Singapore's benevolent egg

Guys guys guys, allow me to share a little something, just to get it off my chest. I tried speaking to my family about how I felt about the Rohingya refugee situation and also how Singapore turned away Vietnamese boat people back in the late 1970s despite the fact that many of these vessels were on the verge of sinking. I got two very different reactions from my sister and my mother. My sister pretty much agrees with me and my stance with regards to treating refugees with compassion - my mother on the other hand, totally disagreed with me. I got into quite an argument with her and she just said, "You'd better speak to your sister" and handed the phone over to my sister.

I was on skype when I argued with my mother and this picture really captured the mood...

It's not that I want to upset my mother but she is so terribly misinformed about so many things when it comes to refugees. Here are the main mistakes she made:

Mum: If you let in even one refugee, then all refugees from all over the world will show up at your doorstep.

False: There are many countries who do welcome refugees, places like Sweden, Norway, Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, Canada, New Zealand etc are all very friendly towards refugees and all of these countries offer refugees a safe haven and a chance to start a new life in a safe first world country. Why don't all refugees just go directly to these refugee-friendly countries and avoid those like Singapore who are obviously not welcoming refugees then? The simple explanation is that when you are fleeing genocide or war, you just run and go wherever you can get to, it's not the same as economic migrants shopping around for a nice place to work. Even if it means simply allowing desperate refugees temporary shelter whilst waiting for transit to a third country willing to take refugees, that means simply offering them shelter for a few weeks or months - is that too much to ask?

Do you think these people are shopping around for the best place to go?

Mum: Other countries have also closed their doors to refugees, so it must be okay for Singapore to do the same thing.

False: Not all countries have closed their doors to refugees, some have, some haven't. Two wrongs don't make a right. Sure, some countries in the world have been heartless and cruel - this doesn't in any justify Singapore behaving in the same way. Where is your humanity? Do you have morals or a conscience?

Mum: Singapore is already full, we have no space for more migrants today.

False: Oh dear, didn't you get the memo from Mah Bow Tan, minister for national development? Singapore still needs more people, the PAP wants 6.5 million people and right now, there is still a shortfall of 1.3 million. These 40 refugees could help contribute to that shortfall of 1.3 million. In any case, the same argument was used back in 1975 when Singapore started turning away Vietnamese boat people and the population was only 2.25 million back then. Was Singapore full at 2.25 million then? Blimey, if that was the case, how could we possibly grow the population to 6.5 million? Listen to Mah Bow Tan, he said 6.5 million Singapore is far from full.

Didn't you get Mah Bow Tan's memo about the 6.5 million figure?

Mum: Rohingyas are illiterate, uneducated, unskilled - what can they do in Singapore? They will be a burden on us - do we have to feed them? House them? Give them medical treatment? Education? Pay for everything?

False: Malaysia has been quietly taking in Rohingya refugees over the years - they are issued with a special refugee status pass which allows them to work. They may not end up working as doctors and lawyers - but Rohingyas in Malaysia are hardworking folk who take many of the jobs that the local Malaysians don't want, often associated with manual labour, the construction industry, working under the hot sun as gardeners etc. The Malaysians are quite happy to have the Rohingyas there because they don't cause any trouble, they work very hard and are grateful to the Malaysian authorities for showing them mercy. They may not be rich, but because they work so hard and are so frugal, most are economically self-sufficient and not dependent on the Malaysian state.

Malaysia has kept quite quiet about this as they don't want a diplomatic row between the Malaysian and Myanmar government - Malaysia just wants to help these refugees and let the UN deal with Myanmar (through economic sanctions, UN diplomatic missions, UNHCR etc if necessary). I totally admire and salute Malaysia's stance on the issue - they put Singapore to shame.

Mum: If we take in these refugees, we'll all have to pay more taxes.

False: Not necessarily so. The number of refugees are small and the government in Singapore is very rich. Singapore is the third richest country in the world - there are countries far poorer than Singapore who have taken in many refugees simply because the alternative is just unthinkable. Those government manage to find money, squeeze budgets and appeal to the basic humanity of the people to help these refugees - all that is possible because there is this basic kindness, compassion and humanity amongst the people to want to help the refugees. If you have money to pay the PAP ministers such ridiculously high salaries, then you can ask them to sacrifice even just 1% of their pay to help these refugees. We're not asking poor Singaporeans to contribute - we're asking the richest of the rich to help the refugees. The government can afford to help - but are they willing to help? No.

Who should bear the burden of refugees? 

Mum: You can't blame ordinary Singaporeans like me for what happened to the Vietnamese boat people or the Rohingya refugees, it's nothing to do with me.

False: Such is the nature of politics - in more liberal countries, such an act would appeal to the voters because the population would want the government to help the refugees. But in Singapore, the general population is so selfish they would rather see their government say NO to these refugees. Politicians will act in a way which will gain them the greatest support - so in a way, the heartlessness and cruelty of the Singaporean voters are directly responsible for the PAP's stance on the issue of refugees. If Singaporeans would deny a PAP a vote on the basis of their cruelty towards these refugees (Rohingyas, Vietnamese boat people alike) - then you can change their stance on the issue. Voters do have the power to affect the way politicians act.

Mum: You don't understand the issue, it is very complex - but the PAP are experts and know what they are doing.

Do you trust this lot? Are they experts?

False: Nope, the PAP are a bunch of liars and most Singaporeans are too gullible and stupid to question the lies they are fed by the PAP. And guess what? The PAP know just how gullible and stupid people like you are - that's why they get away with lying to you without even trying to bother with the simple issue of credibility because you're going to vote PAP no matter what. I'm not saying the PAP are stupid, they are very smart and capable indeed, I'm simply saying they're not honest and honesty has nothing to do with intelligence.

Anyway, there was just no way I could persuade my mother that her views were wrong - thank goodness I have a wonderful, intelligent, reasonable and rational sister who is willing and able to act as the peacemaker. She said, "leave it with me, I will deal with mum. I will explain it to her." I am so lucky to have such a wonderful sister I swear, I remember the number of times she has acted as mediator and peacemaker between me and my parents. My sister totally understands all the issues as discussed above and raised many valid and interesting points. However, we both realized the reason between my mother's mindset - she has worked all her life as a primary school teacher and even if she is retired now, she cannot get out of that primary school teacher mindset. Have a look at the diagram I drew below:

It was her responsibility to educate young students who came to her at the primary school, teaching them about this multi-layered egg as illustrated in the diagram above. The students had to obey and respect their parents as the family was the basic unit of society. In school, they had to follow the rules, listen to their teachers as school was a good place for learning. They also had to respect their community leaders as well as democratically elected politicians who ran the country; and above all, they had to obey their god(s) who oversaw the entire egg. It is a simple model that depends on the student accepting that every layer is benevolent - rather than malevolent. If the students accept this order of this egg, then they will obey their parents and teachers to begin with - which is what my mother wants as a teacher. Imagine if she said to her class, "I want you all to complete this homework by tomorrow morning, I expect them on my desk first thing in the morning." She wants them to say, "Yes teacher," rather than challenge her.

If you start telling the student, "your parents are only human, they make silly mistakes. Don't trust their judgement. As for your teachers, some of them are terrible teachers, I hope you meet only good teachers and avoid the awful ones. As for your politicians, oooh dare I say the word Palmergate? Where do I begin?" The young student will start distrusting authority and that is not want my mother wants as a teacher - she's too Singaporean to put up with a student who challenges her authority. So instead, she spends 40 years convincing these students that every layer of this egg is benevolent - to the point where she has effectively brainwashed herself after four decades. Quite easily done, over a period of 40 years!

My mother worked for 4 decades as a primary school teacher in Singapore.

Hence for me to tell her that the PAP was responsible for the cold blooded murder of thousands of Vietnamese refugees, I am smashing her egg apart. I am challenging the framework she has used for the last 40 years and shaking it violently - telling her that one of those layers is in fact malevolent and capable of cold blooded mass murder. How does she react? Does she engage me intellectually? No, she goes into shut down mode - like a tortoise which retracts its head into its shell and says, "I think you'd better talk to your sister".

Am I frustrated? Of course I am. Am I surprised, should I be surprised? Actually, no. Not at all, I think I know my mother well enough to have anticipated her response, really. Frankly, I know that so many Singaporeans believe so strongly in the benevolent egg. My sister said, "Come on lah, so many awful things happen in the real world, in Singapore. Just open your eyes and look around you, there are bad things done by bad people all around you. Benevolent world? Benevolent Singapore? Really?"

I guess there's an element of preaching to the converted when I talk to my dear sister. I know she and I are often on the same wavelength. But I'm wondering if it's really possible at all to try to challenge people like my mother and get her to see sense - or if it is lost cause. I suspect it is the latter but I'd like to know what you think my dear readers. Please leave a comment, many thanks.