Honestly, what are we supposed to do with a critic like Alfian Sa’at? In his no-holds-barred vent as a poet, prone to use intemperate, if not antagonistic, language to make a point, however blunt, is he for or against Singapore?
During a visit to Yishun Link, Law Minister Shanmugam said: “(Mr Alfian) would like Singapore to merge with Malaysia...he dislikes Mr Lee Kuan Yew intensely and loves Dr Mahathir.”
He added: “He takes Malaysia’s side when the Malaysian government’s vessels are in Singapore waters and in a very tense stand-off on territorial issues as well as air issues...and says Singaporean’s are jingoistic...This is a free country, he’s entitled to his views and I think most Singaporeans know him for what he is.”
Well, if there are illuminary sons of Singapore that we know of, then would Alfian be classified as her prodigal son? That is, one who has benefited from the country’s system, being a Rafflesian, attended NUS medical studies but did not graduate, and having received numerous accolades for his plays, poetry and short stories, yet, having strong, at times, jarringly discordant, views of the way Singapore manages her local and foreign affairs.
Is he then a petulant son craving for attention, or a patriotic son holding very strong views, or both?
I know, as Pritam puts it, he is an imperfect soul, maybe as imperfect as Pritam and Dr Tan, maybe more or less, but what does Pritam mean by that?
Is he saying that however imperfect, Alfian has nevertheless matured over the years? At 43, is he saying that Alfian at heart loves Singapore, the country of his birth and the crucible of his struggles, of his growth and of his hope?
Pritam said that the term “loving critic” was first coined by Professor Tommy Koh. So, what does Prof Koh mean by that then? The last I checked, he wrote an article just last week entitled “Are art workers non-essential?”
In the article, he did not use the term “loving critic” but he did say that amongst the literary works of Singapore (eg. Kuo Pao Kun’s play, Stella Kon’s Emily of Emerald Hill and Tan Tarn How’s The Lady of Soul and Her Ultimate “S” Machine) Alfian’s Cooling Off Day is one of Singapore’s most important plays.
So, what does being “loving critic” mean?
Alas, here is what Alfian himself has to say. Go read his FB, cos ST did not entirely flesh it out. Is he really pro-Malaysia? And when the rubber meets the road, will the Alfian Sa’at we know switch sides?
From what I gather, on Malaysia’s entry into Singapore waters, his jingoism comment was a poet’s way of pleading with our Govt to try to exhaust all peaceful means to resolve the issues rather than to risk being seen as adopting a Sabre-rattling stance. To Alfian, at such sensitive times, the sound of sharpening one’s sword might just provoke an escalation of agression.
In his defence, he said he was not mocking Singaporeans but was expressing “(dovish) anxiety over military escalation.”
How about his praises for Mahathir and his intense dislike for LKY?
What about that?
This is his defence.
“So drawn to Dr Mahathir...that irresistible charisma...that shark’s instinct for his opponents’ soft underbelly...that caustic wit...that cunning slip into an earthly Kedah accent and that commoner’s slouch when he gets all folksy...where LKY gets all huffy and karate-chops the air to make his points, all Dr M needs to do is lean back, twiddle his thumb, and flash that tiger smile. Help...”
Alfian said that he was referring to Mahathir as a “Machiavellian politician”. He is thus admiring the way he played politics, coolly reaping the most advantage from the least of efforts, while LKY had to resort to intensely deliberate and overly wrought actions.
But, he’s no Mahathir lover. In another article, he commented: “I’m upset to hear that Dr Mahathir stated that the Chinese have rejected the “Malay hand of friendship”. Don’t say that people have rejected your “hand of friendship” when you have no idea what friendship even means. Friendship doesn’t mean, “we can get along, as long as you accept my superiority.””
Alfian was basically saying that the grand old Tun was being hypocritical. In other words, it was an overdose of Machiavellian bravado, minus the “shark instinct” subtlety.
So, in view of the above, I’d say that, more context on the pretext somehow clarifies the subtext?
Lastly, does the prodigal son of Singapore really love, well, Singapore?
Mm...on this, he was said to have expressed his preference for Malaysia (over Singapore) after its historic victory in May 2018 (To be honest, I too wrote a post to praise the people of Malaysia for their courage, passion and love for country).
So, what does the petulant child of Singapore has to say then?
Alfian wrote: “there is nothing (in his statement) that I wished Singapore can be more like Malaysia.” He said it was a mischievous thing to say. He added: “Readers might assume, without context, that I am wishing for all the “bad things” they associate with Malaysia - Malay supremacy, semi-theocracy, corruption etc. But I am actually only implying that Singapore should review some of its more repressive laws.”
(Well, here, I can think of Chia Thye Poh, Singapore’s longest political prisoner - 23 years of detention without trial and 9 years of house arrest in Sentosa; longer than the late Madiba. A life which sadly went quietly into the night just to keep paranoia at bay, and one’s pillow soft).
For completeness, you can go and read Alfian’s FB, and then judge for yourself. Don’t take his word for it. Or mine.
But the lesson I have learnt here is that artists may be non-essential, so says the recent sample poll, yet, what they have to say, how they want their country to change, and what burns within their tortured soul for their birth nation, are definitely not “non-essential”.
There is always a context to their madness or perceived petulance. They express it with irony, biting irony; and if you get it, it doesn’t just bite you, it takes a chunk of your soul, and forces you to think deep, to depths that awaken you from within. And if you take a superficial jab at it, you will always be pissed.
Pritam is right. They are not perfect, because at times, they face an enemy that knows them too well, that pushes their buttons. And yes, that enemy is themselves.
So when I read the news today, about our Law Minister defending Tan, and demanding Pritam to clarify his position, I felt that the forest has been missed for the trees.
Alas, sometimes, we become so much of a tree-hugger, protecting a stubborn oak, that we forget the forest of fresh shrubs and flowing rivers, which give our nation hope, perspective, and innermost renewal.
And in hugging the tree too tightly, for too long, we run the risk of overlooking some of the decay that desperately needs reviewing, recalibrating and maybe, replanting.
No comments:
Post a Comment