Struck to the point of not being critical
A significant lengthy period of time has passed since my last posting, and I would imagine that very few readers, or probably none, will continue to patronize my blog. I should say that it's a little more reassuring this way, as I am unfortunately sorting out personal issues in my life that could have an impact on the status of this blog. For now, I just wish to turn briefly to a matter that illustrates how, contrary to the marketing campaign by the Straits Times and other branches of the mainstream media, un-inspiring "dissent" books are.
A new book, titled as "Struck by Lightning: Singaporean Voices Post 1965" has just been released, which captured my attention in Book Kinokuniya. Subsequently, today's (16/03/2006) Life newspaper section reviewed the book as its main feature article, alongside with interviews of the four ST journalists. What this book purports to show is (as quoted) "aims to reflect the moods and mores of a generation raised in a time of peace and plenty and shielded from the nation's birth pangs", and to allow the "[registeration] at one point or another their concerns, even unhappiness, with the system and policies, and lived to tell the tale", "express views and issues that truly reflect the concerns and hopes of our post 65ers" and "debunks the myth that Singaporeans are starved of the freedom to air political views".
All of this would probably have come across as a living embodiment of a joke spread by fascist commissars or well-branded propaganda, if only the underlying assumptions weren't so apparent. A quick brief survey of the columnists behind this book shows that they are barely what you would call a representative sample of post-65ers, all four born in the span of 1969 to 1976. Surely, no self-respecting true blue post-65er would dare to dream that these four national journalists represent the voices of a generation that has to live through economic depression and other social woes. Secondly, for the claims about voicing their "unhappiness" and "lived to tell the tale", how much suppression do you expect from criticisms such as not having a multi-lingual hotline during a dengue fever outbreak or scolding a young teenager for not taking her so-called "rightful" place in society and opting for an elite school? Does the average sensible person expect the standard ST journalist, who has to maintain the official status quo, to be caught and questioned by the ISA or other monitoring police forces for airing these kind of political views?
In one of the articles in the book, one writer reminds the readers that some of our PAP leaders do not come from humble backgrounds and in fact comes from a concentrated social circle of elite power in our class-stratified society. How is this "critical" point dumbed down? The standard answer reveals itself all too clearly, with a simple rapport that they are, nevertheless, "understanding" of our lower working and other class members and "have them in their hearts".
It is quite correct that having a critical eye does not entail to "an exercise in fault-finding, as the writers maintain", but as the title correctly points, these writers have been "struck by lightning" to the point that they can not be accepted as having that critical sharpness and mental courage to write for an entire generation, much less for a Singaporean. It will be an interesting "exercise" in itself, if someone were to approach SNP International Publishing (the publisher of this scandulous book) and inquire about the production of a book that contains political perspectives from a representative sample of post-65ers (meaning including voices that are born after 1980s), people who are NOT involved in the mainstream media, people from all walks of life, including social class, educational levels, ethnicity, etc, and to throw in writers who are NOT strictly supporters of a hegemonic political party and even include voices of those who have left Singapore? Any sensible person will think that's a more authentic piece of work than a book churnished by the powers-that-be, compiled with the rantings of four members of a well-protected and indoctrinated class.
Barring very exceptional cases, one shouldn't expect to find a "dissent" book in an authoritarian state. Furthermore, those "dissent" books that are further promoted on front-page newspapers and glamorised with professional photographs of the authors, are hardly challenging the relations of power and priviledge in that particular society. The rightful treatment that should be accorded to this book is to pile it along with the other propaganda materials by other authoritarian and totalitarian states, and dismiss it for the falsification of a authentic democratic voice of a population, no matter how pretty and fashionable the book looks.
Ed Note: Incidentally, there is another book on my hit list, titled "Thinking allowed?" by the ST journalist Warren Fernadez. Suffice to say, I won't include my editing list of distortions and pompious analysis but to rate this book an "F".
A new book, titled as "Struck by Lightning: Singaporean Voices Post 1965" has just been released, which captured my attention in Book Kinokuniya. Subsequently, today's (16/03/2006) Life newspaper section reviewed the book as its main feature article, alongside with interviews of the four ST journalists. What this book purports to show is (as quoted) "aims to reflect the moods and mores of a generation raised in a time of peace and plenty and shielded from the nation's birth pangs", and to allow the "[registeration] at one point or another their concerns, even unhappiness, with the system and policies, and lived to tell the tale", "express views and issues that truly reflect the concerns and hopes of our post 65ers" and "debunks the myth that Singaporeans are starved of the freedom to air political views".
All of this would probably have come across as a living embodiment of a joke spread by fascist commissars or well-branded propaganda, if only the underlying assumptions weren't so apparent. A quick brief survey of the columnists behind this book shows that they are barely what you would call a representative sample of post-65ers, all four born in the span of 1969 to 1976. Surely, no self-respecting true blue post-65er would dare to dream that these four national journalists represent the voices of a generation that has to live through economic depression and other social woes. Secondly, for the claims about voicing their "unhappiness" and "lived to tell the tale", how much suppression do you expect from criticisms such as not having a multi-lingual hotline during a dengue fever outbreak or scolding a young teenager for not taking her so-called "rightful" place in society and opting for an elite school? Does the average sensible person expect the standard ST journalist, who has to maintain the official status quo, to be caught and questioned by the ISA or other monitoring police forces for airing these kind of political views?
In one of the articles in the book, one writer reminds the readers that some of our PAP leaders do not come from humble backgrounds and in fact comes from a concentrated social circle of elite power in our class-stratified society. How is this "critical" point dumbed down? The standard answer reveals itself all too clearly, with a simple rapport that they are, nevertheless, "understanding" of our lower working and other class members and "have them in their hearts".
It is quite correct that having a critical eye does not entail to "an exercise in fault-finding, as the writers maintain", but as the title correctly points, these writers have been "struck by lightning" to the point that they can not be accepted as having that critical sharpness and mental courage to write for an entire generation, much less for a Singaporean. It will be an interesting "exercise" in itself, if someone were to approach SNP International Publishing (the publisher of this scandulous book) and inquire about the production of a book that contains political perspectives from a representative sample of post-65ers (meaning including voices that are born after 1980s), people who are NOT involved in the mainstream media, people from all walks of life, including social class, educational levels, ethnicity, etc, and to throw in writers who are NOT strictly supporters of a hegemonic political party and even include voices of those who have left Singapore? Any sensible person will think that's a more authentic piece of work than a book churnished by the powers-that-be, compiled with the rantings of four members of a well-protected and indoctrinated class.
Barring very exceptional cases, one shouldn't expect to find a "dissent" book in an authoritarian state. Furthermore, those "dissent" books that are further promoted on front-page newspapers and glamorised with professional photographs of the authors, are hardly challenging the relations of power and priviledge in that particular society. The rightful treatment that should be accorded to this book is to pile it along with the other propaganda materials by other authoritarian and totalitarian states, and dismiss it for the falsification of a authentic democratic voice of a population, no matter how pretty and fashionable the book looks.
Ed Note: Incidentally, there is another book on my hit list, titled "Thinking allowed?" by the ST journalist Warren Fernadez. Suffice to say, I won't include my editing list of distortions and pompious analysis but to rate this book an "F".
posted by Douglas Evans at 12:15 PM
3 Comments:
Hi
Glad to see you back!
"the voices of a generation that has to live through economic depression and other social woes."
It is not all doom and gloom. There were 2 major recessions in Singapore. One in the 1980s and the other in the 1990s but recovery periods in between. Typical economic ups and downs?
Wow, what a surprise to find there are still people around. Thanks for the comments.
I don't wish to emphasis on that point too much, but what I wish to point out is that the four journalists came from a period that is so ridiculously narrow that they wouldn't have gone through what other post-65ers would have gone through, for e.g. some post 65ers would be trying to find jobs during the economic downturn post 9/11, while these specific journalists may have less bitter a experience.
The other point in reference to your "typical economic ups and downs", well in a sense, perhaps we are more fortunate than other nations to have some economic recovery, but I am a lot more skeptical about that: a good thriving economy doesn't directly result in direct benefits for the general population, specifically the middle to lower working classes. So even if the economic period for the last decade has been topsy dovey, it is more important to see how this is spelling out for the less privileged and working masses.
Looking for information and found it at this great site... levaquin handbag jelly kelly neck pain relief web site design Proactiv tinted moisturizer 1gm+valtrex free black jack game average weight loss with bontril side effects of wellbutrin Things to do in santa clarita ca hot naked milfs home security air purifier Powerball number frequency Command-line computer Risque bikinis Real slot machine for sale
Post a Comment
<< Home