Alfian Sa'at - Saga 3.

This is still a live issue. It is a fight over relative adjective. Is Alfian a loving critic or not? I guess this is worth the debate at such time?

This comes at the heels of Pritam’s response when he “admits now that he hadn’t examined these statements before declaring Mr Sa’at a “loving critic” and admonishing the Government for not heeding Mr Sa’at’s wisdom.””

Pritam, being the WP chief, has however assured Singapore and PAP that he reaffirms the opposition party’s commitment to Singapore’s sovereignty. But, Pritam is expected to go further than that. The hatchet is not yet buried. 

Law Minister Shanmugam also said “he “look forward to” Mr Singh’s response on whether the Aljunied GRC MP still believes that poet and playwright Alfian Sa’at’s views on Malaysia and Singapore merit his support.””

But the law minister is not pushing Pritam for an answer. He said: “He need not rush to examine those statements...but I hope to hear his views on them in good time.”

He also said: “And let me make clear - this is not about artistic freedom or licence, those are not being questioned. This is specifically about Mr Singh asking the Government to listen to specific individual.”

Lesson? Three. 

1) “This is not about artistic freedom or licence...(but) asking the Government to listen to specific individual.”

I guess since the day Pritam tabled Alfian in Parliament and praised him for being worthy of being heard, because he adopted the coinage attributed to Prof Tommy Koh, “loving critic”, he has made patriotism an issue, a live-wire issue. 

You can actually rephrase the term “loving critic” to “patriotic critic” and that is what this is essentially about. Bottomline, you can criticise, yes, but do you love Singapore enough to criticise? It thus boils down to authenticity, or whether Alfian is a hypocrite. 

And I know this is not about artistic freedom or licence, but our government has made it clear that there are OB markers that they will put their foot down, especially when it deals with the interest and welfare of Sinagaporeans. This, alas, can’t be faulted, but the concern here is that it may be perceived by some to be intimidating (at some subconscious level). 

This therefore leads me to my second lesson...

2) Government vs “Mr Sa’at”.

Why intimidating? Well, although this may not be their intention, what is however perceived is that the Government is asking Pritam (although there is no particular rush) to take a stand on what he had said in Parliament, which relates to the dubious/divided heart of an artist. 

At this juncture, can you blame someone if he should form the impression that if Pritam had thought it through, he ought to come around to the Government’s view? And should he not come around to their view, well, he is just not being objective enough about it? 

And mind you, all this comes in the wake of Alfian’s FB clarification, putting on record about how his poems and commentaries (save for the ones about LKY, which I differ) have been misread, misunderstood and misquoted. 

Somehow, Alfian seems to be the invisible antagonist here, though he is by default the subject matter, that is, the target of the debate. 

So, do we even care to take a gander at what he meant since he had clarified his position? Or do we just take a few screenshots of his past and then address it most vehemently in the present, and assume he will be of such proclivity in the future? Truly, a crab, however artistic, cannot walk straight? 

That is the perceived intimidating effect of it.

And...

3) Risk of associating Singapore with PAP.

We have been led by one party since the time of independence can remember. We sleep and wake up on the same political bed, with our white sheets cleaned, arranged and tucked in by one dominant party. Most of us today are born to this bed, and we snuggle in it with some relish and creature comfort. We are generally not an ungrateful people.

We are therefore proud of Singapore as a nation that has overcome great odds to be where we are today. People from all walks of life have made an enduring difference in this little red vibrant dot. 

The Pioneer, the Merdeka and the Millennials have all contributed and this is ongoing. Their sweat has become ours, and it is all ultimately a labour of love. 

When Alfian is questioned, “is he really a loving critic?”, it is also a question for us to think about. Will we die for Singapore when the time calls for sacrifice to keep our loved ones and nation alive? When such a crisis strikes, like covid, where is our unity and/or allegiance? Is such allegiance affiliated to some political party, notion or ideal, or is it one that is for all practical reasons largely relational? 

For me, needless to say, Singapore is the people. It is family. It is community. It is surviving and thriving, together, united; Not about a political party. This I guess we all can agree to. 

It is thus a home where we unite to overcome a common enemy, be it a virus or a threat. And this debate about who is truly loving risks turning the debate into who is really right. 

While I do not doubt the intention, either of Dr Tan’s, our law minister’s or Pritam’s, I am concerned that this (bordering on being jingoistic) tug of war (or sentiments) is not only divisive and polarising, but is also taking things a tad too far.

As such, I feel that Pritam is being cornered, and he has to take a stand, though no rush. I also feel that Alfian is being taken as a means to an end and what he has to say now is secondary to what he had done or said in the past. It is thus not enough just to let dead dogs lie, but there is a pressing need to flog it again and again. 

And this all adds up to give me this impression that if you criticise the party, or the way they handle territorial disputes (or any other issues concerning the people), you are criticising Singapore. 

The issue seems to me to have become one, like a marital union, and you had better be grateful and remember who tucks your bed at night and cleans your white sheets in the day.