Another great response to Shrey Bhargava's self righteous pity party. Every minority is invited to join! Come, let's blame the majority race for everything that's wrong in our lives, it is never our fault, it is because we are oppressed! Wow, so convenient!
Shrey has written another post boohooing about how racism (yawn), how minorities don't get roles easily in singapore, and how the Chinese are blind because we have privileged.
Cut your crap. If a Chinese director wants to make a movie about Chinese NS men, that's his fucking prerogative. If it features Indians or Malays as token characters, that's also his freedom and right. Why? You think every local movie needs to have an Indian main character then it's not considered racist is it?
In that case I ask... why are Bollywood movies full of only Indians? Why aren't one of the leads in 3 Idiots any race other than Indian?!!! Such an atrocity and blatant racism. Sure, Bollywood shows are in Tamil, but hey I don't care, this is as racist as The Voice asking for Chinese speakers! I don't care, include a Chinese mute character please, and he must not be a token role! Otherwise the director is racist! 🙄
Obviously like Donovan said there are privileges to being a majority race, a majority anything. That much is undeniable. While the Chinese in singapore should be mindful of consideration for all the other ethnic groups and always be respectful, but the automatic assumption that jobs be not only handed to you, but CREATED FOR you purely for the sake of your race isn't one of them.
Singapore is built on meritocracy.
Keep up your self victimizing charade and keep blaming society for your failures in life - you will find that soon nobody respects you.
And unlike the white liberals who have been indoctrinated with white guilt since their school days and think they have to pay for their ancestors' crime, you will find Singaporeans way less susceptible to your guilt tripping. Asians, including Indians and Chinese alike, don't subscribe to victim-playing. We work hard and succeed despite the odds - I suggest you get on with the program. Nobody owes you or your race a level playing field. Your whining rings hollow, since you exist in one of the most racially harmonious countries in the world, where the govt has taken careful steps to ensure equality for all the 4 main races.
Dear Shrey Bhargava,
As far as I can tell from your post, there was nothing racist about your Ah Boys to Men audition and I'll be kind enough to tell you and the 3000-odd people whom have shared your post why.
You were tasked to perform the role of a 'full blown Indian' and you have interpreted that as having to 'portray a caricature of my race' and being 'reduced to my accent'.
The casters were not racist and the element of racism here is non-existent because that was the role that is being demanded of you here, whether it was that of a Singaporean Indian, North Indian, British Indian or Red Indian.
Suppose Samuel L. Jackson had tried to audition for the role of Jack Dawson in Titanic, a part that really went to Leonardo DiCaprio. It is obvious that he would have been turned down because he was black. Now, is this not a clear-cut case of racial discrimination? Surely no one (maybe except that crazy Sangeetha) would be absurd enough to claim that the directors or scriptwriters of Titanic were racist and had "reduced" Jackson down to his skin colour?
That is because the role of Jack Dawson (may he rest in peace at the bottom of the Atlantic) is one of a white man.
Why is it somehow more 'wrong' for you to portray the role of a stereotypical Indian from India, than for Wang Wei Liang to portray the stereotypical Chinese gangster, or for Maxi Lim to portray the role of a stereotypical bootlicking yes-man recruit, or for Tosh Zhang to portray a stereotypical authoritative army Sergeant?
If Wang Wei Liang were to drop out of the Lobang King role right now and I be in line to audition for the role, I'd be similarly asked by the casting director to play the role of a 'full blown ah beng'.
That would mean me summoning out to the best of my abilities the most vicious, stereotypical characteristics of a Chinese 'ah beng'. I'd have to speak in subpar broken English, exercise a liberal use of dialect profanities and demonstrate an aptitude for violence in the face of problems.
I have no doubt in my mind that a lot of the ones whom are throwing support behind you right now would not similarly rally and call to arms in the same righteous manner for me because I had to depict a caricature of the stereotypical Chinese hooligan.
Yet what is the difference? Certainly not all Chinese 'ah bengs' are characterised with the same rebellious, malingering characteristics like that of Wang Wei Liang's character. I have done my National Service alongside some of them (in a god-forsaken rifleman unit no less), and most of them in fact are some of the most patriotic men I have ever seen.
Why is a racial stereotype anymore of a grievous injustice than the stereotype of an occupation, a cultural identity or any other form of stereotype? It is not.
If your objection is with being pigeonholed into a simplified, hackneyed image of a particular person, then you must similarly condemn all forms of stereotypes in film - not just stereotypes that are played along racial lines. And it is unnecessary for me to point out that stereotypes in the arts are ubiquitous in any and all forms.
In your follow-up post, you ramp up your distinct brand of illogic. You claim that it is wrong for the minority character to be of insignificance because this is a film that is a "SINGAPOREAN story".
But this begs the question. What defines being 'Singaporean'? Given that 40% of our population are comprised of foreigners and non-residents, isn't it just as wrong that these Filipinos, Indonesians, Japanese and Koreans are utterly unrepresented in Ah Boys to Men? Is it fair to stick to the 'Chinese, Malay, Indian' categorisation that in the first place, is a categorisation formulated on arbitrary standards by our government?
Is there any reason why your standard of what is 'Singaporean' should take priority over mine, or over the casting director's?
Yes, actors need jobs and it is certainly true that a racial minority would not enjoy the luxury of roles to pick from in comparison to one in the racial majority. But it is not clear WHY this is unfair, which is what you seem to me implying by "Minority actors do not have the privilege to pick and choose what to audition for".
Of course majorities benefit. The same can be said for people whom are right-handed, whom are tall, whom are lucky enough to be born with our five senses. When you lament that "Minority actors do not have the privilege to pick and choose what to audition for", you are no longer making an argument against racism, rather, you are making an argument against reality i.e., the racial proportion of our population.
I have observed this for some time among the young Singaporeans who are most active on social media. One of the most troubling cultural trends as of late is this idiotic penchant to leap at every slightest opportunity they get to call out racism, from the Toggle blackface issue and the Kiss92 incident to a Smartlocal video from last year.
Of course racism exists in Singapore (or anywhere else in the world for that matter), but reducing any and all issues down to race is not very helpful. There are far more productive ways to tackle discrimination. And that begins with changing the institutional framework of our society, such as the freedom of our press and media, so racial minorities are empowered to best represent their own unique cultures. Nit-picking on little details in the media is not one of them.
Like the Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman said: “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.” I commend your well-intentioned attempt to speak out against what you have perceived is 'racism', but your analysis is incorrect and your methods are in fact entirely retrogressive.
P.S. It was quite interesting to see how that Vimeo video on your wall provided a most comical caricature of Arabs being equated with bombs/terrorism. It appears that it is just your own racial identity that is most fragile, and that the rest of us must tread precariously around. I wonder if it was only I who cringed so hard?
「best crime movies of all time」的推薦目錄:
best crime movies of all time 在 鄺俊宇 Roy Kwong Facebook 的最佳貼文
感激Selina Kinyee Chau翻譯我的散文作品,讓香港及台灣以外的朋友都能看得明白,從中文走向英語,是我作品的大突破,感謝妳一字一句的用心翻譯:)
《WhatsApp and its USD0.99》
by Roy Kwong Translated by Selina Kinyee Chau
The WhatsApp software developer has informed its users to the app to be payable, triggering a fight between iPhone users and android users because iPhone users only pay USD0.99 once to enjoy life-long service but android users need to pay the same price every year.
Android users complain, “Why iPhone users only need to pay once but we need to pay every year?” iPhone users retort, “You didn’t say anything when we were being charged at the beginning. And now you are complaining.” So the two parties are stuck at whether the charge is unfair to Android users.
After the Two Ticks and Last seen on (Please refer to the previous article of the same writer), the WhatsApp started a fight again because of this USD0.99 issue. From between lovers to friends, now it has even extended to the whole user group of the two giant software developers. It should be named the Most Evil App of the Century.
The inconsistency of charging is of course WhatsApp’s fault. However, for those who can afford a smart phone that cost thousands dollars will be able to afford USD0.99 which is only the price of a can of coke, won’t they?
Some student users may complain, “I don’t have a credit card, I’m not able to pay at the App Store, WhatsApp are not considerate of us.” It is reasonable for users under 18 to complain if they don’t have a credit card. But if the charge is a disaster of WhatsApp, isn’t it just time for people to show their kindness? Friends who have a credit card can rescue others at this time, “I have a credit card. Let me pay it for you.”
Friends without a credit card will appreciate what you have done for them, although it is WhatsApp’s fault of the forbiddance of sending messages before the expiry date, reactivating the function for your friends by buying them a can of coke is meaningful, isn’t it? The USD0.99 of WhatsApp has created a chance to show your care to your friends, how nice as a social networking app!
Recall those days when we were still texting, it was actually not financial friendly at all. For the sake of keeping in touch with our friends, we were compelled to use the same service provider as theirs even its service was the worst in the world and we had to survived three times every day from losing connection just because to keep the text messages free of charge.
Still, the Two Ticks and Last seen on functions have created a lot of problem. But the invention of WhatsApp allows us to send messages for free, save us from paying for every text messages. It deserves to be granted a credit. And the simplified process by just clicking a few buttons to send pictures, videos and audios when we could only do so via email in the past. What’s more, WhatsApp had actually stated in the Terms and Conditions that charge may be applied after the first year.
So there have been so many complaints about WhatsApp being unfairness and has been given the name “a broken app” when it announced to charge? No one ever said something like that before the charging. After the charge applied, negative comments has swept over the Internet. Some suggested to use another communication app, Line, which is free of charge, and WhatsApp has become the public enemy. Despite the inconsistent charge, what’s wrong for WhatsApp to charge for using the app?
Have we become too comfortable enjoying free lunch without notice?
I still remember how hard I tried to save to buy a CD home and listened to it again and again when I was a kid. I had never been tired of it because it wasn’t easy. When there was a movie I liked, I saved hard to go to the cinema for it. If I didn’t have enough money, I bought the VCD when it was released. But VCDs were only available for movies not for TV shows. I had to start sitting in front of the TV before the show I liked started so that I wouldn’t miss any parts. And recorders became my good friend too. I really cherished the only-180-minute memory of every tape.
After I grew up, thanks to the advanced technology becomes able to store everything, the TV, computer, CD player, VCD player, game station and recorders, into ONE smart phone, only without the air conditioner. Want to listen to a song? Go to Youtube; want a movie? PPS, internet TV! A TV show? There are also apps you can watch live TV or play back. Want some games? From Angry Bird to Candy Crush, there are thousands of choices waiting for you.
However, The advance of technology has devalue our attitude towards making efforts. Because everything has become easy to get nowadays.
Have you noticed the songs nowadays are not as good as those in the past? That could be the problem of quality itself but more likely, it is because we have too many options. Now we just need to click a few buttons, thousands of search results will come out and we can listen to them right after. We are spoiled to be greedy unconditionally. We didn’t realize how long we hadn’t paid for a CD until the news of HMV’s bankruptcy spread out.
In the past we had to sit still and paid 100% attention to the movie to enjoy it, now we can just watch it from a few-inch-wide screen on a train. But the price is we keep being interrupted by the surrounding noise and people. When the character is saying something moving, we would just realize we’ve missed the stop and have to rush to get off. It may be free to watch a movie like this but I prefer paying to buy a ticket to go to the cinema.
We don’t need to worry about missing the best part of a TV show because our friends always share them on Facebook. We don’t need to watch every scene but you know what is going on in every story. But why is there still something missing? It turns out that we only keep the concentrated part of everything while the every well panned detail has been wasted. We don’t spend time building a connection with the characters in the story. However, if we don’t even spend time watching the the TV show by ourself, how can we feel the same way as the characters do, like we did in the past?
You don’t feel the pain losing something if you have never made any effort. It is just like we keep those old comics that we spent all our pocket money on even they are old and worn , but we are able to uninstall an app on our phone without a thought. Well, just take a couple seconds to download and we will own it again anytime.
While we are expecting making no effort, we are also destroying creativity. Creators lack of motivation. Creativity is worth nothing nowadays. People will search for replacement when one creativity starts to charge. This is not just about the USD0.99 of WhatsApp, it’s about our value on Give and Take.
Technology has changed our life, but we should never let it change our values.
We avoid Giving. But giving is vital for us to learn to cherish. Sometimes we get back more by giving than not giving, not just about money but also about love. Think about it, if we get what we want easily without paying any effort, comparing with that you devote yourself to a relationship while the other devotes to the relationship as much as you. Then none of you will give up on the relationship easily.
If you think WhatsApp is good, it deserves the USD0.99. Although I am still annoyed by the evil functions such as the Two Ticks and Last Seen on. WeChat is free but you have to pay your liberty of speech for it. One user once tried to send the name of Southern Weekly in Chinese, the system reminded him that “The message has involved sensitive words, please try again after making modification.” What’s wrong with the name of Southern Weekly? The even more ridiculous thing is, while I am writing this article, I get the news that WeChat now has tightened up the regulation that users have to use their real name, phone number when posting on the public forum and are even required to upload the photo of them with their ID card, like you have committed some serious crime.
To avoid paying USD0.99, you need to escape to somewhere that and be monitored. One day if you really encounter some sensitive issue, you will realize not paying actually pays more than paying. I believe most of readers are willing to pay for this USD0.99. We hope WhatsApp will open up more channels for payments.
Don’t let the wheels of Time make us forget the value of giving.
Writer for Yam Taiwan, Roy Kwong
http://goo.gl/aQD8B