The middle finger.
Some call it the one finger salute. Others call it the bird, the sleazy flip or
the rigid digit.
The
truth is, it is the symbol of the (male) phallus with the index finger and the
ring finger acting as the bulbous testicles. It is insulting, and provokes.
(But
at times, at the right place and people, it can rally rebellious hearts against
the establishment or injustice).
Across
all cultures since Ancient Greece, the middle finger is a sign of contempt,
rudeness and obscenity. It denotes sexual intercourse, and showing the finger
is equivalent to telling the person who crossed you to go "sexually"
off.
Socrates
deemed the gesture as boorish and childish. At its worst, it is a gesture of
extreme vulgarity. At the least, it is a sign of disrespect.
And
this brings me to the Henry Park Primary schoolboy who recently did the
socially and culturally unpardonable on our nation's 52th birthday.
Thanks
to the unsuspecting camera sweep in the closing minutes of the NDP on
Wednesday, his infamous finger has become infinitely famous.
For
that split second, the boy coolly raised the middle finger, and he did it with
his left hand slightly slanted. Since then, the media has gone bananas over it,
with one of my friends, who is 40 plus, exclaiming with ironic sarcasm that
when he grows up, he wants to be like the boy!
I
guess my friend is the exception to the many decent and cultured Singaporean
parents who are utterly shocked by the boy's show of nonchalant defiance.
And
let it be said that had it been any other situations, the boy would have gotten
away with it.
If
he had done it to his classmates in the school's playground, he would have been
reprimanded and unforgotten. If he had done it at home to his annoying younger
siblings, he would have been reprimanded and forgotten.
And
if he had done it to passing strangers with his tongue stuck out, yes, he would
have been reprimanded and forgotten.
But
no, he did it on national tv, on National Day, when everybody was belting out
trite patriotic songs with hearts and voices joined as one, raising hands,
flags and NDP packs, the boy had to sneakily raise his dastardly middle finger
in overstated mischief.
His
meh moment of cavalierly dissing the purity of the celebrative spirit utterly
shattered the exuberant festivity and mood of the parade in a night that was
supposed to function with impeccable timing and clockwork perfection.
Hundreds
of thousands of Singaporeans, including foreign talents, who were glued to
their tv set could not believe their eyes. Of course, the boy had to be
disciplined for he had sullied the sacredness of the moment.
And
discipline was swiftly meted out by the school. Henry Park Principal Chia Soo
Keng told Straits Times: "The student regrets his action and is deeply
apologetic. The school and his parents have counselled him, and will ensure he
learns from this incident."
We
should therefore move on, right?
Lesson?
Just one. I guess we all have our gaffe moments, our blunders.
The
middle finger has been used even by Presidents including Ronald Reagan and
George W Bush at provocative and mildly provocative events.
Movie
and music stars have used it against annoying paparazzi. Sports stars have used
it against the boos of opposing crowd.
And
even Ho Ching had used it vicariously (with the help of a young Japanese
Macaque) by mistake when she said she was experimenting with Twitter buttons,
and had duly apologised for the embarrassment.
Incidentally,
it came about the same time as when her husband was being called "the
dishonourable son" by his sister via email exchanges last year.
So,
it is tempting to ask, "What were they thinking when they employed that
middle finger or commit a gaffe/blunder/lapse of good judgment?"
What
was the Henry Park student thinking? What was Josephine Teo thinking when she
said that you don't need much space to have sex? Or what was Palmer, David and
Shin Leong thinking when they had extramarital affairs - with two of them
involved with married women?
And
what about Chan Chun Seng? What was he thinking when he addressed the Speaker
of the House Halimah as "Madam President" in Parliament earlier this
year? The first time Halimah heard it, she let it slip. But Chan addressed her
for the second time.
Halimah
said that she approached him after that and was told that it was unintended, a
slip, and she had accepted it. Well, I guess lightning can strike twice at the
same spot.
Panning
out for a panoramic view, what are we thinking most of the time? If given a
chance to speak our mind (with impunity), to do a catharsis of sorts, or to
vent the pent-up frustration, what would we say and do to the target of our
angst and exasperation?
Sometimes
I wonder, and to put it bluntly, do we have a "middle-finger" mind-set
but a clasped-hand appearance?
Do
we show our best side in public and hide the malicious, disgraceful and
contemptuous side in private?
If
we can look into our collective mind with a cerebroscope like what Prof Charles
Xavier could do in X-men movies, what would we uncover about the secret lives
of clergymen, politicians and ordinary folks?
Alas,
the closest thing we have to a cerebroscope is Google Trend where we get to see
what a sample netizen population are searching on the net, and the words that
comes up often are largely pornographic in nature. Sex is largely in the
people's mind.
And
if you type in "we're sorry", there is not enough search volume to
show up a trend. It is also discovered that when the netizens type "my
husband wants..." in India, the number 1 search is: "my husband wants
me to breast feed him." Go figure.
So,
at the end of the day, we are indeed more than meet the eye (or mind). Like the
movie Inception, we are made more complicated by layers after layers of conscious and
subconscious desires, fascinations and obsessions that we would never allow
them to surface to see the light of day. It would cramp our style - so to
speak.
And while the primary school boy may have done what he
did out of childish bravado or some mindless prank without fully appreciating
the gravity of his act, we adults are more complicated, nuanced, and at times,
even insidious with our private motives and thought-life. Cheerz.
No comments:
Post a Comment