university defended that they had to don blackface as they needed someone to represent an African person. Ironically, there were other black people in the skit except that they were playing the character of a monkey.

Turning Homeward

In Singapore, anti-blackness is not as prominent in China. However, it’s sad to say that it still exists. A twitter user (due to their privacy settings, we can’t screenshot their tweet) posted a screenshot of a local with tasteless humour with regards to Black Panther. The screenshot below is of him calling an Indian person running and referring the man as a “Black Pant-er”. Locally, many Indians are referred to as “Blacks” solely due to their dark skin. This itself is a colourist comment and is usually meant to discriminate against people with darker skin as if there’s anything wrong with it. That’s beside how Black people and Indians are vastly incomparable - due to differing histories, cultures, nationalities and social situations.

Fig 4: Instagram user @cockanadan calling an Indian guy “black”

Most locals, upon watching Black Panther, think it’s hilarious to mock African accents. This is the same for many who have watched either Get Out (2017) or Moonlight (2016). Just because the movies are diverse and revolve around race will not bring an end to bigotry. This is a small (yet crucial) progression that offers people an opportunity to unlearn problematic ways of perceiving and shaping the world. Hopefully, being exposed to more diverse films over time will normalise diversity and eradicate prejudice, especially since prejudice arises due to insular thinking - where people often get to know and see others via stereotypes first before the person.

With help of thinkpieces for movies such as Get Out and Moonlight, the audience can reflect on the movie and further understand the message that was intended for them to take away. For those who get represented in the mentioned films (e.g. black youths), they get to realise that not everything in the world surrounds white people. With Black Panther, little black kids have a black superhero to look up to. With Moonlight, queer black people get both their sexuality and race discussed the way it should - without censorship and with pride. We hope that in the future, there will be more movies that cast more POC, as well as provide representation for other marginalised groups - e.g. the MOGAI community and non-ablebodied people.

Representation is a small step in allowing people to realise that being white, cis, or able-bodied is not the default. Nor is representation merely about quantity of roles they fill - what narratives and characters do they play? Is it representation if their roles are still racist portrayals, or prop up a white person’s story? We also should remember that just because representation of minority groups in mass media exists, their struggles will not automatically disappear. Other social institutions influence and reinforce such prejudices - be it the state, schools, or the legal system. As mentioned above, even with representation in Black Panther, there are still people who still uphold their prejudiced mindset. If change could be solved from above, then why hasn’t it happened?

Thus, change starts with us.

#film #media #representation #racism #growingupasian #growingupsingaporean #articles

3 notes · View notes

thelocalrebel · 6 years

Text

To mark the publishing of our second zine (order it here), we’ll be releasing our previous zine in full over the next few months, such that if you didn’t manage to get a copy, you can still read our stuff and hopefully, enjoy.

Fifth up: on (nonexistent) sex education in Singapore

#zine 1 #growingupsingaporean #sex education #sexuality #relationships #gender #sex negativity

2 notes · View notes

thelocalrebel · 7 years

Photo

Sneak peeks from zine #2! Preorder your copy at our store today 8 - )

The Local Rebel is an annual zine publication that aims to educate and empower our youth.

This second issue explores our Roots: the little nooks and crannies in the Singaporean narrative that aren’t always told. We want to tell stories about heritage, and culture, and how that ties into intersectional feminism. In this edition, we interrogate our colonial history, uncover the lives of migrant workers, chat with Theresa Goh about her activism, visit the drag scene, and so much more.

The Local Rebel team is dedicated into making this zine as accessible and as fun as possible an educational resource. Aside from longform pieces, we’ve also put in visual mixtapes that support local, photographs of your everyday Singaporean, food reviews, FAQs, and posters for you to put up on your wall!

#zine #intersectional feminism #growingupsingaporean #identity politics #drag

2 notes · View notes

thelocalrebel · 7 years

Text

a compilation of note-worthy ones, deconstructed!

With the amount of times you hear politicians say a certain phrase, you can be 100% sure that Singapore prides itself on being a 'First World Country', and for good reason. We can boast of our 'economic miracle', relative social harmony and political stability that isn't a staple of countries worldwide.

Yes, we have it better than other countries.

Unfortunately, peel away the illusion painted by a pseudo-democratic and capitalistic society prioritising growth above all else, and you see plenty of dirty laundry. And where else to hide them, if not in our set of laws, which are phrased in a confusing miscellany of legal jargon that blindsides even the best of us? (well, it's possible that it's phrased as such to make it inaccessible to the public, hence stopping us from examining it too closely...but we digress.)

So! Presenting to you a easy-to-read-and-refer list on various noteworthy laws and legal situations in Singapore. We hope this gives you something to think about, and perhaps even galvanise you into action - whatever that means.

(List will be continuously updated as and if we find anything noteworthy)

1) Criminalising Gay Sex - Section 377A

The classic example. Essentially, it criminalises "any act of gross indecency [a man commits] with another male person". That means anal penetration between two men, or gay sex in short. Because it explicitly refers to the act, the government argues that no, they're not discriminating against gays. In 2015, PM Lee went on to say that gays are allowed to live their lives in Singapore, where the state does not harrass nor discriminate against them.

Obviously, the rest of society didn't get the memo.

Whatever the government thinks, formal and institutional sanctions (like laws) set a precedent that society follows. That creates an enabling culture, because society perceives that precedent as condoning their prejudice and discrimination towards the queer community. If you don't think that's true, think back towards a certain Mr Lim who threatened to "open fire" on gays in Singapore.

However, the curious thing is this - while the act of gay sex and same-gender marriage is criminalised, being gay in itself isn’t illegal. So yes, they’re “allowed” to continue working and living as best as they can in a conservative society. Funny how this sounds like how the state still wants their labour without being willing to acknowledge their humanity. What does that sound like, indeed?

2) Sedition Act

Singapore and freedom of speech rarely get along with each other. Apparently, the need for stability - be it in the political, social or economical sense - trumped the need for the right to civil expression. But if you consider the purpose of SG's government (or even the sole reason behind SG's creation) is to generate economic growth, it's only natural that freedom of speech is deemed less important. Especially if it obstructs economic activities. That's why public demonstrations, let alone protests or strikes, are banned without a permit - incidents like that can inconvenience companies, and thus erode Singapore's attractiveness as a business hub. Just think back on how the state handled that instance of SMRT bus drivers protesting about their low pay by virtue of their status as migrant workers. This line of thinking echoes a Marxist perspective on deviance, where deviance is seen as activities obstructing the interests of a capitalist state or elite.

This Act is a form of double-bind, just like racial harmony. While it does prevent - or at least, prosecute - 'seditious', hateful speech, it also fosters a culture of fear. What constitutes 'seditious' isn't clearly defined in the Act - it's just anything that is deemed to have disrupted/threatened social stability in SG. And that means certain people can misuse the Act to prosecute certain people for personal reasons, like political opponents. (Incidentally, for a state priding itself for adherence to rule of law, such ambiguity of terms seem to suggest rule by law - where the state governs the law instead of vice-versa, raising questions of “rational”, “just” laws twisted to suit state interests). Plus, starting court cases aren't cheap; just think of the legal fees involved! (So in a sense, this is kinda classist).

While some ideas are indeed too heinous to be shared - like hate speech - the point here is the culture of fear that has habituated people into subservience. The Sedition Act is another aspect of modern-day panopticon or surveillance, where the fear of being watched - and possibly punished for any deviant behaviours - gets internalised by us, so much so that we watch ourselves and others eventually - even if no such state surveillance is happening.

3) Penal Code

Singapore still keeps plenty of 'archaic' punishments; and what we're frequently bashed for is how we still carry out capital punishment. Specifically, death by hanging. Alan's Shadrake's book, Once A Jolly Hangman, revolves around our death penalty and the person responsible for hanging death row inmates - but don't look for it in the library. It's banned in Singapore. (here's a review).

Here are some crimes punishable by death in Singapore:

Drug-related offenses

Treason

Carrying/Possessing firearms

Piracy that endangers life

Perjury that results in the execution of an innocent person

Abetting the suicide of a person under the age of 18 or an "insane" person

Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder

Robbery that results in the death of a person

(Fun fact: Rape used to be punishable by death, but not anymore)

The rationale for keeping the death penalty is because it serves an effective deterrent; mainly for drug-related crimes in Singapore. While it may have merits with regard to internal security, such as terrorism and the unlawful possession of weapons/munitions, it has mainly been used against drug traffickers.

But deterrence is only as effective as the certainty that all humans are rational beings. Meaning, the death penalty is effective only if it stops drug traffickers from bringing drugs into the country. Has it? No. The distinction to make here is that those sent to the gallows are drug mules - people who carry drugs, and not the ones masterminding things - and sometimes, these mules are coerced to do so. So, is the law effectively targeting those in power in the drug trade? Or is it disproportionately affecting those at the bottom of the food chain; those who - more likely than not - have been forced into the business for whatever reason. Plus, to associate involvement with drugs purely as a failure of character, is to ignore the systemic and institutional reasons that drive certain populations (read: minorities, marginalised populations) to such things in the first place.

That's even if you want to go there. Some people would stagger at the mere mention of taking away someone's life. Like, is it even our place to do that?

On a parting note, even academics are quoted to be saying that there is no “reliable data on the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent”.

4) Marital Rape - Section 375

Here's a good summary of its history in Singapore.

In short, it’s legal for a husband to coerce their lawfully wedded wives into sex, even if the wife doesn't consent to it. Also, men cannot be raped. That should be enough to show how harmful this law is - in promoting gender stereotypes, the legal support of rape culture/non-consent culture, and the cementing of the functions of marriage (i.e. to produce babies). Resistance to criminalising marital rape often include reasons of “protecting the family unit” and “difficulty in obtaining proof”; reasons that clearly value the needs of everyone but the woman in the marriage. However, the Government is reviewing said law, so progress? Progress.

On a related note, forced marriages are unlawful here, according to the Women's Charter, which is a legislative act designed to safeguard the rights of women and children in Singapore.

5) Internal Security Act

This Act guarantees the Ministry of Home Affairs extrajudicial powers to detain certain people without the need of a trial, suppress subversive activities against the state, and stop organised violence towards property or people in Singapore. Before the arrest can be made, the President has to agree to this detention order - and for that to happen, they must be satisfied by the reasons behind the certain people's arrest.

By 'certain people', we mean 'threats to national security'. That makes the ISA sound benign - which it can be. Especially if used properly, such as detaining would-be terrorists.

But the ISA has a checkered past. In the years after independence, it's been (mis)used to detain 'Communists' and trade union leaders. Words that will be forever associated with the ISA are Operation Spectrum and Operation Cold Store, because those are instances in which the ISA was exercised ... but on dubious grounds. Were the arrested indeed communists, or merely left-leaning political opponents or social workers; where religion offered them a medium to influence socio-political issues and thus undermine the authority of the state? Rajah states that the state polices religion to reinforce control over public discourses and not to uphold public order, because religion offers the public an avenue to influence politics. So, the question to ask here is: who gets to decide what constitutes “threats to national security”?

History has painted them as villains, but we need to remember how history is often a selective retelling of facts to tell a certain story. Ergo, history is subjective.

That’s not all. If you were to examine local laws pertaining to human rights, you tend to see this pattern of legally-protected freedoms...curtailed by another law. Singapore allows for public assembly and demonstrations ... but only with a police permit. Singapore allows for freedom of speech ... until it is prosecutable by the Sedition Act. Singapore ensures anti-discriminatory laws ... but only on the basis of your race, religion, and nationality.

Is this a case of restricting certain freedoms to protect other freedoms? We don’t want to be too hasty to conclude things, but it’s something to ponder.

6) Human Trafficking

We've covered this before in a Twitter thread on forest brothels, but the short of it is that Singapore doesn't have a law specific to this issue. As a result, recourse for victims of this crime is fragmented at best, and nonexistent at worst. According to the 2016 Trafficking In Persons (TIP) Report, Singapore is ranked Tier 2 - meaning, trafficking is a serious concern here, with the 2017 edition going on to say how we “fails [sic] to meet minimum standards in human trafficking”.

Who gets the brunt of this? Cis women. Most victims of human trafficking end up in the sex trade, but conflating sex trafficking with sex work in general only serves to undermine sex work as a profession. Plus, feminist discourse on sex work is still fragmented: divided between the three factions who see it as a moral failing/sin, structural oppression against (cis) women, or as a form of empowerment.

7) Migrant Rights

It’s curious to note how domestic helpers are not covered by the Employment Act because "it is not practical to regulate specific aspects of domestic work, such as hours of work and work on public holidays". Sure, it does make some sense, but on the other hand, you can see this as another instance of how women’s work is devalued, yet again. This is besides how domestic helpers are slapped certain constraints in their contracts that may seem...condescending. Take a look at page 46.

Then, there’s also migrant workers who work in the construction sector. And they aren’t any better off, too. The lack of a union or body to safeguard their rights (except NGOs), the stigma they face from Singaporeans, their financial and physical exploitation by their employers…in a way, you can consider migrant workers a form of modern slavery.

8) Criminalising Suicide - Section 309

Yes. It's criminal for people to attempt suicide. Yes, this rule is rarely enforced, and arguably serves as a deterrent against ending their life.

However, think of the symbolic effects. Can this reinforce the already pervasive stigma against the mentally ill in Singapore? A person, with mental illness and in need of help, is potentially branded as criminal because the law says so. Can this drive people away from seeking help? You should see the asks we get on our ask.fm handle. Do people considering suicide even think of getting arrested once they've decided to end things? (That's the reasoning given by a minister this author asked, once; where the threat of arrest will get people to think twice about their actions). But really?

More critically, why is the criminal justice system involved in a public health matter?

9) Abuse laws in Singapore

Currently, only married couples are afforded such protection. Unmarried ones? not really. So singles and live-in partners are excluded from such laws; and such laws manifest as the three exclusion orders one can slap on family members in instances of family violence. They are the Personal Protection Order (PPO), Expedited Order (EO), and Domestic Exclusion Order (DEO). AWARE explains these three orders quite succinctly.

Here's a paper PAVE wrote about this.

Why only married couples? That’s a good question. But consider this: Why not only married couples? Simple - marital violence doesn’t appear out of nowhere. Marital violence is often a continuation of, or begins from intimate partner violence...that happens before marriage.

The thing to note about most of the above laws is this: some of them are the by-effect of colonial legislation. Yup, you heard right - they're leftovers from British colonial control! So, not very "Asian Values" of us after all, isn't it?

Hopefully, this leaves you with something to think about.

A/N: Here's a link to Singapore's social policies as crafted by the Ministry for Social and Family Development. It's a huge infodump, but it's really useful and kinda is the authoritative source for this.

#articles #resources #growingupsingaporean #gender #sexuality #abuse #deviance #law #updated: 11/1/18

15 notes · View notes

thelocalrebel · 7 years

Text

on emotional neglect and mental health struggles; with a malay-muslim twist

They say life is a series of coping mechanisms, and waiting for just that one mechanism that will finally kill you.

Freaky, right? But as someone who’s managed to ‘keep it together’ despite their internal monologue of screaming (or absolutely nothing, on those numb days) this is how I’d describe my state of existence.

I don’t have a diagnosis. A lot stops me from getting one: firstly, a family and culture that deems mental illness as a lack of faith, or just “being weak”. Two, knowing that having one likely won’t solve the problem. Three - and the loudest no in my head - is the constant, chafing guilt that I’m not sick enough. That I don’t deserve to seek help because I get out of bed everyday, I get things done, and I have a huge smile on my face. In short, because I appear “normal” and “haven’t suffered enough”. Whatever that means.

Sure, I have days when the Feelings™ smack me with a hammer while yelling “Suffer Time!!”. Days where I forget to eat, where I just want to self-isolate and shut out the world with its never-ending expectations of me. Where it’s like I’m wading through a fog, all the while mindlessly doing things for the sake of doing it and to pass the time. Just to fill the void in my chest, and the incessant voice in my head that insists I’m a shitstain who deserves everything bad happening to me. What’s worse is I can’t pinpoint the trigger for this - it just is, and it’s everywhere. Like clingwrap, but somehow it’s around your throat and your face and someone’s pressing it down on you and you just. Can’t. Breathe. (If it’s bad enough, I shut down. I’ll be conscious, but I won’t be here).

So I bottle. I minimise my feelings and sublime all that toxic energy into other endeavours. Like getting high on sugar, caffeine, or anything that allows me to escape. If I’m lucky, I’ll feel numb again - which, ironically, maxes out the self-loathing. It hurts more as an asexual aromantic, because this just reinforces the stereotype of how I’m still broken for not having feelings. Which is why I prefer to constantly keep myself busy and get things done, because at least that shuts out my thoughts. Usually. And if nothing works, there’s always the perfect go-to fix: sleep.

It’s to sell the facade, see. Besides ensuring that I can still function, it’s to avoid the concerned questions because when it comes to Real Talk, I’ll probably start crying thanks to all repressed emotions all these years. That’s why humour - a mature defence mechanism, even - is an amazing cover. What’s the point of Suffering™ if you can’t laugh about it, right? (It’s to blunt the sense of hopelessness and powerlessness, actually). HAHA. People still get surprised when I tell them I have stage fright. They see the easy-going confidence and calmness - but not the tension in my muscles, my racing heartbeat, and the tunnel vision.

Yet, I still don’t think I deserve the “honour” of putting a name to my struggles, not when other people have it worse than me. That I’m just blowing things out of proportion again, that I’m being hyper-sensitive, that it’s just a phase, that I’m being irrational. But I cannot honestly remember a time when I wasn’t like this, and I don’t know if my inability to remember is because I’m repressing again or I genuinely don’t remember.

It doesn’t help to grow up in a family that - in typical Asian style - throws around you’re imagining things, I did [hurtful thing] because I love you like confetti when I tell them my feelings about their actions. Sure, they support my physical needs just fine, but on the flip side, rarely affirm whatever I do - and definitely voice out when I do fuck up. What’s the end message I got? That my feelings aren’t valid. That what I want or do isn’t worth it. Because if I don’t respond the way they want to, they’ll somehow redirect it to make it my fault. (This is emotional neglect and/or abuse, by the way).

For some reason, collectivism (i.e. “Asian-ness”) demands us to be emotionally unexpressive to not offend others or influence them with our emotions. Plus, in my experience, praise is frowned upon in Malay-Muslim culture in fears of inflating egos and cultivating self-pride because such behaviours are sinful. So what do we get? A community that frowns on affirmation. I don’t remember a time where I was ever praised by family. If I was, it usually was a backhanded compliment, making me wholly resistant to compliments I receive now because I just can’t accept it. I can’t believe that I’m what people describe me to be, because I grew up in an environment that always made me second-guess my worth and right to exist. Yes. What’s the thought that gets hammered in? I’m never enough.

I don’t even want to talk about how religion has influenced how my feelings are trivialised by well-meaning but ultimately harmful statements from family, where I eventually internalised such thoughts to self-minimise my own feelings. The concept of rezeki, or one’s fortune, makes them say things like at least he’s still providing for you when I point out his toxic behaviours towards us, and you should be thankful that you’re not like those people in [impoverished or disaster-stricken area] when I talk about how some aspect of modern life distresses me. “Contentment culture”, as I’d call it, doesn’t do shit for our mental health. Rather, it further reinforces how we don’t deserve to feel the way we do, because “we’re not suffering enough”. Yes, I don’t doubt how helps us stay aware of our blessings, but it shouldn’t be used like a bludgeon to shut down someone’s feelings. You know what’s missing here? Validating what we feel. (Surprise! It’s possible to do both!). It’s exhausting to constantly justify why I feel the way I do, and it’s no surprise when I stop bothering to share and because I came to believe that my suffering will never be bad enough because there’s always someone out there who deserves it more.

What’s the result? Someone who refuses to seek help because they’ve been socialised to be independent - no matter what. Someone who fears responsibility because the fear of fouling up expectations stops them from the start. Someone who has trouble regulating their emotions because they’ve been told and learnt that emotions are Not Welcome. Because to have needs, to “take up space”, is to be a burden. So when emotions do flare up...the bottle breaks.

Like how a friend put succinctly, it’s tiring. It’s so tiring. It’s exhausting to get up and go about doing the 10001 responsibilities and performances to quell the feelings of self-loathing and self-blame once I don’t meet the unrealistically high standards I’ve imposed on myself - which, at the same time, I don’t hold others to. Because I don’t want to burden them. And of course, the resultant snowballing of consequences and the stress that arises from having to manage them.

But I keep it together. That’s what I do; what I need to be. (I’ve long lost the ability to discern whether this is another expectation hardcoded into my brain, or something I genuinely want). Along the way, when the going gets tough, I have my coping mechanisms - anything remotely mood-altering or escapist...but halal - to force myself into a better state of mind (it works, kinda) while conveniently shutting off my emotional self because it’s too much for me to handle without exploding.

And I sincerely hope that I’ll never find one that’ll kill me.

A/N: I don’t know why I’m writing this. Maybe it’s for catharsis, maybe it’s the hope that you’ll find comfort in relating to this - because you’re neither broken, nor alone for feeling this way. But I guess I mainly wanted to say: your feelings are valid. If it hurts you, it hurts you. And that should be enough a reason to seek help - professional or otherwise - like I did. Notice how the notion of “deserving help” isn’t in the picture, because that’s a judgement and not a feeling.

It’s not easy learning to love yourself again, but finding unconditional positive support and validation from adult figures or friends helps. So does learning to listen to yourself again, instead of shutting out the most basic part of yourself - your emotions. Most of all, allow yourself the time and space to stumble along the way.

As an important person in my life told me:

don’t be too hard on yourself when you think of “your issues”...the last I checked, broken crayons still colour beautifully.

I know it seems impossible, but one day, we will find the peace that we crave.

#mental health #growingupsingaporean #articles #tw: abuse #neglect #gaslighting

1 note · View note

thelocalrebel · 7 years

Link

Sharing this article because it’s from a perspective not usually heard - namely, a Singaporean Eurasian - and because it links to another article written by the same author with more links to articles worth pondering about. If you had to share a few articles to convince someone about Chinese privilege, we’d recommend this.

Once again, when it comes to racial privilege, it’s not about blaming the majority. Rather, it’s about wanting the majority to recognise that they do have privilege, and using said privilege to kick-start discussions about racial inequality so that we can achieve that post-racial and equal society our founders envisioned. We’ve come so far, but it seems like we’re throwing that away.

#growingupsingaporean #chinese privilege

5 notes · View notes

thelocalrebel · 7 years

Text

The Child We’ve Been Hiding In Our Basement

Trigger warnings: mentions of suicide and self harm (mostly mentioned as facts, but includes some anecdotes)

Sometime in January, I chanced upon a Straits Times article titled “What dark secret is in the Singapore basement?”. It refers to the novel The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas by Ursula Le Guin.

In the city of Omelas, life is essentially utopia. Everyone is happy and there are no conflicts. However, other than their shared happiness, everyone has another thing in common - the knowledge that there is a child who is locked in a basement, who is tortured and deprived and denied. The novel neglects to explain why the child is in the basement. On the other hand, it is an unspoken fact that in order to maintain the city’s happiness, the child has to be kept under the basement. Letting the child out of the basement would bring about chaos and ruin the image of a happy utopia that everyone else maintained so dearly.

Those who cannot bear the moral burden of torturing a child in their basement leave the city, but the novel only states that these people go towards a place “even less imaginable to most of us than the city of happiness. I cannot describe it at all. It is possible that it does not exist.” Notably, the novel adds a powerful afterthought - “But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.”

The article then brings up various interpretations of the story, with one being the exploitation of cheap labour. It is easy to see how this novel is an allegory and is full of parallels and symbols of everyday life in today’s capitalist and ‘secular’ society.

Towards the end, the writer poses a question - What child is in the Singapore basement?

Mr Han, the writer of this thought-provoking article, then characterises the child as “something we are not proud to be associated with, but which exists nonetheless and can be rationalised in any number of ways, always for the greater public good”. He later classifies the child as, potentially, low-wage workers left behind in the economic race that has brought Singapore to where she is today. He also points out that much is done in effort to help the child in our basement. In total, he brings up three examples of what could be the child in our basement, and points out how more is being done to help the - child? Children? - in our basement. He concludes the article on a relatively positive note, stating that an increasing number of Singaporeans are walking away from their Omelas, and this in turn changes the city.

The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas strongly reminds me of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. In the cave, there are people chained and facing the wall. Their entire knowledge only consists of what they see on the wall, which are the shadows cast by the puppeteers moving freely behind them. The people chained to the wall only know that the shadows exist, while the puppeteers behind them are free to move around and manipulate the truth and knowledge that the chained people know of. However, all it takes is for one of the chained prisoners to start questioning who cast the shadows on the wall in the first place for them to question the “reality” that they have known, and for them to turn around to realise that there is a whole other world that existed beyond their shadows on the wall. Similarly, the citizens of Omelas are the prisoners chained to the wall - their whole life, they have only experienced great happiness, and know nothing beyond protecting their own interests by ignoring the child in the basement. However, those who begin to question the fairness and morality of their treatment of the child are the ones who start questioning the source of the shadows cast on the cave walls. Those who cannot bear this immoral treatment end up leaving the cave, and in that sense, become the puppeteers, not in their ability to manipulate what others think they know, but they are now able to freely walk in and out of the cave due to their decision to choose the unknown. The puppeteers in the cave, in a similar tangent, are exploring the unknown, seeing how they have chosen to break free from the “truth” they once knew - the shadows on the walls.

To me, both The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas and it’s link to Plato’s Cave represent the issue of mental health in Singapore.

In a local context, the issue of mental health is not talked about and is constantly swept under the rug. Similar to how the people of Omelas bear the burden of the secret of the tortured child in their basement to maintain their superficially happy lives, Singaporeans hide the issue of mental health in their basement and pretend that the issue does not exist on the surface. We keep our child locked up in our basement to keep the shiny, perfect image of a caring society living perfect lives.

E/N: Continued in Zine #2.

#reviews #mental health #growingupsingaporean #articles

1 note · View note