Thinking Aloud
Asking awkward questions of the powerful
Social activists disturb our comfort, making us consider new ways of living together
Lydia Lim
SEP 20, 2020
We were looking at menus when he popped the question: "So, what do you consider the greatest social problem of our time?"
Unsure how to respond, I kept quiet. The other person in our group of three had known Mr Social Conscience for far longer, so he kept his eyes fixed on the menu and muttered: "I just want to order dessert."
That incident from long ago captures my own experience of being thrown off balance by a friend who was more socially aware than I was. Today, the term for a heightened state of social awareness is "woke", defined since 2017 by the Oxford English Dictionary as "alert to injustice in society, especially racism".
I recall that memory with mixed feelings as I observe the ferment over migrant worker rights and the questions being raised over Singapore's justice system, in the wake of
the High Court's recent acquittal of Ms Parti Liyani, a foreign domestic worker who had been accused by her former employer, Mr Liew Mun Leong and his family, of having stolen tens of thousands of dollars' worth of goods from them.
On Facebook, I read a post that said "we live in a time when a maid can bring down a chairman".
Do we?
CHALLENGING STATUS QUO
Social media amplifies anti-establishments points of view that some of us may find new and discomfiting, but Singapore is nowhere near a social upheaval. I stress this because defenders of the status quo may fear an overthrow of institutions in place for decades, and thereafter a slippery slope to national ruin.
But change does not come so easily, as long-time advocates of social causes well know.
The case in which Ms Parti secured an acquittal against theft charges filed by her rich and well-connected former employer is a rare exception. That is one reason it has become a national talking point and source of debate.
Its fallout suggests a greater ease among some sectors of Singapore society to challenge the status quo, to ask awkward questions of powerful people, and to do so more openly than in the past.
Whether or not you think that is a good thing, it is a new reality that all of us have to grapple with.
The new cacophony of causes and voices is jarring to those of us more used to the harmony of old.
Yes, social harmony is important but I believe too much of it can impede progress. Dissonance can rouse us from our slumber.
ACTIVISTS DON'T FOLLOW TRENDS
Still, not all who question those in power do so responsibly. Some are heady with the feeling of being able to express themselves more freely than before; others do so because it's now cool to be "woke".
Those who dally with social causes as a fad are likely to far outnumber those who regard righting certain wrongs in society as a mission. The latter stand out by their actions - they sacrifice time, money and effort in pursuit of justice for those with less power, and they persevere in the face of obstacles.
Among them is Ms Debbie Fordyce, president of migrant workers' advocacy group TWC2. She shared her observations on trendy causes in an interview with academic Philip Holden, which was published on Academia.sg in May.
"I feel strongly about migrant workers because I've been working with this group for so long and I've become aware of what happens while they're in Singapore and after they return home," she said.
"Now, because of the pandemic, they've become a sexy topic, with lots more people wanting to get involved. It's great to have donations and offers to volunteer, but the desire to 'make the world a better place' doesn't require you to seek out a trendy cause...
"Whether with migrant workers, or anyone else in a position of disempowerment, be aware of what inequality, poverty and desperation do to people, both those with privilege and access, and those without. Be prepared to stand up for what you believe."
ST ILLUSTRATION: CEL GULAPA
CASTING STONES IS NOT ACTIVISM
There was little crowing from the activists at the Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics (Home) after Ms Parti was acquitted by the High Court.
Instead, the charity and its activists - who had believed in Ms Parti's innocence from the beginning, helped her secure legal aid and sheltered and supported her during the four years she fought the case - issued a sober, factual statement to highlight "the systemic difficulties that migrant workers face when they are wrongfully accused".
"Such migrant workers are left waiting in a foreign country while investigations are ongoing, without any indication of the length of such investigations," Home said in its statement issued on the day of Ms Parti's acquittal on Sept 4.
The statement continued: "In Yani's case, she was arrested on Dec 2, 2016, charged on Aug 31, 2017, and has spent almost four years at Home's shelter, waiting for the conclusion of her case. We also provided her a bailor for the sum of $15,000, an option which is not available for most migrant workers accused of crimes.
"These migrant workers are often not allowed to work, thus they are reliant on organisations like Home to provide them shelter, food, and financial assistance. During this time, they are also not allowed to leave the country, and have no means of seeing their families back home.
"Consequently, by the time many migrant workers are presented with charges, they choose to plead guilty even if they are of the view that they are innocent of the charges that they are facing. The time it takes for them to serve their sentence may be shorter than the time it takes to go through the court process. Home believes that every individual should be given a chance to a fair trial, and access to legal representation, regardless of their work pass status or nationality.
"Home would also like to express our deep appreciation for Mr Anil Balchandani, who has worked tirelessly to represent Yani at the trial and appeal stage. We are also very grateful for the many volunteers and interns who have been involved in Yani's case and who helped her manoeuvre the complexities of her case."
Contrast that statement to the online bashing by keyboard warriors, including on the Facebook page of Changi Airport Group, which drew some netizens' ire simply because Mr Liew Mun Leong was then chairman of its board. He
has since stepped down from the position.
While it is important for citizens to feel empowered to speak truth to power, there is a difference between using social media to call out individuals online, and actual activism. Former US president Barack Obama said as much in October 2019, during an interview on activism. He spoke out against "call out culture" or "cancel culture", which celebrates the use of social media to sit in judgment of others.
"That's not activism. That's not bringing about change," Mr Obama said. "If all you're doing is casting stones, you're probably not going to get that far. That's easy to do." He also pointed out that "the world is messy; there are ambiguities", adding that "people who do really good stuff have flaws".
More recently, during this year's general election campaign, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong also cautioned against a culture of trial by Internet.
I welcome more open debate in Singapore on key social issues, but I also think many of us have much to learn about engaging in ways that are respectful and responsible.
The aim should not be to tear down individuals or institutions but to build a better Singapore, based on - to quote our National Pledge - justice and equality.