Of Language and Walls

Of Language and Walls

Up late; mad rush - 14 minutes later, me, a half-wreck by the roadside.

3 cabs whizzed by, seemingly all recession-proof; arrogantly in no immediate need of requiring fare. Do taxi-uncles determine their day's lot through some opaque, shamanistic ritual, I wondered. Did I looked especially repugnant, or perhaps, redolent of certain mephitic qualities?

Regardless.

I hopped onto the next one that came along, and hastily went, "Simei, uncle." To reiterate, I inflected the words in the exact phonetics required for basic understanding, or so I thought.

Inauspiciously, the uncle (who must be in his 60s?) went, "Huh? I donch no chynese", and smiled at me.

I wasn't feeling particularly forgiving and retorted, with nelly a skip, "That's not chinese, that's SIMEI." The uncle returned with, "Ohhhhh.....Sea-May", and smiled at me.

Observing the innards of his car, I noticed the unmistakable paraphernalia of : a proudly displayed business times, his taxi license with his chinese name on it, a smattering of differentenglish magazines strewn in the back-slots of the front seats, the really-loud-in-your-eardrums-and-soul music from class 95fm, but oddly enough - no english flag.

At my destination, I got off and went, "谢谢你" and smiled at him.

The resulting thoughts that emerged from this little encounter reminded me of something I wrote long ago, in my dead blog. As I struggled to salvage the memory, it dredged up new feelings and perspectives:

Why, should anyone, be proud of their language deficiency?

Long ago, I knew people who would not be caught dead speaking mandarin. It was a base thing to do, to uttercommon-folks' pidgin. Mandarin is for the poor and uneducated, obviously. Elites speak the Queen's English, and anything else is fathoms beneath. Like, how totally uncool is mandarin? Like, who needs to learn other languages, right?

Alas, language: of the written or verbal medium is a living, breathing entity. It is a monstrous thing, a beautiful thing; a divider and a connector. We hang onto the syntax and conjunctions, the commas and the dots. We defend it, we abuse it. It is the simplest, most direct form of inter-human communications, and yet, also oft-misunderstood. The dichotomy, or to be more accurate, the facets of Language draws it's strength and power from the imagination of the people whom it serves; and it is this ultra-intimacy which shapes and controls the boundaries of our experiences.

Cultures give birth to languages, or vice versus; whatever your opinions on this may be. It is the manifestations of the unique circumstances pervading different sectors of humanity. It is the identity and soul of a culture; and the evidence of history.

Singlish! For example. I've long heralded the beauty of our nation's breathing, changing topography of the global tongue. It is an unique amalgamation of our diverse ethnicity; a solace in foreign lands. Where destiny takes you far away, an incidental, "I miss you leh," brings you back home. Why should we suppress this? The majority of Singaporeans know better than to bring Singlish to the tables when doing a job interview. We are well educated enough to be able to discern the gravity of the situation, and we adjust: we're pretty good at it too.

Recently, a Japanese lady was chatting with me, and she went, "Next time when you are free lah, I will bring you to my restaurant for makan, ok?" And we laughed over her brilliant attempt at Singlish.

It is this attempt at using a common code, a common template of the peoples' language around you that binds us together - even foreigners from a distant land; even neighbours from a different race. Just a few simple words and you can break barriers, imagine! How powerful is that?

And just the other day, I was at the coffee-shop, chilling with a couple of colleagues over a cup of teh si peng, when I noticed this old Chinese uncle chatting with this Malay guy in flawless malay. If I had not looked, I would not had been able to tell that they were two gentlemen from different races!

This brought to mind, how my grandma and granddad has absolute mastery over several languages: chinese, malay,teochew, hokkien, hakka, cantonese - and a smattering ofenglish. Two old folks and they could converse with anyone that came along. Our generation now has more to deal with, to be fair: scores of physics notes to consign to rote, calculus formulae flowing off the tongue, who can blame us for not having the time to mix around in the bygone racial melting pot of the early days? And so, I mentioned wistfully to my friends, what will happen when the older generation dies? Will the different races be relegated to just speaking their own tongue in their own groups? The degree of intimacy will be drawn and demarcated, and we will not be able to converse beyond the Queen's English with each other: that is a cultural loss, I feel.

And so, I try my best to learn a little of everything. A "bolehsaya tolong awak, cik?", a "可以帮你吗?", a "Ohisashiburi desune!" can go a long way in making the people around you comfortable and appreciated. The way I see it, english is the bridge that spans continents, but speaking your neighbour's language is the warm hello that will open doors. Let language be a connector, not a divider.

So, how would I best share my experiences with you? Short of you reading my mind, the optimal choice would be for me to say it, or to pen it in words that you might connect with; words which might be emotive or casually, meaningless. Or to put it simply, words that you understand. And what a beautiful world it would be, when all barriers are transcended: language, cultural, religious, moral - just because the world is willing to try to understand each other.

And thus, I am proud to be a pretty fluent bilingual, with a limited (but to useful words!) vocabulary of the Japanese and Malay language. We should not be proud in resigning ourselves to a singular form of expression when the world around us is so diverse! We do not have to become a professor in the language, but what harm would learning some new words do to us? What harm can the ability to converse intimately to the people around us do?

So if we meet, why not bridge the gap atad, and let us converse in mandarin? (If you can help it)

PS: This is not to say that english cannot be intimate; it is afterall, the people involved in the communication that is most important. Language is a living tool, and we must use it to the best degree possible.

for beauty and fury

For Beauty and Fury

Pondering upon the AWARE saga with a calmer faculty of mind, I have reorganised my thoughts into the following:

1) A monotheistic ex-co with strong conservative proclivities does not foster an image of diversity and inclusion, moreso for this secular entity that they now have the task of steering. A policy of inclusion will see the ex-co governed by strong ladies of various faith, denominations, niche and orientation.

2) The propagation of the ex-co's vision can be achieved through the formation of another entity, separate from AWARE. This is a simple enough concept, but obviously the effect would not have been the same. In creating their own NGO, they would had been free to explore whatever agendas they deem fit. The ousting of the Old Guard due to it's "wayward" and overly "diversified" interests (homosexual issues or not) sends the signal that everything the old guard hadstrived for is erroneous and has to be corrected.

3) If a homosexual woman seeks help from AWARE, what would be her recourse? Will she find acceptance or rehabilitation? If a lady, for whatever compelling reason, seeks counselling for abortion, will she be given an impartial view of the issue? Will the ex-co revise the sexual education being meted out, to exclude contraceptives, condoms and safer sex, and instead preach their message of abstinence?

4) The ex-co claims not to know each other, despite a vast majority coming from the same church, and evidently, the same feminist mentor. Why do we, as a people, continue to delude ourselves or pretend not to notice the glaring simplicity of this connection? With all threads leading back to the same spool, how can we ignore the obvious?

5) The Old Guard is equally to blame for this fiasco. For their complacency in the elections which led to this debacle, and for not straddling the fine line of inclusion well enough. Their overt tones of homosexuality cannot possibly sit well with alot of parents. If the Old Guard is about inclusion, then the views of the dissenting parents must be included as well.

6) We must continue to support the right of individuals: ladies or gentlemen, queer or straight. Regardless of religion, creed and race. This is the least we can do, to not descend into the ex-co's level.

I then asked myself, how does the AWARE issue concern me?

And my answer is that:

1) I do not like the Thio family. Blunt, but true. Their family has inclinations of anti-gay rhetorics however they sugar-coat or embellish their justifications. Their speeches in parliment, letters, overtures and deeds all reeks of propaganda. So let us not delude ourself further when we see these names being associated with this whole saga; let us not pretend that we do not know just what it is they peddle beneath their skirts.

2) I do not like christians (most of them). Over the course of my life, they have proven again and again to be highly self-righteous, ready to judge others based on the words of a book selectively printed by the policies of a human-governed organisation.

I believe in Absolutes. Love, Choice and Death are Absolutes. Do no harm unto Others, is an Absolute. Anything else; be it rituals, customs, stories or ancedotes are man-made, man-tainted. All of the above are coloured prisms through which the infinite light of the Absolutes shine through. Down the vast vista of history, man and religions endeavour to channel and prim the light of these Absolutes into messages that can be utilised for their own ends, for the harvesting of weaker minds:

I will not settle for anything lesser than the pure light of the Absolutes.

And thus, the message that this new ex-co brings, is just another layer of scum and grim attempting to control the Absolutes.

That is not acceptable to me, and should not be acceptable to you.

3) We have to fight Domionism, wherever it may rear it's ugly head.

And then I asked myself, why should you be concerned?

1) Because apathy rots our soul.

2) Because the signal that the New Guard is sending, is that the Old Guard's overtly homosexual inclusivity is erroneous and has to be stopped and brought back to it's roots. They have stated so, in crystal clear language.

This directly interdicts our freedom as well:

The taking of one is but a step that will begin a thousand miles.

of righteous Indignation

Of Righteous Indignation

I was taking a fence-sitter stance on the recent AWARE episode, preferring to defer opinions until concrete statements were made, with regard to the new guard's agendas. This is the measured and considered reticence of one who is willing to give them the benefit of a doubt.

This morning's paper galvanised my thoughts and feelings into this sublime state of simmering indignation; a sentiment which is now being echoed amongst the friends whom I had laid this news upon.

Whilst the broad-minded urges objectivity and, perhaps, a certain sense of the broader spectrum of the world beyond our own, one cannot help but envision the demarcations being drawn into the sands. How can this not devolve into a standoff between a certain religion and homosexuality is beyond me.

Retrospectively: is the media to blame for polarizing this issue? I cannot help but sense a certain smack of sensationalism in this, and although AWARE is NOT a primarily gay establishment, the points raised by the new guard (or selectively highlighted by the press) seems to be making homosexual issues a cornerstone of their agendas.

Churches peddling gay rehabilitation programs are a nuisance but generally tolerated as they operated within an esoteric ideal. Secular programs should largely, remain secular or they risk ostracising the very diversity they seek to include. At this,AWARE's old guard has much to be blamed as well, but that is largely water under the bridge.

While I have to take the whole broad context of the fiasco into consideration, the issue I am most concerned with is the signal that homosexual family units are considered an aberration of the term "Family". A progressive society continually reinvents itself, seeking to discard archaic dogmas.

Approaching the word "Family" semantically reveals :

fam·i·ly (fm-l, fml)

n. pl. fam·i·lies

1.

a. A fundamental social group in society typically consisting of one or two parents and their children.

b. Two or more people who share goals and values, have long-term commitments to one another, and reside usually in the same dwelling place.

If two gay men or women forms a unit of love and trust, is that not preferable to the free-loving going around? If monogamy and stability is the preferred status, who is anyone to deny them that? Religions are coloured spectacles of dogma, tainted world-views of bygone people. The only absolute that exists is in Love and Choice. No one has the right to take that away, no matter the justifications.

Likewise, I believe the coup of AWARE serves a largely symbolic purpose; it is fairly easy enough for these ladies to form their own NGO serving the "pro-family", religious fundamentalist stance. In the taking of AWARE, they are sending the clear, unequivocal message that the "wrong" has to be "right-ed", and that their justifications is soundly based in the moral fabric of the larger socio-environment.

The question then is this:

How should Singaporeans respond to this?

PS: Typed in a flurry, and posted without editing, will add in more later when I'm off work.

Turquoise

Turqoise

Seventy two minutes into tomorrow,

Quiet comes to me,

He takes apart my vastness, 

and He beckons, languidly - 

He bids me, dreams of colours:

of Spectrums long and deep.

In words of hue and fancy - alas,

'Tis language I do not speak,

He undo, consumed yearnings:

of patience, unrelenting:

He tells me future stories,

of Patterns disintergrating -

He shows me, maudlin memories:

Refurnished in my own terms.

The place within - Disarranged,

by proxy reaffirms,

That in Silence,

ever grateful Silence,

we find a greater Deed -

that henceforth seeds the verdant,

with auspicious treachery;

We fear the noble nothingness,

by Quiet it be done,

in ones and twos we come apart,

for All things do not last -

So Quiet bids me farewell,

He takes the scenic route -

nothing marks His passing,

nor sand nor rock nor bones, 

and pencilled words along the margin,

like softly-telling prayers; (my voices?)

passing weaves and drying eyes,

crumbling cities, 

Quiescent colours -

and apart, together -

there and now:

Colours swim in noiseless fashion,

a single word retrieved, 

do make of me,

a bright and somber

turquoise.