mollymeek (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} mollymeek) wrote,@ 2008-08-09 18:32:00 |
|
Flammable Spirits: My National Day Nonsense
On Failure
I don't know if there is anyone who is holding his breath for Molly to post her subversive National Day post. It is, after all, almost an obligation to write something about the occasion. A form of participation via rejection. A mode of nationalism that goes against the prescribed mode. A melancholic remembrance of the scar of a nation Singapore is instead of the smug celebratory fever that will never infect those who have become immune to the epidemic of PAP-directed discourse.
Perhaps there are those who await Molly to write something to relief them of the humiliating assault of their citizen senses disguised as celebrations, hoping to find solace in a common auguish. Perhaps there are those disgusted by the banners dividing the nation into PAP districts celebrating the monster that they have created. Tanjong Pagar GRC salutes the nation? Narcissistic masturbation. At our expense.
In this City of Possibilities, is it possible to adopt an alternative to the pre-cooked Singapore Spirit, ready for us to just microwave and consume? (But aren't alternatives pre-decided for us in any case?) But it's not as if anyone, including those who manufacture themes for us to celebrate, still cares about last year's theme. Singapore is modern, it's constantly updating itself.
Yet, how does Molly, the failure of a blogger who can't write as well as she wishes she could, begin to reject the nationalism that she is offered without resorting to the alternatives implicitly offered? How could Molly say No to the particular brand of nationalism that is largely (if not entirely) manufactured by the PAP factory without even buying into the assumption of the importance of having a "nation"?
She can only try to be proud of her own failure, lifting her head high even when she's spat on by representatives of the system who deem Molly the blogger to be lesser beings that those who prostitute their minds to the state and help to generate unquestioning propaganda.
In Singapore, you can win the argument, but the debate trophy will never be yours. LKY will get the laurels while you make do with sending wreaths to your perpetually dying self. (I'm using LKY symbolically here.) It has happened to Chee Soon Juan. It has happened to Chee Siok Chin. It has happened to bloggers and even to the few sensible ST forum writers. No matter how well you present your case, someone or his press secretary, will come out and declare himself the truth-provider, end of story. No point making sense. Why not, like me, be nonsensical?
What can I say about the independence that I'm supposed to be celebrating? I'm free from the British who have never oppressed me. I'm independent of Malaysia which has never kicked me out. But I'm not free from the very people who have supposedly brought me independence. Is there a reason, then, for me to celebrate the independence of Singapore?
Independent Country, Dependent Citizens
The tears Lee Kuan Yew shed on TV 43 years ago are still screened to us today, black and white but way more colorful than what the rest of us could ever hope to show. But the tears Singaporeans might have shed because of what he and his party have done will perhaps always be screened from us.The tears of fear political dissidents suppressed. The tears of unstated emotions that first-day conscripts shed and the grieving tears of the parents of dead NSmen. The desperate tears of the elderly man who has to beg for a job that cannot even sustain his living expenses but is being sold to us as an exemplary citizen who desire to continue working till he dies. The tears of anxiety from a sexual minority who risk their freedom because of an archaic law. (Apparently, we can gain independence from the British, but we should retain their laws selectively.) These are merely the cliches. What about the tears we might have already forgotten how to shed because we've largely forgotten how to feel. These are the true tears of independence. But they can't be shown.
Of course. We are supposed to be self-reliant, not dependent. It's not like we can afford to be a welfare state of anything. We have to be strong.
But.
Aren't we also told that we need the PAP?, that if we did something as irrational as voting for the opposition, we would all suffer because we would then no longer have the great PAP taking care of us?
Aren't the poorest of the poor also dependent on the kindness of the government to provide Workfare and other benefits that no government other than the PAP government would be benevolent enough to give?
Aren't we told that we have to depend on the loss of our basic freedoms for economic progress? Economic progress that comes in the form of high costs of living and the availibility of high standards of living that the majority cannot afford? We are now technically independent and practically reliant on the unique brand of paternalism which we can call papternalism that expects us to to children who take care of ourselves but feel indebted to our Father. If this sounds like nonsense, that's because it is nonsense.
This is an independent nation dependent on lots of undesirable circumstances. And we can't say No. Seditious. Punishable by a fate worse than death. Unless you are a particular 84 year-old mentor who tries to play with people's minds by occasionally talking about re-merging with Malaysia.
But why am I talking about tears and depending on the national-affective, which is precisely the domain to be subject to questioning? Can I ever successfully straddle the sincere and the farcical and relocate the Singapore Spirit via a radical dislocation?
Shine for Singapore
The Singapore Spirit is not a Singaporean Spirit. Perhaps the Singapore Spirit refers to the ethos of pragmatism that is supposed to govern politics, economics and the very existence of Singapore, without which Singapore will supposedly collapse. On the other hand, the Singapore Spirit is perhaps also the Spirit that has people believe in sacrificing the freedom that they have learned to despise. It is the Spirit that has people believing that they are doing themselves good by being oppressed, by jumping down from planes in a parachute for the glorification of the entity that is theirs but not quite theirs.
Except that pragmatism and patriotism don't always go well together. For what happens if it simply isn't pragmatic to be patriotic? What if it's actually more practical for me to leave this country for another than to stay here and be lulled into a state of complacent mediocrity marketed as a mark of excellence because it serves the purposes of the Nation that isn't quite mine?
You have taught me to be practical. But no, you expect me to be astutely practical when you want me to and brainlessly naive when you want me to. I must be practical, but not practical and so leave this nonsense of a nation when I could still be squeezed. It might be practical for me to never have babies, but I'm supposed to believe in what you call love and produce babies so that they, too, can be squeezed, so that they might one day be asked to jump down from a plane for the glory of the Nation that doesn't exist beyond You/Yew.
So how do I respond when I noticed that the theme song 2008 National Day, "Shine for Singapore", has made a breakthrough from the descriptive (e.g. "This is to the imperative. It works like a command, an instruction or at least a seemingly gentle suggestion.
Do it. Shine for Singapore. Why should I? I'm practical. No one is paying for the batteries. This is the Singapore Spirit.
Admittedly, Molly has gotten it all wrong. The Singapore Spirit, officially, speaking, has to rehash officialspeak. In other words, it should reinforce the same old message, warts, paradoxes and all. The Singapore Spirit, we are told, is about having many (that means four) races but having harmony at the same time. Yes, it's unity in diversity. Except that diversity does not mean political diversity. Or sexual diversity. Or any kind of idiosyncracy that is not sanctioned for that matter. In short, it's to have unity in no diversity. That's the Singapore Spirit. May we be the words of the ruling elite.
With no diversity, there is perhaps only one way of shining for Singapore. But I do not quite know what it is. Perhaps it's a metaphorical ritual of self-immolation, a borrowed form of sati. We die to ourselves and shine for Singapore. Let our individuality be subsumed by the fiercely burning Singapore Spirit. We burn at the premature funeral of the nation to which we are married and disengaged, the stillborn of a nation. Shine brightly to compensate for those fallen and forgotten stars of that flag.
May the winds carry our ashes to a better place at least . . .
On Failure
I don't know if there is anyone who is holding his breath for Molly to post her subversive National Day post. It is, after all, almost an obligation to write something about the occasion. A form of participation via rejection. A mode of nationalism that goes against the prescribed mode. A melancholic remembrance of the scar of a nation Singapore is instead of the smug celebratory fever that will never infect those who have become immune to the epidemic of PAP-directed discourse.
Perhaps there are those who await Molly to write something to relief them of the humiliating assault of their citizen senses disguised as celebrations, hoping to find solace in a common auguish. Perhaps there are those disgusted by the banners dividing the nation into PAP districts celebrating the monster that they have created. Tanjong Pagar GRC salutes the nation? Narcissistic masturbation. At our expense.
In this City of Possibilities, is it possible to adopt an alternative to the pre-cooked Singapore Spirit, ready for us to just microwave and consume? (But aren't alternatives pre-decided for us in any case?) But it's not as if anyone, including those who manufacture themes for us to celebrate, still cares about last year's theme. Singapore is modern, it's constantly updating itself.
Yet, how does Molly, the failure of a blogger who can't write as well as she wishes she could, begin to reject the nationalism that she is offered without resorting to the alternatives implicitly offered? How could Molly say No to the particular brand of nationalism that is largely (if not entirely) manufactured by the PAP factory without even buying into the assumption of the importance of having a "nation"?
She can only try to be proud of her own failure, lifting her head high even when she's spat on by representatives of the system who deem Molly the blogger to be lesser beings that those who prostitute their minds to the state and help to generate unquestioning propaganda.
In Singapore, you can win the argument, but the debate trophy will never be yours. LKY will get the laurels while you make do with sending wreaths to your perpetually dying self. (I'm using LKY symbolically here.) It has happened to Chee Soon Juan. It has happened to Chee Siok Chin. It has happened to bloggers and even to the few sensible ST forum writers. No matter how well you present your case, someone or his press secretary, will come out and declare himself the truth-provider, end of story. No point making sense. Why not, like me, be nonsensical?
What can I say about the independence that I'm supposed to be celebrating? I'm free from the British who have never oppressed me. I'm independent of Malaysia which has never kicked me out. But I'm not free from the very people who have supposedly brought me independence. Is there a reason, then, for me to celebrate the independence of Singapore?
Independent Country, Dependent Citizens
The tears Lee Kuan Yew shed on TV 43 years ago are still screened to us today, black and white but way more colorful than what the rest of us could ever hope to show. But the tears Singaporeans might have shed because of what he and his party have done will perhaps always be screened from us.The tears of fear political dissidents suppressed. The tears of unstated emotions that first-day conscripts shed and the grieving tears of the parents of dead NSmen. The desperate tears of the elderly man who has to beg for a job that cannot even sustain his living expenses but is being sold to us as an exemplary citizen who desire to continue working till he dies. The tears of anxiety from a sexual minority who risk their freedom because of an archaic law. (Apparently, we can gain independence from the British, but we should retain their laws selectively.) These are merely the cliches. What about the tears we might have already forgotten how to shed because we've largely forgotten how to feel. These are the true tears of independence. But they can't be shown.
Of course. We are supposed to be self-reliant, not dependent. It's not like we can afford to be a welfare state of anything. We have to be strong.
But.
Aren't we also told that we need the PAP?, that if we did something as irrational as voting for the opposition, we would all suffer because we would then no longer have the great PAP taking care of us?
Aren't the poorest of the poor also dependent on the kindness of the government to provide Workfare and other benefits that no government other than the PAP government would be benevolent enough to give?
Aren't we told that we have to depend on the loss of our basic freedoms for economic progress? Economic progress that comes in the form of high costs of living and the availibility of high standards of living that the majority cannot afford? We are now technically independent and practically reliant on the unique brand of paternalism which we can call papternalism that expects us to to children who take care of ourselves but feel indebted to our Father. If this sounds like nonsense, that's because it is nonsense.
This is an independent nation dependent on lots of undesirable circumstances. And we can't say No. Seditious. Punishable by a fate worse than death. Unless you are a particular 84 year-old mentor who tries to play with people's minds by occasionally talking about re-merging with Malaysia.
But why am I talking about tears and depending on the national-affective, which is precisely the domain to be subject to questioning? Can I ever successfully straddle the sincere and the farcical and relocate the Singapore Spirit via a radical dislocation?
Shine for Singapore
The Singapore Spirit is not a Singaporean Spirit. Perhaps the Singapore Spirit refers to the ethos of pragmatism that is supposed to govern politics, economics and the very existence of Singapore, without which Singapore will supposedly collapse. On the other hand, the Singapore Spirit is perhaps also the Spirit that has people believe in sacrificing the freedom that they have learned to despise. It is the Spirit that has people believing that they are doing themselves good by being oppressed, by jumping down from planes in a parachute for the glorification of the entity that is theirs but not quite theirs.
Except that pragmatism and patriotism don't always go well together. For what happens if it simply isn't pragmatic to be patriotic? What if it's actually more practical for me to leave this country for another than to stay here and be lulled into a state of complacent mediocrity marketed as a mark of excellence because it serves the purposes of the Nation that isn't quite mine?
You have taught me to be practical. But no, you expect me to be astutely practical when you want me to and brainlessly naive when you want me to. I must be practical, but not practical and so leave this nonsense of a nation when I could still be squeezed. It might be practical for me to never have babies, but I'm supposed to believe in what you call love and produce babies so that they, too, can be squeezed, so that they might one day be asked to jump down from a plane for the glory of the Nation that doesn't exist beyond You/Yew.
So how do I respond when I noticed that the theme song 2008 National Day, "Shine for Singapore", has made a breakthrough from the descriptive (e.g. "This is to the imperative. It works like a command, an instruction or at least a seemingly gentle suggestion.
Do it. Shine for Singapore. Why should I? I'm practical. No one is paying for the batteries. This is the Singapore Spirit.
Admittedly, Molly has gotten it all wrong. The Singapore Spirit, officially, speaking, has to rehash officialspeak. In other words, it should reinforce the same old message, warts, paradoxes and all. The Singapore Spirit, we are told, is about having many (that means four) races but having harmony at the same time. Yes, it's unity in diversity. Except that diversity does not mean political diversity. Or sexual diversity. Or any kind of idiosyncracy that is not sanctioned for that matter. In short, it's to have unity in no diversity. That's the Singapore Spirit. May we be the words of the ruling elite.
With no diversity, there is perhaps only one way of shining for Singapore. But I do not quite know what it is. Perhaps it's a metaphorical ritual of self-immolation, a borrowed form of sati. We die to ourselves and shine for Singapore. Let our individuality be subsumed by the fiercely burning Singapore Spirit. We burn at the premature funeral of the nation to which we are married and disengaged, the stillborn of a nation. Shine brightly to compensate for those fallen and forgotten stars of that flag.
May the winds carry our ashes to a better place at least . . .
