9:16 a.m. - 2020-02-18
This is what (inequality) looks like
I'd gotten a copy of the book, This is what (Inequality) looks like, by Teo You Yenn (and Kwok Kian Woon).
I found the name Kwok Kian Woon familiar, it's the professor(?) whose class I attended many years ago (let me count, it was our final year in NTU, that was 2004, so it's been 16 years), he taught us a module called Critical Thinking.
I still remember this module — probably for reasons such as these vivid scenes that made an impression in me. The scenes may not be real, or I may have remembered them with a slant, but anyway, let me share these scenes with you:
1. WK and AV were debating about PAP versus Opposition Parties, while the rest of us in the group sitting in a circle, watched them 'quarrel' for quite a while. AV was living in Potong Pasir then and he share about the dismal state of his estate being ignored for upgrading just because they voted for an opposition party. I forgot what WK spoke about, maybe something about their track record in steering the country. I remember myself speaking too, at that time I was reading Cometbus (a zine by Aaron something in the US) and another book I'd forgotten now, but I remember the half-past six realisation I had was, democracy and freedom is something that's not won and that's it, everyone lives happily forever. It's something that we have to constantly fight and look out for, because it can be taken away or usurped by dictators.
2. KKW, the prof, brought in a guest speaker for one module. He was an architect turned filmmaker. I forgot his name, unfortunately, but he shared that he turned to film because buildings took a long time to completion while films were shorter in that sense. He gave us a speech, reading from a piece of foolscap paper he brought; it wasn't a memorised speech like a conventional giving of a speech, but it was nice to see that he had written it out fully, and he wasn't afraid or embarrassed to read from it without looking at us the audience.
3. The module was called Critical Thinking, there were no textbooks just reading materials given by the prof, and it was the only class and tutorial combined, so that made it like 2-3 hours long, and I think it was on a Friday afternoon, so it was a kind of relaxed class but also everyone wanted to go home after that.
Anyway, sorry for the digression. Bear with me, here's the epilogue of the detour before we continue to the book.
1. After graduation, WK became a journalist with the local newspapers for most of his career life, and then for work-life balance reasons as he got married and had kids, went to a school to teach journalism. I'm not sure if during his maturing years (and mine), he experienced any bureaucratic censorship or self-censorship in his work, and whether his beliefs in the incumbent party and government has changed in any degree.
Meanwhile, AV was writing a blog named after himself, and it became popular and grew into an online lifestyle news website, likely because his articles about 'sagas' or trendy/sensational topics that happened in online forums, or other parts of SG, something like STOMP, attracted the masses. If I remember correctly, he did write about his estate, Potong Pasir, too, during the elections period. So, that's to his credit. Besides this sideline, he's worked for various state/govt agencies rising up the ranks. There was one occasion where he stumbled, I think because he had written some critical things about the govt in his Facebook or website, and the prospective employer decided not to hire him, which left him without a job. Fortunately, he bounced back, but I don't think he's as openly critical as before now - his fb posts are more of the influencer-style marketing-speak now.
Excuse me for writing about other's lives so casually, I should explain that my intention isn't to paint them in any negative light, instead I want to portray how our lives are swayed by circumstances and ideals or dreams we once hold on to can fall out of our tired hands.
I am as guilty of giving up my dreams and selling out my social media to the highest bidder too. Because it pays the bills, pays for the holidays to Japan and elsewhere, adds to the retirement account for when I'm old, and buffers me from the trauma of a stressful job — which incidentally, I've had enough of in my 20s and 30s.
"I'm on my knees looking for the answer.
Are we human, or are we dancer?" - Human, by The Killers.
Back to the book, I promise.
So this book has been on the local recommendations list since it came out, but before reading it, I felt distant towards it, not because I never really cared about local recommendations, but because I felt that I've read or seen 'enough' poverty-themed material in our local news (both English and Chinese) and the CNA investigative shows (those were nice; I caught bits of them while exercising in the activsg gym). This goes to show that poverty (or the Gini coefficient) has been a hot topic in the local context.
Is it media-fatigue? Over-exposure? Yes, probably. And what can we do? We, you, me — the people who are not prime ministers or presidents or in the parliament or even working as a social worker, what can we do to help? After all this reading and exposure and understanding of the plight of the struggling, if we cannot do anything about it, it seems futile like wanking or making yourself feel bad. Or do you feel better, because it's not you in that situation. Sigh.
Anyway, yes, it's like me writing this blog now. Just carbon emissions and brain neurons using up glucose.
The most urgent people who should read this book are those who have the most power to change things. That's what I wanted to say.
But okay, let's try to wrap this up because it's a bit too long, and I want to do something else now.
Okay. So that's two things I felt distant towards the book - (1) overexposure (2) the right audience.
Another thing is my bias towards it. I have a feeling before reading it, that it's a book about inequality in Singapore telling us what we're already seeing if we open our eyes bigger at the hawker centres and food courts or if we've worked with foreigners who've come from the region to earn a better living here. Just notice the pallid-looking man trapped in a motorised wheelchair holding his hand out with 3 packets of tissue who's there at the public walkway every day or weekend, the hunched-over grandmother or middle-aged skinny auntie clearing the leftovers and messy plates on the tables.
Or are we, some of us, simply too sheltered in our ivory, fortunate lives that we never meet such struggling people in our work and daily lives. Have we never worked in holiday jobs where we delivered newspapers in dingy flats with cluttered corridors? Well, yes, of course, not everyone has done that. Hence, this book.
When I started reading it, I felt my bias towards the author coming out too. She has a good job, drives a car, she's female (no national service, no mingling with people from other backgrounds). To her credit, she's reflective and honest about her fortunate existence too. (Except for the NS part, that's just my speculation/reasoning about how NS exposes someone to other people, I'm not sure if she's considered this in the book, I haven't finished the whole book.)
That's a bias towards the author. Another bias is towards academic writing, well, the book is well-written and nuanced and eloquent, but compared to news media stories, it is still academic to a certain degree (although the author gave her personal reflections throughout), in the sense that the intermittent references to her studies/research or other people's research, makes the overall piece feel academic, like this isn't just a story about this mother and her family, but it's also about the author's research work.
The danger is if we only applaud her for doing these research and writing these articles, but we do not change the way we treat people in disadvantaged situations. Then there's no point.
Anyway, I'm barely into the book, just read some essays, I feel like I'm constantly judging the author, comparing her with her interviewees. I'm judging her based on all the aforementioned reasons. I can't help it. Part of me wonders if it's a good thing she's inserted herself into the book. I think that's her intention and to her credit, she in a way sacrificed herself to be compared as the well-off/fortunate person. She took the bullet for the rest of us. We the readers are able to stand off and judge her and everyone, instead of putting ourselves on the cross.
I shall try to read more and see. Is it a book i would recommend? I think... my answer is if we can change things without reading the book, then no need to read the book. If we need to read the book to change things, then read the book.
I don't care whether you read the book or not, just behave kindly, make kinder policies, vote for kinder people.
