Regardless of Race, Language, (Gender) or Religion

First, let me offer the context of this note, in case you or I read this years down the road and forget why this had been written in the first place.

  

SMRT Commuters were recently unhappy that they had been kept in the dark when trains stalled. An SMRT official commented that the lack of proficiency in English had hindered train drivers from making the crucial announcements to keep passengers in the know. On national TV, Member of Parliament, Mr Seng Han Thong in an attempt to rebut this, misquoted the SMRT Official. Mr Seng said: "...the PR mentioned that some of the staff, because they are Malay, they are Indian, they can't converse in English good, well enough, so that also deters them, but I think we accept broken English." Mr Seng Han Thong had inserted the supposed races of the drivers when the SMRT Official had not mentioned this at all. With very limited knowledge on psychology, my suspicion is that Mr Seng subconsciously held the notion that train drivers are either Indian or Malay when he heard the SMRT official's comments.

         

As expected, this led to an explosion of reactions.

            

Many people lambasted Mr Seng, labelling him a racist. You don't label anyone anything based on an isolated incident. Besides, people have since come forward to testify that he is not. Since the incident, there has yet to be any one who has been able to offer any other instance that would prove that he is a racist in any sort of way. This generalisation is therefore easy dismissing.

             

There were others who put the blame on The Online Citizen for sensationalising the issue and/or irresponsible reporting. I have read the article from the TOC website. In my own judgement, there was nothing malicious about it. Or are we expecting them to NOT report this at all. The journalist latched on to something from the interview, and he or she had every right to report it. If we are going to stop this journalist from doing so, then we will be returning to the age-old censorship debate. On the Internet, it is not only unrealistic to expect an article of such a nature to be censored, but also insulting to intelligence. Let the people judge, right? Self-regulation is often the best form of censorship with regards to the Internet. Admittedly, TOC could have attempted to offer a balanced commentary of some sort to accompany the article. But then again, TOC to the best of my knowledge is not run by professional journalists. We shouldn't be expecting too much from them. The onus should be on us to be critical readers.

               

There were those familiar ones who blindly defended Mr Seng with whatever naive arguments they were capable of mustering. You know, the kind of arguments that are offered more for the ears and eyes of Mr Seng rather than to make a point with conviction. I only know a hokkien term to describe this. I am sure he certainly would not appreciate such 'generosity'. It would only serve to fuel the misconception that Mr Seng Han Thong is only capable of having nothing more than puppet supporters.

              

Then, of course, you'll always have your online thugs, lashing out with threats of physical assault and verbal abuse.

              

However, the reactions I found myself associating the most with were the measured ones. Those that denounced what Mr Seng had said. Mr Seng, as an important person really should have known better. Where was the filter? Wasn't his Monitor switched on? Even if SMRT had indeed singled out races, which once again it hadn't, Mr Seng should have known way better than to follow suit. I was once advised that the higher one goes up the hierarchy, the more economical one should be with his or her words. These very people, though quick to criticise what Mr Seng had said, were equally quick to remind us of the strengths of this man and his contributions, then expressing empathy, appealing for understanding, for compassion. Such individuals are certainly the hallmark of a gracious society. To err is human. Mr Seng has apologised. He knows his mistake. Before we wag our fingers at him, perhaps we ourselves ought to take a step back to search our own hearts.

               

Do we hold unchecked misconceptions? As fallible human beings, we are apt to.

           

Do I?

              

One of the things I have noticed quite recently is how certain occupations seem to be dominated by specific races. For example, most security officers at shopping malls are Indian. I have wondered this out loud many a time to my wife. But then again, I have had to remind myself that I only frequent two malls. These two malls are not representative of all the malls in Singapore. But then again, I have had to remind myself that I have not done a count of any sort even at these two malls. Ever thought of buying a red bag, and all of a sudden finding red bags a common sight at school? What is more disturbing to me in this observation is that I have actually made such an observation. It simply proves that I am not race blind. So, now I have to cope with NOT being race blind. I then ask myself whether it truly matters if a particular race or gender dominates a certain occupation. What matters most is that this individual does his or her job well.

           

Does not being race blind mean that I am racist?

             

I remember a teacher I had back in secondary school who used to have great difficulty being able to tell the Indian boys apart. Offended as I was when I was called by the name of another pupil, I just couldn't and still can't find it in me to label her a racist. She never treated me any differently from any of the Chinese or Malay boys. I have been pointed at by people on the buses and trains who threaten their children into submission lest they be captured by the Ah Pu Neh Neh. Agitated and annoyed as I had been, I imagine that hapless parents still resort to this method. I wouldn't be surprised if friends of mine do that with their children. I certainly don't condone it, and I would be quick to express my views on it, but to break off my friendship and label them a racist? No way.

              

Therefore, not being race blind does not mean that I am racist. But it does mean that I might need to be careful lest I offend others.

                   

I am personally against the use of race to refer to an individual, especially in the context of Singapore. Teachers who say, "Will that Malay/Chinese/Indian girl/boy please..." are in for an education. There are other ways to refer to an individual other than to draw attention to his or her race. In fact, I sometimes wonder why it is necessary to include checkboxes for race and gender on certain application forms. Really, if it is not relevant, why have it? If I am applying for membership to a bookstore, of what relevance is my race?

                   

I have marked compositions where pupils are quick to refer to medical professionals as female doctors or male nurses. Subtle isn't it? But so wrong when you really scrutinise from where such bias stems. I smile, and I point them to the Composition Guide that I had prepared years ago. This guide has got a section dedicated to gender-neutral language. Below is a list of suggestions I offer:

1) Flight Attendant and not Stewardess

2) Fire Fighter and not Fireman

3) Humanity and not Mankind

4) Labour and not Manpower (Ok, I admit, it might be overboard)

             

The entire Seng Han Thong saga will come to close. My personal learning in all of this is that maybe it is an opportune time for all of us to examine our own biases - racial, religious, gender or any other. With 2012 just round the corner, it might be time to make it one of our stoutest of resolutions to demolish our misconceptions.