【腦中小劇場　20200313 新店事件雜感】
　　　　
憤怒與無奈，我不確定哪種情緒比較多
　　　　
憤怒的是，一條無辜的性命就此殞滅，我唯一的感想，居然是慶幸當初站在街頭等人的不是我，因此我還能跟老婆吃頓晚飯，看著孩子的笑。但對遺屬而言，那不只是一條性命，而是一門血脈，以及與那門血脈相連的每個人，都在那一刻逝去了一部分，而我們只能默哀。
　　
無奈的是，此類兇嫌，又再一次地嘗試使用精神症狀辯駁犯行，於是整件事變得諷刺起來。根據過往臨床經驗，由於擔心被汙名化，一般病人，通常不太敢承認自己是精神病患。某些犯罪的人，卻搶著當精神病患。
　　
但我相信，他們應該不想交換彼此的人生。
　　
鑒於資料不足，不當鍵盤柯南，即便新聞露出的兇嫌辯辭都荒謬異常，但只能期望精神鑑定能還給社會大眾一個答案。我必須說，千萬不要小看精神鑑定這件事。它會從你的長期病史、病程起伏、藥物反應、身體語言、精神病理學以及親友背景詢問，來交叉比對你所供述的症狀是否合理，研判你是否真的有精神疾病。裝病很容易破功，就算要預謀埋哏，也要長達十數年才會有那麼一點可信度，而且還不一定能成事。
　　
有病要醫，但不代表你不用付出代價。

沒病裝病，那就要付出更多的代價。
　　
我向來不碰死刑存廢的議題，也不奢望任何有效的「預防措施」，辯護雙方各有立場，忿恨更多是為了出口，而非讓事件轉圜。判決交由司法，鑑定仰仗精神專業，但若兇嫌經由鑑定，確認出現詐病（Malingering）意圖，但願有朝一日，相關單位能加成相對應的刑罰。
　　
畢竟他的一句話，都會讓精神病患的去汙名化運動被迫後退一步，這一步，有可能是幾個月，有可能是數十年，它會讓原本該就醫的患者再度隱蔽，讓憂心的民眾望而生畏，醫療無從施力，傳言攻城掠地，而我們只能睜睜地看這段差距不斷往兩邊推擠。
　　
在這時候，我會想起電影《火線追緝令》（Se7en）的最後一句台詞：
　　
「海明威說過，『這個世界是美好的，值得我們去努力奮鬥』，我只同意後面那句」

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?