Rilek1Corner

Tag: Alfian Saat

  • Alfian Sa’at: “If There Is A Committee To Certify The ‘Chineseness’ Of Candidates, What Kinds Of Criteria Should We Expect?”

    Alfian Sa’at: “If There Is A Committee To Certify The ‘Chineseness’ Of Candidates, What Kinds Of Criteria Should We Expect?”

    I have so many questions.
    Is a biologically Chinese person adopted into an Indian family still Chinese?
    But what do we mean by ‘biologically’?
    You can adopt a child of a different race in Singapore.
    But can the child ‘adopt’ whatever race it wants to?
    Are Chindians considered Chinese?
    Is a Chindian with a Chinese father considered more Chinese than one with a Chinese mother?
    Because patrilineal descent?
    If a Chindian is raised only by an Indian mother in the absence of a father can this person remove ‘Chinese’ from the IC and replace it with ‘Indian’?
    If a Chindian is raised by a Filipino domestic worker in the absence of both parents who are working overseas, what is this person’s race?

    If there is a committee to certify the ‘Chineseness’ of candidates, what kinds of criteria should we expect?
    Should this person be able to speak Mandarin?
    Should ‘bananas’ be disqualified?
    Is ‘banana’ a slur?
    How about OCBC–‘Orang Cina Bukan Cina’?
    Can something be a slur when used against an Anglophone elite who wield immense political and economic power in Singapore?
    How about Peranakans?
    Which makes them more Chinese: if they introduce themselves as ‘Peranakan Chinese’ or as ‘Chinese Peranakans’?

    And what if the candidate is a Chinese Muslim?
    Who was featured as one of the top Malay PSLE students in Berita Harian, because of a ‘Muslim-sounding’ name.
    And received a MENDAKI scholarship.
    But then attended a SAP school.
    And decided to change his name by deed poll to something more ‘Chinese-sounding’.
    And was then featured in Lianhe Zaobao as one of the top Chinese ‘O’ Level students.
    But still made CPF contributions to the Mosque Building and Mendaki Fund.
    Then married a Chinese Christian woman under civil marriage.
    And then had kids, one of whom wanted to be Muslim, another Christian, and another a Jedi warrior.
    If this person presents himself in front of an esteemed panel of people who are to certify his Chineseness, what will happen?
    I hope at the very least their heads explode.

    I think some of the questions above are ridiculous.
    I think ultimately there is something absurd about the idea of race–or specifically the idea of racial categorisation.
    And honestly I’m quite tired of all the ink spilled on trying to define Mdm Halimah’s race.
    Because the slipperiness and porosity and contradictions of ‘race’ are not specific to Malays or Indians.
    To be exempt from having your racial identity undergo such obsessive vivisection under the public glare is surely one of the manifestations of majority privilege.
    And to be honest the feeling is horrible, as if there is an ‘authentic performance’ of one’s race, or even worse, that one can be viewed as an exemplary or illustrative specimen of one’s racial species.

     

    Source: Alfian Sa’at

  • Alfian Sa’at: Why I Don’t Attend Pink Dot

    Alfian Sa’at: Why I Don’t Attend Pink Dot

    Growing older, I find that my introverted nature is becoming more pronounced. One of the reasons why I decided not to go for Pink Dot this year is because I’m beginning to get more terrified of crowds. There’s always a moment when I’m surrounded by too many people when I start feeling dizzy and nauseous.

    And then there’s the issue of my nervousness around dogs. I know Pink Dot is an opportunity for some people to bring their pets along, pets which are as dear to them as family. But dogs–when there’s more than one, or two–have always put me on edge. This is not a problem of the dog-owners roaming the park but my problem alone. (And this is the learned mantra of any minority.)

    This isn’t supposed to be an indictment of Pink Dot’s agenda of inclusivity. I think every year the organisers attempt to provide an atmosphere as hospitable to as many as possible–sign language interpretation, differently-abled access, seating for seniors. But any embrace will come up short at some point because an arm span is finite.

    The space at Pink Dot is also inhospitable for others–those who fear crowds, or fear dogs, those without a pink or blue IC. It makes me think about the limits of inclusivity, the dangers of fantasising about utopian spaces, or spaces that aspire to speak for the entire community.

    In that anxiety to pack in bodies at the event, so as to create an optics of the local-indigenous, is bodily participation privileged over other forms of support? Be there or be square, be there or betray?

    While I support what Pink Dot stands for (and many of its organisers and ambassadors and volunteers are wonderful, tireless people whose activist work extends beyond Pink Dot), I can’t stand to form that dot. Neither can I stand any kind of guilt tripping over one’s absence there, as if fidelity to the cause must translate into piety towards Pink Dot.

    Ultimately I think of Pink Dot, no matter its organisational capacity, as part of something larger–and not as some large reservoir where other tributaries (no matter how many booths, how many representatives) are supposed to converge.

     

    Source: Alfian Sa’at

  • Alfian Sa’at: Singaporeans Shouldn’t Be Ashamed Of Public Lee Family Spat

    Alfian Sa’at: Singaporeans Shouldn’t Be Ashamed Of Public Lee Family Spat

    Those who say to Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Wei Ling: “Please don’t make your spat public, the world is laughing at us, I feel embarrassed when I have to explain to my overseas friends what is going on”, are you for realz?

    I think you’re either being disingenuous or hypocritical if the Oxley saga makes you feel embarrassed and awkward, but not these other questions, which I regularly get from my foreign friends:

    – How come your prime minister is the son of a former prime minister?
    – Meritocracy, really?
    – How come your prime minister’s wife is the director of the national wealth fund?
    – Meritocracy?
    – What does meritocracy mean in your country?
    – Why do you ban chewing gum?
    – Why do you cane people who spray graffiti?
    – How come you’re supposed to be a ‘developed country’ but your press freedom ranking is so low?
    – Why do you hang people people who sell drugs but not people who take them?
    – How come your country isn’t ready for a non-Chinese Prime Minister?
    – Why do you criminalise what consensual adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms?
    – Why are there so many incidents of domestic worker abuse and suicides from your country?
    – Why do people from your country visit ours and do things they wouldn’t do in yours, like littering, speeding, and shouting ‘so cheap!’ at everything?

    Really, what is this selective shame? I can tell you that I don’t feel embarrassed at all explaining what’s happening with 38 Oxley Road. So here are a few things you can tell your foreign inquisitors: It’s a dispute over a will. There are serious questions to be asked about whether there has been an abuse of power. Like every other political system all over the world that emphasises checks and balances, we need to enforce safeguards that ensure our politicians do not act with impunity, and do not use state organs to further their personal interests.

    You know how Trump is being investigated for potential obstruction of justice, or all those conflict of interest lawsuits regarding his business holdings and the emoluments clause, not to mention the ostensibly nepotistic practice of putting Ivanka and Jared in politically influential positions? Same thing in our country: if there’s any wrongdoing, the media has an obligation to expose it, and the law must take its course.

    And lastly, I don’t feel embarrassed because I have never thought that our Prime Minister, or the PAP for that matter, ever represented the best of what my country has produced. (Can I interest you, instead, in some of our brilliant sportspeople, our filmmakers, our artists, our tenacious and courageous activists?) There are many other Singaporean things I am fiercely and passionately proud of and well…Lee Hsien Loong and his party are not on that list.

     

    Source: Alfian Sa’at

  • Alfian Sa’at: Time For Singapore To Stop Relying On Racial Stereotyping For Amusement

    Alfian Sa’at: Time For Singapore To Stop Relying On Racial Stereotyping For Amusement

    I keep hearing stories of minority actors being told that they are not acting ‘Malay’ enough or ‘Indian’ enough, and what it often means is that they are supposed to play terrible racial caricatures. It means a Malay character who is ‘relak aaaaah’ and speaks slowly and an Indian character whose thick accent and head-shaking are supposed to be a source of amusement.

    Often these actors describe their deep discomfort at accepting roles where they become complicit in perpetuating stereotypes. It’s a very difficult situation because ethnically-specific roles for minority actors are so scarce to begin with. And as actors they need any work they can get and they shouldn’t be put in this position where their own principles have to conflict with their livelihood–just on account of their race and terribly ignorant or misinformed writers and directors.

    I’m highlighting this not because I want to ‘bash’ majority privilege or even to call out Jack Neo. I really feel that we can do so much better than to rely on racist stereotypes for amusement. (RIP ‘Mind Your Language’ 1977-1986). I hope that if any of you are anyone involved in the production of ‘Ah Boys to Men 4’, you can pass this on to the screenwriters or director so that we can nip something like this in the bud before it lands up on the big screen.

     

    Source: Alfian Sa’at

  • Alfian Sa’at: SOTA Students Must Not Treat Arts As After-Hours Hobby

    Alfian Sa’at: SOTA Students Must Not Treat Arts As After-Hours Hobby

    “I know I’m coming across as harsh,” said poet and playwright, Alfian Sa’at. “But I have to register my disappointment at the responses coming from SOTA students regarding why an overwhelming majority of them, despite having an arts-based education, would ultimately choose non-arts careers.”

    Mr Sa’at was referring to recent news that 83 per cent of students from the School of the Arts (SOTA) in 2015 went on to non-arts related degrees in university. This is a jump from 60 per cent in 2012.

    In her speech at the school’s Arts Awards Day on 15 May, the Minister of Culture, Community and Youth, Grace Fu, praised the school for providing “multiple pathways and varied career options.”

    “Over 70 per cent of its graduates have gone on to pursue non-arts related university courses such as Law, Journalism and Engineering and some have taken arts and arts-related courses in prestigious arts institutions and conservatories,” she said.

    Straits Times

    However, the news was greeted with concern by some, who also questioned the purpose of an arts school and its very existence.

    “The staggering number of students from a specialised arts school designed to provide a first-class arts education dropping arts when they enter university is extremely disconcerting,” wrote Jeffrey Say to the Straits Times on 22 May.

    Mr Sa’at – known for his provocative works which are performed here and abroad – says that students need to respect the arts as a career in the first place.

    “[I] also want to tell you that unless you start according an arts career the respect and commitment that it deserves, and that means not treating it like an after-hours hobby, or a post-schooling co-curricular activity, or making statements like ‘well who’s to say that I won’t still dabble in the arts?’, we will never reach a stage where professionalisation is possible, and we will never create a real industry, the kind you might aspire to be part of one day.”

    Mr Sa’at’s reaction was posted on his Facebook page on 25 May.

    We reproduce it in full below.

    A SOTA student says: “I’m allowed to have more than one passion. And you don’t get to tell me that I can’t have it both ways. So, no, I’ve never met a SOTA student who gave up on their ambition. And that’s because SOTA students understand that it’s human nature to have more than one. And we’re never going to play the zero sum game with our dreams.”

    Sure, you’re young, you’re idealistic. You probably don’t believe, at this point, that it’s possible to bite off more than you can chew. But I also want to tell you that unless you start according an arts career the respect and commitment that it deserves, and that means not treating it like an after-hours hobby, or a post-schooling co-curricular activity, or making statements like ‘well who’s to say that I won’t still dabble in the arts?’, we will never reach a stage where professionalisation is possible, and we will never create a real industry, the kind you might aspire to be part of one day.

    When you come in late for rehearsals, because of the overtime from your ‘real’ job, the work suffers. When you don’t get your lines down because you don’t have the head space and bandwidth for the play, the work suffers. When your stage manager has to try working around your schedule and has to even cut rehearsals to accommodate your ‘real’ job, the work suffers. And you expect everyone around you to make compromises and sacrifices so that you can chase your double rainbow?

    I know I’m coming across as harsh. But I have to register my disappointment at the responses coming from SOTA students regarding why an overwhelming majority of them, despite having an arts-based education, would ultimately choose non-arts careers. What I’m hearing are ‘you haven’t been to SOTA so please don’t comment’, ‘I’m still young and have every right to change my mind’, ‘don’t talk about your tax dollars subsidising my expensive arts education, I refuse to be blackmailed by any talk of obligations’, ‘people were so discouraging when I joined SOTA and now that I have internalised that discouragement you want to blame me?’ The kind of defensiveness that comes from avoiding the real issues.

    And for me the fundamental issue here is: in spite of a prolonged exposure to the arts, a career in the arts remains a deeply unattractive option for many of these students. And I really would like to know why. Yes, I know some students found out along the way that they were interested in something else. Some felt that they were more suited for a life as arts patrons and consumers than as artists. I have no doubt that these are honest responses, but I also feel there is something else if you scratch hard enough.

    When I talk about honesty in one’s writing, I tell students that you must be honest in addressing your desires, and you must also be honest in addressing your fears. And I feel that there are fears involved in such decision-making, fears that are not articulated because there is that additional fear of being outed as fearful.

    I feel that there are systemic things to talk about, about how after so many years we’re still talking about rice bowls and backup plans and safety nets, about things to do with conformity, risk, innovation, failure, dreams, thwarted dreams, stillborn dreams, dreams that are skewed and resized, trimmed and pruned, dreams nibbled by fear, dreams folded into paper aeroplanes, tucked into crevices between concrete slabs, dreams that were made art in a student’s hands and then turned into rubbish in the hands of the administration..