Friday, 1 December 2006, 5:22 pm | 1,618 views
By
Charissa
“Please, get out of my elite
uncaring face.”
-Wee Shu Min
I am sure many people recognized this quote
by Miss Wee. After all, the Wee Shun Min saga has been one of the
most widely debated topics in Singapore.
The whole issue started when
Derek Wee published
his rejected letter to the straits times on his blog. Derek wrote
in response to the “Straits Times article (dated 24 Sep) on PM
Lee calling the young to be committed and make a difference
to Singapore.” Basically, he pointed out the uncertainties
and pressures Singaporeans are facing in Singapore.
He touched upon issues on the
competitiveness in our society, ageism faced by Singaporeans in
their 40s, “quitters”, the call to procreate etc. He ended off by
expressing his opinion that the current PAP government is on a
different platform from the people because they do not understand
our insecurities. His honest letter echoed what many Singaporeans
have been feeling and hence many people started pouring in comments
supporting his point of view.
Miss Wee Shu Min was one of the few who
responded to Derek’s post in her own blog. However, her response
was curt and insulting. She not only lambasted Derek’s post into
pieces, she personally insulted him by calling him
“wretched,” “idiot,” a
“leech” among many other degrading words.
Furthermore, she labeled him as “the other
class” and stated that Singapore is “a tyranny of the capable and the clever,
and the only other class is the complement.” She then stated how
her future is not certain but “brighter than most people’s.” The
worst part was she ended her diatribe with “get out of my elite
uncaring face.”
Derek is an average Singaporean while Miss
Wee is RJC Student, Humanities Scholar and daughter of PAP MP
Mr Wee Siew Kim. People
interpreted her post using this context and came to conclusion that
Miss Wee was being elitist. They then started chiding her post. As
a result, she closed down her blog after a few days. (Her blog link
was “http://www.suchvividnothing.blogspot.com/“
Caught in a
wildfire
Little did she know, her post was
replicated in the
sammyboy forum and was
spreading in cyberspace. It was scrutinized, analyzed and debated
by all who came across it.
By her post, Miss Wee has broken many
Singaporeans out of their “false consciousness,” thereby making
them realize the great class divide in Singapore. Thus this is where the story begins. The
story of how the “divide just grew larger.”
Note: Below is my analysis with regards to
this saga which was posted in
my blog a few weeks ago. In it,
I analyzed the truth of her remarks, and how this saga intertwined
with other events and our current government. Through all these, I
would illustrate how the social divide in Singapore grew larger. Lastly, I reflected upon some
questions we might want to ask ourselves.
Analysis
Point1:
The daughter of a PAP MP
So, it is true… her
father is PAP MP
Wee Siew Kim (of Jalan Kayu division in Ang Mo
Kio GRC). I think the only reason why this saga has taken
the Singapore
cyberspace by storm is because
her father is a Member of Parliament. He was voted in by
Singaporeans and thus suppose to serve us Singaporeans. Thus,
linking Miss Wee ideas to her background would in turn lead to her
family upbringing. Singaporeans naturally infer that ideas reflect
her father’s teachings.
Being an PAP MP, he
is expected by Singaporeans to have good ideals. Singaporeans hoped
that he embodies their version of good ideals. Sadly, after this
episode, many find their whiter than white impression of PAP MPs
tarnished. Many fail to realise that perhaps most PAP MPs ideals
are quite different from what the common men desires his leader to
have.
From Miss Wee’s
post, Singaporeans were offered a glimpse of the ideals of a PAP
MP’s daughter. Most who read it would likely conclude that her
ideals were uncompromising, uncaring and selfish. Hers was one of
class divide and survival of the fittest. There was no room for
discourse, discussion and airing of plights. Whether or not one
tries to think otherwise, it is difficult to deny that her ideals
are reflected partly in her upbringing. Although these ideals were
not blatantly conveyed by a PAP MP, Miss Wee is somewhat seen to be
a representative.
These were not the
ideals which most Singaporeans hoped their MPs to have. In the
past, many have chosen to ignore this, but the truth has surfaced
again. How many people would remember and try to make this party
change? How many people would choose to bury this
memory?
Point 2: The elite
In
Singapore, when one is a scholar, he/she is
automatically labeled as elite. If one goes to top schools
like RGS, RI, Chinese High, RJC, Hwa Chong JC, ACS,
ACJC etc., he/she would be labeled as elite.
If one’s parents
were doctors, lawyers, directors in companies etc, he/she would be
labeled as elite.
If one’s family is
well-to-do, he/she would be labeled as elite.
If they continue to
be successful in life as a result of all these supporting factors,
he/she would be labeled as elite.
These criteria are
not exhaustive. However, to be labeled as true blue Singaporean
elites, it is sufficient for individual posses all these criteria
mentioned.
Here, “elites” is a
“dirty” word. The country can be said to be build up by “elites”,
but yet most Singaporeans have a distaste for “elites” and
especially against those that call themselves such. Miss Wee posses
the 1st four criteras; she is a RJC Humanities Scholar, she went to
RGS and RJC, her father is an MP, President of Defense Business of ST
Engg and her family is well-to-do. Therefore,
most would label her as an “elite”. Miss Wee herself blatently
declared she is “elite” anyway.
Since it is already
obvious to people reading her blog that she is an “elite”, she
could have made people madder by telling people that she is one.
What perhaps made it worse is the context in which she used this
word. She told her readers/Derek Wee to “get out of my elite
uncaring face.” That final sentence summarized where she is coming
from and how uncaring she is to anyone else that is not part of her
class.
Normal Singaporeans
who are not as “rich” and “smart” like her would thus take offence.
By her background and her wanton use of the word “elite”, she
effectively pit herself against the “other class”, the non-elites,
the commoners. Not exactly the smartest move.
Before the
newspapers revealed that she is a scholar, people already had
grievances against her being elitist. Now, some are starting to
question why they are funding the education of “this type” of
scholars. After all, scholarships are paid by the taxpayers, who
are the “other class.”
Why should the
“other class” pay for such a scholar to belittle them and possibly
give them more chance to advance further in life than them? Why
give her a greater possibility of “ruling” over the “other class”
in the future? As a result of this, more Singaporeans would come to
realise something is not right and ask, “Why, Why, Why?”
Point3a: Her beliefs
From her blog, it
can be inferred that some of her beliefs are;
a)
Singapore is “a tyranny of the capable and the
clever, and the only other class is the
complement”
b) A society which
is “far too survival of fittest” is ok.
c) The PAP
government is not to be blamed for “making” such a
society.
For part a), in the context of the using words used (”tyranny”,
“other class” and “complement”), it is difficult to dispute that
she is not speaking what she truly felt.
“Tyranny” is
equivalent to “ruthlessly ruling” over
someone/something.
By using the
phrase, “other class,” she effectively divided the society into
half; rulers and those being ruled
The word
“complement” could imply that those being ruled are supporting the
rulers.
Therefore, most
people would feel that this ideal implied that the “clever” and
“capable” rules over the common people who merely exist to serve
them. Thus Miss Wee has reduced the commoners to servants to the
rulers. She forgets that the only reason she is able to be in such
a position and privilege class is because the “other class” allows
her to do so.
If the “other
class” do not accept their position in society and go against Miss
Wee’s class, then she would most likely be reduced to a commoner
like them. Thus there is some truth to her words; the “other class”
is in this sense complementary to the “elite” class she belongs
to.
For b) and c), I
think she meant that since the world is in a perpetual rat race and
there is no escaping it, one can only accept it and find ways to
cope with this (ie. get better qualifications, upgrading skills
etc). Due to the same reason, the government should not be blamed
for the bad things that happen to people. She seems to imply that
the only person to be blamed is oneself. This is a chilling echo of
PAP’s ideology. How many times have we heard them repeating this
idea but in different forms?
The thing is, Derek
was not lamenting about these facts. I felt that he was merely
voicing out his concern that the Singapore society could be more humane and the
government should try to understand us better. In fact, judging
from the comments in his blog, many Singaporeans do relate to what
he said.
What then is wrong
for calling for a more compassionate society? Can our government
not help to relieve the stress? Can our government not do better in
understanding us and thus formulate policies to help us cope
better? Is that too much to ask for?
Not everyone is
calling for a total welfare state. There are those that just want
the existing help avenues to become truly open, the stigma of being
labeled “unsuccessful” reduced, want more protection for older
workers who are being retrenched due to ageism, etc.
Ms Wee argues that
the government is not to be blamed. I will only buy such an
argument if only governments are not governing people. Which is
ridiculous. By the very status of being a government, they are the
ones molding the society which we live in.
I can name so many
instances by the back of my hand; they create the rules of the
game, foster racial harmony, provide affordable education for
everyone, formulate laws, help foster economic growth, ensure
Singapore continue to be attractive to foreign investors, relocated
people from slums to HDB flats in the past, stipulate compulsory
savings via CPF, adjust GST, adjust ERP, provide disincentives and
now incentives for people to have more than 2 babies
etc.
These instances are
just a few which demonstrates that the government is meddling in
all aspects of our lives. Thus, whether we want it or not, they do
affect us direcly or indirectly. The successful policies that
manifest themselves in society are often highlighted as their
clever doing.
Yet, when policies
go wrong and directly/indirectly adversely affect Singaporeans
lives, they tell us not to blame them and blame only ourselves.
They are known to be too quick to claim successes and deny
failures. The government has to learn that they are partly to blame
for manifestations of their policies in society that have gone
wrong.
The extent governments are affecting our life can be found in their
wide ranging legislation. You can check it out
in this website. It
ranges from the
broadcasting act to
Singapore employment act to Road safety act etc. Basically, there
is an act for every possible thing imaginable. They are required
for the rule of law to prevail in Singapore anyway.
Through legislation, the government policies affect our
lives.
My whole point is
the government does play a part in shaping our society and hence
they do have to shoulder part of the blame. Although it might not
be blatant, they do have the power to affect our lives and make it
better; they can formulate more citizen-friendly policies. In the
context of Derek’s letter, perhaps a clearer legislation against
wrongful dismissal of Singaporeans in their 40s would help, for
example.
Point3b: An apology of sorts
Noticed that her
father only apologised for her “insensitive language” but “he stood
by his daughter’s ‘basic point.’” He claims that her basic point is
that Derek “should not be bemoaning about the Government and get on
with the challenges in life.” Right, somehow, he forgot to comment
on her other points which rile Singaporeans more.
Her basic points
(as put forth in point 3a) have been illustrated above. Since he
never commented on these basic points, I shudder to think that he
could be harboring such views (refer to point 1).
Mr Wee then pointed
out that his daughter’s “privacy has been violated.” Right, judging
from the way our PAP government persecutes racist bloggers and want
to “manage” the internet chatter, it seems that they do not hold
privacy rights in high regard. Anyway, most people know that the
internet is not private.
Conclusion
The ideas
highlighted by Miss Wee and her positions as an “elite,” have set
off the alarms bells for Singaporeans again. Their suspicion that
many of the “elites” (who might possibly become future leaders
of Singapore) are disconnected with the rest of society
has been reinforced again. The suspicion that this “elite” class
think they are superior, do not understand the plight of an average
Singaporean.
Most average
Singaporeans harbor a dislike for them. This hooha “nicely”
coincided with the news of a poor
40 year old man who committed
suicide at Chinese Garden MRT station. He was a poor men with S$39
K worth of debts. More was dug out and people concluded that he had
fallen out of
Singapore’s
tiny net. As a result, many began to link both
problems together.
Hence the class
divide jus grew larger.
Many Singaporeans are now questioning if this is the society that
we want to live in? Whether the government policies of extreme
meritocracy are really that good? Whether our political leaders who
come from the “elite” class understand average Singaporeans and
thus are able to tailor policies suited for us? Whether the
ideology of system of government should change?
On a happier note, Mr Wee is of opinion that “new media of the
Internet is such that if you don’t like what she has said, you have
the right of rebuttal.” I think most people would be glad that he
realises this point. This perhaps signals that the PAP government
realizes that political & social discussions online is
self-regulatory to a large extent. This episode shows the extent
Singaporeans would go to rebuke or refute claims by other
individuals.
I feel that this is
the gist of this episode. We Singaporeans must hold our government
accountable to us. After all the government exists to serve
us.
