Opinions

Friends of the Preeti and Subhas Nair have come out to defend them. 

Among them is Natalie Christian Tan, who have worked with both the siblings before ob several projects.

This is her defence of Subhas, and Preeti.

I will NOT let the media conduct what is basically character assassination of Subhas and Preeti to cover the asses of the mistaken people who blew this situation up.

They were the ambassadors for Pink Dot just a month ago, where they spoke about accepting all people into our beautiful and diverse national family.

Prior to that, Subhas and I sold t-shirts to raise funds for the T Project, a shelter for homeless transgender Singaporeans. 100% of the proceeds went to the shelter. We both insisted on it.

He worked with Migrant Band Singapore on his song for National Day and he made sure that the migrant workers shared the spotlight. He fought for the vulnerable and poor in our society to be paid for their musicianship on the project. He fought for their voices to be heard. How many of us have done the same? How many of us have fought tooth and nail for Bangladeshi workers to be paid fairly?

He conducted workshops on slam poetry writing for youths, to give young Singaporeans the skills to express their thoughts.

He participated in the Concerned Citizens Programme organised by the Substation, where Singaporeans from all walks of life came together to put up an exhibition about the national issues that were troubling them.

He works with Singaporeans from all walks of life to craft a better, more inclusive, more beautiful, Singapore. Do the above actions sound like the actions of somebody who wants to tear Singapore apart, or bring Singapore together by asking the hard questions? Do you think it is a coincidence that so many people supporting Subhas and Preeti are local writers, musicians, and artists? Love comes in many forms. We can give our friends hugs and kisses, and when our friends are losing their way and we ask them to wake up their idea, is that not also love?

Ex-NMP Calvin Cheng admitted in a Facebook post that racism exists in Singapore.

Cheng made the admission on the state of racism and race relations in Singapore, when discussing the brownface ad vs K.Muthusamy music video.

Nevertheless, he remained adamant that Singaporeans were blindly copying the latest trend in the West in what is deemed racists, or offensive. For him, you can't compare the two controversial productions.

What’s the difference between the Mediacorp Ad and the YouTube rap video that K Shanmugan has condemned ?

I don’t think this has been explained clearly.

Let’s try this thought experiment.

Mediacorp Ad : If it was an Indian actor putting on a traditional Chinese outfit and acting as a Chinese, and also a Malay, is this offensive? I don’t think it is.

It may be distasteful to some. But I think the whole ‘brown face’ concept was borrowed blindly from the West. They take offence. So the copycats here think we must also take offence. Why?

YouTube rap video: If it is a Chinese person rapping the same about Indians, would it be offensive? Or Indians rapping the same about Malays?

Undoubtedly so. No argument.

Therefore there is a false equivalence comparing the two.

There is however a greater issue at stake.

Whilst we shouldn’t blindly parrot the West (especially America) whenever they have a new standard of what is racist or offensive, racism does exist in Singapore.

So the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) got worked up about the 'sorry not sorry' apology issued by Preetipls and her brother, Subhas Nair, over their rap video.

The siblings based their apology almost entirely on an earlier apology issued by Havas Worldwide for the Nets E-Pay advertisement.

This is a comparison of the apology made by both parties. Can you spot the similarities?

MHA clearly didn't see the irony in the apology by the Nair siblings. They called it an insecere apology that mocked Havas' apology.

But that was exactly the point. They really intenended to mock the apology by Havas.

The point that the brownface ad neither contravenes the penal code, nor any advertising guidelines, is moot.

The fact is people were really offended. That can't be dismissed. You can't tell the people that they don't have the right to be offended.

Havas' insincere apology made a bad situation even worse.

Yes, the mockery by the Nair siblings was intentional. They put the spootlight on racist, and racism in our country. 

Why are they being punished?

In the media statement, MHA also pointed out the siblings previous expressions of racist sentiments. Some of the work by Subhas which alleged of systemic racial discrimination here were also labelled as "blatantly false".

Investigations against the siblings will continue. 

Damanhuri Abas, a member of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) has aired his views on the brownface and rap video debate.

Referring to the rationale articulated by K Shanmugam for the action taken against the rap video, Damanhuri called on the government to be consistent in its application of the rationale.

Damanhuri was of the view that the government, by taking such a stand, then needs to be consistent in applying it across the board.

Can the Minister then be consistent and call out the discriminatory practices of his own G for the last 54 years denying Malays full meritocratic access in NS like other races. And please, tokenism don’t count. In fact it is insulting and more damaging as it allows excuses for such practices to continue quietly. Or should I make a police report against the G as he recommends.

If you think that racism does not exist in Singapore, then don't read this.

I'm actually starting to feel unsafe just existing as a minority in Singapore.

This keeps happening over and over again--the ones perpetuating racism get a wrist slap, the ones who call out acts of racism have the instruments of the state used against them--through the weaponisation of police reports, as well as minority MP's lining up to perform the overpolicing of their own, as if to demonstrate to the majority that they're still committed to majoritarian interests.

I'm really tired of witnessing this ugly dysfunction where a majority keeps on insisting that they should get to define what is funny, and what is offensive, and that their views should become the norm. Of course majoritarianism exists in Singapore but this particular form is one of the most wicked.

Because what is 'funny', or 'scary', are minorities. We become the figure of fun, the brunt of jokes, the bogeymen, the 'don't be like that', the low-IQ long-drawl Malay accent, the head-bobbing Indian accent, the image of the drug addict, the drunkard, the prata-man President, the fake-Malay President, Ahmad the chauffeur, Aminah the cleaner, Apunehneh the whoever he or she is.

Who was it who said that we don't really have racial harmony in Singapore, what we have is racist harmony? Because that harmony is built on the eternal forbearance of minorities. To be able to take a joke, to laugh at ourselves, to inspect our flaws obsessively and self-criticise, because minorities are obliged to aim for self-improvement rather than to demand social justice. Tell the other side to take a joke and the police are summoned.

I see so many of my Malay friends say the same thing: 'penat lah'. It means we're tired. We're exhausted. Why are we facing this again and again? How come when we say that your amusement is the cause of our pain, we get told that your amusement is more important than our pain? What is it about brownfacing that people don't get? Why is it that I see some people even asking 'is it you're ashamed of your skin colour and don't want us to draw attention to it?'

No, it's because when you get a Chinese person to do racial drag, you're effectively saying that being Chinese in Singapore is the standard and all other races are deviations from the standard. In one of the photos, Dennis Chew tries to play an Indian man called Muthusamy. His skin is darkened. He wears an oily-looking wig with curls. He has narrow eyes, so he widens them, and the effect is that he looks deranged. There is nothing innocent about brownfacing. It reduces an entire race to physical features that are supposed to be reproducible through makeup, while at the same time ridiculing those features.

I pause here; why am I even writing this? What is this labour--of describing, contextualising, explaining--that I have to perform even as I feel, like so many of my compatriots, that the only thing I want to say is 'penat lah'? A resignation beyond sorrow. Why do I always expect better of people only to become so crushingly disappointed? Why can I not let empathy just do this seemingly ceaseless work that minorities have to do in Singapore? What failure of imagination must there be to not be able to sense what it would be like if done to you--if someone squinted to make slit eyes, slathered on yellowish foundation, wore a China-doll wig to represent you?

As much as I deeply believe in anti-racist work, it is not my chosen career. I want to write about so many other things, I want to make connections beyond this weird dystopian bubble. I don't want to have most of my energy consumed by pointing out racist things, explaining why they are racist, telling racists not to (in Preetipls's pithy words) fuck it up.

What is the exit strategy? Can we gather some day soon and discuss how to leave this country and all this garbage behind? Of course 'there is racism everywhere' but I don't know any other society that has so internalised its own propaganda on multiracialism that it is unable to process any contrary accounts of racism. Denial, defensiveness and hostility shape most conversations on racism. Messengers bearing a less than rosy picture are disbelieved and terrorised. If something is flagged as racist, it is not that racist thing that will earn censure. The flag however, will be torn to shreds.

It's time to go. Penat lah.

Honestly if you really penat, then just go. Nobody is stopping you.

But if you choose to stay, let's all try our best to not F things up and live in harmony.

A post by Sudhir Thomas Vadaketh. 

This is a story of Shanmugam attacking the (hilarious) Indian whistle blowers rather than addressing Singapore’s Chinese-majority racism.

First, housekeeping. Legally we can talk about this openly since it is only under police investigation. If a warrant is issued or arrest made, that is the point when, under Singapore’s wonderfully calibrated laws, “a court proceeding commences” and public comments risk sub judice. Some hope this case never gets there—can’t risk the youth vote by arresting their stars!

Next, background for those catching up. An official 2019 Singapore government e-pay advertisement shows a Chinese actor playing multiple races, including an Indian in brown face. Anytime anybody anywhere tells you about Singapore’s wonderful multiculturalism, please repeat that last line to them.

In response to the ad, local rappers Preetipls and Subhas made a video poking fun at Singaporean Chinese racists for “fucking things up”. I thought it was great. Yes, Singaporeans should poke fun at all racists of all shades whenever they fuck up.

After watching it, Shanmugam concluded that they had attacked “another race”. A close friend messaged me this morning saying she agrees with Shan.

Er, say what? How does poking fun at Chinese racists who fuck things up become an attack on an entire race?

In case anybody is in doubt, Preeti makes it absolutely clear at the end of the video that she is NOT calling all Chinese racists. Presumably Shanmugam chose to ignore this.

So, here we go again. Singapore’s minorities experience racism, this time backed by the state. And when we speak up about it, we get called out. “Stir ah, stir ah” is the favoured expression of Chinese chauvinists around the Internet, whose primary aim is to demonise and shut up whistle blowers.

You see, we minorities are not supposed to puncture the image of beautiful, harmonious multicultural Singapore.

Never mind that Singapore has the two most racist policies in the developed world: preventing Muslims from serving in high-security military posts (messaging: “We don’t trust Muslims as much”); and actively importing more Chinese to maintain the group’s supermajority (“Chinese are better than Indians, Malays, Eurasians, and the rest.”). Never mind that racism is a daily reality for many minorities in Singapore.

Let’s forget about the racist underpinnings of Singapore, about the broader social environment we have fostered, that actually permits this brown face freak show to pass through layers of government and agency vetting.

Instead, let’s target the Indian whistle blowers. Good one.

I must end with the big picture lest the above is misleading: yes, minorities have it better in Singapore than in many other countries. But no, we are not doing very much to address the problems that exist. We should be encouraging more dialogue, not shutting it down.

—

p.s. I suspect the crux of the issue is a generational divide in terms of acceptable speech, innuendos, etc. Topic for another day.

p.s. 2 for those in denial about our racist underpinnings, here are a few quotes:

1. “Three women were brought to the Singapore General Hospital, each in the same condition and each needing a blood transfusion. The first, a Southeast Asian was given the transfusion but died a few hours later. The second, a South Asian was also given a transfusion but died a few days later. The third, an East Asian, was given a transfusion and survived. That is the X factor in development.”
- Lee Kuan Yew, 1967
(Lee Kuan Yew, in a meeting at the University of Singapore on 27 December 1967, as recorded by Chandra Muzaffar, a Malaysian political scientist. Michael D. Barr, “Lee Kuan Yew: Race, culture and genes”, Journal of Contemporary Asia, 29 (2) (1999): 145–166.)

2. “I have said this on many a previous occasion; that had the mix in Singapore been different, had it been 75 per cent Indians, 15 per cent Malays and the rest Chinese, it would not have worked. Because they believe in the politics of contention, of opposition.”
- Lee Kuan Yew, 1985
(President's Address, Debate on President's Address, Parliament of Singapore. March 01, 1985)

3. In a 2005 meeting with Hilary Clinton, Lee portrayed Islam as a “venomous religion”, according to Wikileaks. (He later denied saying that.)

It is true Preeti made it clear at the end of the video that she is not calling all Chinese racists. No doubt.

However if you have watched the rap video, it can easily be intepreted as offensive despite the disclaimer at the end.

Do you agree with the minister or Sudhir?

*Legitly wondering how The Noose was so popular back then*