Will there ever be another Amos Yee?

Hi there, one argument that has circulated in social media is that even if it did feel like squashing a fly with a sledgehammer, it was necessary to punish Amos Yee harshly to ensure that there will never be another Amos Yee ever again in Singapore. There has even been a rather well written blog post about it here. Thus there's a sense of anger that if Amos Yee was granted political asylum in the US, not only would that tantamount to him 'getting away with it', it would encourage others to follow suit. I'm going to tackle this topic because I feel it is barking up the wrong tree.

Will anyone be willing to take his place?

Why hasn't there been others before Amos?

Little has changed in Singapore - I remember my childhood in Singapore, growing up in the 1980s and 1990s, there was plenty for people to be unhappy about and protest about. Teenagers were rebellious and angry then too, why did it take so many years till 2016 for someone like Amos Yee to come along? To broaden the scope a little, there have been others like Ng Hui Hui and Roy Ngerng in the past of course (we've not heard much from them of late, have we?), yet I suppose Amos Yee took us all by surprise because he was only a teenager - a mere 16 years old when he first got into big trouble with his LKY video. Have Han Hui Hui or Roy Ngerng succeeded in changing anything? Whilst I admire their guts in taking on the system, they seem to have only succeeded in getting themselves into big trouble - indeed, Roy Ngerng lost his job because of his involved in politics. That's a high price to pay and that's a good reason why many don't dare to speak up - Amos was 16, he wasn't in full time education, he had yet to commence NS, he didn't have a full time job either - that's why he had nothing to lose by getting into trouble.

The nature of opposition politics in Singapore

In Singapore, we're used to a certain kind of opposition politics - if I may be blunt, the kind that is polite but inefficient and doesn't really ever challenge the PAP and hence is tolerated by the government because it doesn't ever really change the status quo. Amos Yee has broken the mould in demonstrating a new level of boldness that the opposition parties would never dare to employ and that's perhaps one of the few redeeming features of Amos Yee - that he speaks his mind in a way many Singaporeans never dare to. My reader Raymond Chia summarizes the situation up pretty well in his description of Roy Ngerng and how dysfunctional these characters can be at times, "At one point I think he even believed the opposition parties would be queuing up to invite him to run for election. I read one of his blog posts in which he largely ignored other opposition contributions, but instead waxed lyrical about himself, as though he alone did more than any of them." Now that Amos Yee is gone (probably for good), it'll be business as usual for the opposition parties in Singapore. He failed to change the way the game is played in Singapore and in choosing to leave, he has effectively given up trying which is actually a shame as things will just revert back to the status quo.

Many have found Amos Yee's courage to speak up quite refreshing

The concept of 'opportunity cost'. 

Amos Yee was a young man in despair at the whole system in Singapore - he was so disillusioned with society that he chose not to pursue further education after having completed his 'O' levels. He was convinced that he had nothing to lose by offending a large number of Singaporeans at a time when they were mourning the passing of LKY - now most Singaporean teenagers would feel that they have plenty at stake, plenty to live for. Perhaps they have plans to pursue further education or train for a career and do not want to do anything foolish that make jeopardize their future in Singapore by getting a criminal record or even simply the stigma of being a social pariah. How many Singaporean teens are in such a miserable position of despair, when they feel like they have absolutely nothing to lose by getting into big trouble like that? Hardly any - they have something to live for and hence the opportunity cost for them is too great, so they choose to censor themselves. There is just too much for them to lose, their future is at stake.

And even if there are... they are not Amos Yee.

Let's acknowledge the fact that Amos Yee is both intelligent and articulate. No doubt about that. Have you seen the quality of the kind of conversations that take place on the forums? It is dire - these people can barely string together a sentence in English and they are not witty, not articulate, not funny, in fact it is downright painful reading the kind of crap these stupid idiots come up with. They are totally incapable of coming up with a cogent argument the way Amos Yee can. I know what you're going to say - there are plenty of brilliant straight-A students in the top schools in Singapore who can match Amos Yee in any debate and you're right, there are. But these ambitious students are future scholars on their way to a bright future, they do not experience the despair that Amos Yee did. Amos Yee is unique because most teenagers who are intelligent and eloquent do not feel a sense of despair about their circumstances; those who are stupid and inarticulate probably do experience such despair but they simply do not know how to express themselves in a way that can gather an audience. Indeed, not many teenagers can do what Amos Yee did.

You can say what you want online but who's going to listen to you?

There are other smaller ways for teenagers to rebel. 

Amos Yee directed his anger at the establishment, at authority, at the government. He was biting off way more than he could chew - whatever made him think that he could, as an individual, as a teenager, could take on the might of the Singaporean government from his bedroom and win? No, he didn't pick his battles and was destined to fail from the start. Even if a teenager is feeling rebellious, well he might choose to pick a battle that is somewhat smaller, that is a bit more clearly defined and has a clearly defined end goal. When you have such a goal, it's easy to say, "okay I've got what I wanted, great - I've succeeded" and declare the end of hostilities. What was Amos Yee expecting - what was his end goal? Was he expecting to start a revolution in Singapore? No, he didn't have one. Let me run through a few real life case studies of rebellious teenagers whom I had come across over the years and show you how they had managed to rebel in some way against something which angered them. Obviously, I am not going to use anyone's real names in order to protect their identities but I am using their stories to illustrate a point.

Case study one: 'Mustafa'

Mustafa was an angry teenager in Serangoon and wanted to rebel against his religious parents whom he did not get along with at all. One year, when he was 16, after having gotten into a lot of arguments with his parents that year, he declared he refused to fast because he didn't see the point of it. He didn't go as far as to declare that he didn't want to be a Muslim anymore, but he knew that in refusing to fast with the rest of his family during Puasa/Ramadan, he would anger his parents and get the reaction he wanted. His parents did all they could to punish him and go as far as to refuse to give him any money for food - but Mustafa would lie that his non-Muslim friends have been feeding him bacon sandwiches when he was at school. Eventually, Mustafa's parents gave up on him in a "do what you want, see if we care, just don't tell the relatives that you're not fasting and eating bacon sandwiches." Mustafa felt that he had reached his end goal - ie. to defy his parents by refusing to fast that year and he decided that he had 'won' that match.

What is the point of a rebellion then?

Cast study two: 'Jennifer' 

Jennifer in Clementi like Mustafa was a 16 year old who didn't get along with her parents at all. They were paranoid about her having a boyfriend and that it would become a distraction for her when she really should be focused on her studies. They refused to her let stay overnight at her best friend's birthday party, she decided to pretend that she had a boyfriend called Michael and in her mind, Michael would be the perfect boyfriend: considerate, good looking, a good listener, generous and adventurous. She then broke it to her parents that she is good friends with this guy called Michael and somehow, she had been meeting up with him in secret and she is sick of hiding the truth from her parents. Her parents freaked out of course and she got the reaction she wanted - they demanded that she stopped seeing this Michael. She cried a lot and then agreed to stop seeing her imaginary boyfriend. But every time they got into an argument in the future, she would use 'Michael' as the bargaining chip. "You won't give me money to get tickets for this K-pop concert? Never mind, I'll ask Michael - I'm sure he won't hesitate to take me." In fooling her parents that 'Michael' existed, Jennifer felt she achieved her end goal and had 'won' that match.

Case study three: 'Ben'

Ben in Bishan has slightly different from the previous two - he was also 16 when this happened: his father was concerned about the amount of time Ben was spending on his computer games so he decided to go make Ben go cold turkey. One day when Ben came home from school, his Xbox was gone - his father had taken it to his office and said Ben could have it back after his exams if his results were good enough. Ben refused to give in to blackmail like that. If addiction was the issue, he would have his revenge. Ben's father was an ex-smoker and his mother forced his father to give up smoking after her father died of lung cancer. Ben started sneaking smoking paraphernalia into the house (cigarette butts in the bin, lighters, empty cigarette packets) and one took his father's shirts out of the laundry basket and infused it with cigarette smoke at his friend's house (his friend's older brother smoked) - it was enough to make his mother suspect that her father was smoking again behind her back and it resulted in them having a huge argument. Once his parents had that big quarrel, Ben felt that he had evened the score, achieved his end goal and at least 'tied' that match - so each his father raised the issue of computer games, Ben raised the issue of his father's smoking.

Ben's father is an ex-smoker

Case study four: Mei 

Mei in Marine Parade had very traditional parents who often drove her nuts - the generation gap was huge and they were paranoid about everything in Mei's life. It often frustrated Mei that her parents made little effort to try to understand the world she lives in and usually just default to their own views of the world from another era. Mei felt she needed to do something drastic to disrupt their lives to make them pay attention, yet she wasn't the confrontational type. So Mei declared that she was a vegan and could no longer eat the same foods her parents ate, out of a matter of principle. She did it just to force her parents to ask her questions like, "you've been eating meat all your life, why the sudden change of heart now?" Mei had been desperate to get her parents' attention, to try to get them to take interest in her view of the world - now she had a reason turn the tables as she preached to them the virtues of going vegan. She had taken control and made a major decision in her life without her parents' approval. In forcing them to engage her over her new dietary habits, Mei felt that she had achieved her end goal and 'won' that match.

In all four cases, these teenagers were smart enough to realize that they had to set a realistic end goal for themselves in order to have some kind of exit strategy where they could declare themselves victorious. They didn't bite off more than they could chew - they planned their rebellion carefully and were realistic about what they could achieve in challenging the figures of authorities in their lives. Perhaps I am stating the obvious, but a logical person would never set himself up to fail and be quite satisfied after having achieved a realistic goal. For all his intellect, Amos Yee seems to have failed on this aspect for he has certainly set himself up to fail - unless getting political asylum in America was his ultimate goal, what else has he achieved apart from inflicting a lot of suffering on himself and indeed his parents?

Do you have an end goal? Do you have a plan?

Not every angry person wants a revolution. 

The four case studies illustrated how frustrated teenagers just need to do something to feel more in control over their situations. Amos Yee was so hungry for a fight and went out looking for one - well, not everyone shares that desire for a fight. I certainly wasn't happy with the way things were in Singapore, but I didn't see the point in trying to change things in Singapore. No, I simply planned to leave Singapore quietly, first by getting a scholarship to do do my undergraduate studies in the UK and then I got a job upon graduation, eventually taking British citizenship. What I did was far easier than trying to change Singapore - it was just so much easier moving to another country where I would be so much happier. Indeed, many who are unhappy with the way things are in Singapore would have seen what happened to Amos Yee and thought, what's the point of complaining? Do I want to end up in trouble?  I'm better off doing my research into how I can become a highly skilled migrant and seek greener pastures abroad. 

Personally, I certainly hope we'll never see another Amos Yee for the simple reason that I think it is a waste of everyone's time and energy to persecute an angry teenager. He was a one-off. What do you think? Will we see another Amos Yee-like angry teenager emerging in Singapore? Leave a comment below, many thanks for reading.