What people are getting wrong about the Shrey “Ah Boys to Men” incident

shreyxiaxue

It has been over three days since Mr Shrey Bhargava made a post on Facebook describing his experiences during his audition for the Jack Neo film “Ah Boys to Men” (ABTM). His post sparked many angry responses and personal attacks, including one by Xiaxue.

xiaxue-shrey2

Based on these responses, it appears that people are getting distracted from what is really at stake.

1. This issue is not about Shrey or about ABTM

Many people have personally attacked Shrey, and some have cast doubts on his credibility and sincerity after a video of him putting on an Indian accent emerged online.

These sort of personal attacks miss the point – they convert what could have been a constructive dialogue about race issues into a mudslinging contest that goes nowhere. I find it ironic that many who accuse him of jumping to conclusions with regard to the racism behind his audition experience also themselves jump to conclusions about his background and character. In any case, even if we assume that what happened in that audition room may not have been as Shrey depicted, and even if we assume that there is some reason to doubt Shrey’s sincerity and credibility, we can all admit that racial stereotypes have always permeated our media scene, and that racism is a problem in Singapore – discrediting Shrey will not make all these go away. Personal attacks merely distract us from what is important.

As this netizen put it:

shrey2.PNG

So here’s my point: why focus on Shrey? He is not the only ethnic minority in this country – there are many out there who suffer from racial discrimination, and who are also upset at caricatures of their race, and the way they are treated by others. Their experiences and views should be our focus, not Shrey. We are doing a disservice to minority groups when we make this incident just about Shrey, and not about them.

2. The issue is not about what is or is not funny

Some people have said that caricatures are part of comedy; they are not meant to be taken seriously. Others have said that they have found ways to laugh at caricatures and stereotypes about themselves, so why make a fuss? But this again misses the point.

To put it bluntly, the issue is not about what you find funny. It is about whether what you find funny hurts others. Let me use a simple example. Is bullying fun? To the students carrying out the bullying, of course it is! Otherwise, why would they do it? But just because it is fun for them does not mean it is fun for the person bullied, and it is no defence for the bully to say – “but I found it fun”.

I think many Chinese-Singaporeans find this difficult to understand because they have not experienced what it is like to be a minority race. Having lived abroad, I am aware of the hurtful stereotypes that people make about minorities due to their constant exposure to caricatures in the media. While caricatures may be fictitious exaggerations, they do influence the way we treat others, often without us realizing. Speaking from experience, it’s hurtful when you meet new people and try to be yourself, but all they see are stereotypes and caricatures. Racial caricatures, or caricatures of any sort are like junk food – they are nice to consume but not necessarily healthy, all things considered.

3. The issue is not about taking up or rejecting the role

Some people find Shrey’s conduct objectionable because, they argue, if he didn’t like the role, then he should simply just not take it up – why make it an issue?

shrey

This argument is built on poor reasoning, and also misses the point. Indeed, Shrey can refuse the role – there is no question about that; but that does not change the fact that the role exists, and that its existence demonstrates a systemic racial problem in our country. Let me give an example – if an industry explicitly discriminates against women (let’s say, as a hypothetical example, the engineering industry), as a woman, you certainly have a right not to study to become an engineer, but you also have the right to bring this issue up. Telling a woman “well, then just don’t be an engineer” is not only insensitive, but misses the point.

4. The issue is not about “stirring shit”

Many people were outraged at Shrey for what they called “stirring shit” – i.e. stirring up racial tensions. Some noted that Singapore’s racial harmony is precious and should not be taken for granted, and it was wrong of Shrey to disrupt that harmony.

shrey4shrey3

This is a terrible argument. As I noted in a previous article, the idea that one should not be bringing up race issues because they are divisive and sow discord is equivalent to telling an oppressed minority to tolerate oppression, since speaking out will upset ‘harmony’. This is wrong. If we see racism, or what we believe to be racism, we must talk about it, even if it is upsetting or divisive. It is one thing to say “Shrey, I do not think you are being fair to the ABTM producers for describing your experience as racist”, and another to say “Shrey, you are upsetting our racial harmony by bringing this up; you should not have talked about these things”.

As an Indian friend of mine put it:

“This smear campaign against Shrey is indicative of only one thing – that racial harmony in Singapore is not built on dialogue and listening. It’s built on minorities having to constantly toe the lines set by Chinese people about what minorities can and cannot do, say, or feel.”

Summary

We need to understand that the real issue goes beyond what Shrey said or did, or who he is or what he has done in the past. In fact, if you want to find out what the real issue is, just look at the way people responded to the incident. Their responses revealed the level of ignorance and racism amongst many Singaporeans, as well as their inability to have a constructive conversation about race. We may disagree as to whether the ABTM audition itself was racist; but based the responses of many Singaporeans, it is difficult not to conclude that quite a number of Singaporeans are.

In a way, this incident was a litmus test for Singaporeans concerning whether we are sufficiently mature as a population to have a discussion about sensitive issues such as race. We fared poorly, not because people disagreed with Shrey, since controversial issues are not controversial issues unless there is disagreement in the first place. Rather, we fared poorly because most (though not all) people were more interested in shouting down their opponents and making personal attacks rather than trying to listen, empathize and engage the issues at stake. I think we can do better as a society.

Have something to say? Share your comments on our Facebook page

If you like this article, ‘Like’ Consensus SG’s Facebook Page as well!

For an earlier article on race issues in Singapore, see – Can we please talk about race?

And also: Race issues and Singapore’s ‘Fragile Majority’

Advertisements

Author: Rio Hoe

Rio is the chief editor and co-founder of Consensus SG. He is a Singaporean law student and currently in his final year of law school. His interests include politics, legal theory and political philosophy.

7 thoughts

  1. totally agree… spot on!
    the screenshot in point no.4 perfectly illustrates that some people don’t even know what racism is. those words r exactly like those arguing that there isnt any white privilege in the west. they dont even realise the presence of racism… bet they wont even get the concept of institutionalized racism which is sometimes more dangerous.

    Like

    1. Indeed. I believe that it is due to the fact that many people who have never experienced racism before, or never experienced being a racial minority would be unable to understand the existence, manifestations and problems with racism and privilege

      Like

  2. “We may disagree as to whether the ABTM audition itself was racist; but based the responses of many Singaporeans, it is difficult not to conclude that quite a number of Singaporeans are.” I think there is a word missing in this sentence. I like your post. 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Thank you for your article, it captures a lot of the thoughts I had but wasn’t able to put into words. This week, motivated by the amount of anger I saw coming from responses like Xiaxue’s, I wrote a list of questions that Singaporean Chinese people (and other people in positions of social privilege) can ask ourselves before responding to incidents such as these. I’ve put it on a wordpress site – check it out if it sounds like something you’re interested in: https://theempathylist.wordpress.com/. It was written in collaboration with a group of friends from different backgrounds and hopefully adds to the conversation in a positive way.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Singapore’s One-Of-A-Kind Racism In 2017 According To Actor Shrey Bhargava

    A Status Report On ‘Racism’ In Singapore 2017 Re The Inimitable Case Of Shrey Bhargava

    Looking down from above, Singapore’s founding fathers would doubtless be tickled pink if asked to give their report card on the 2017 status of race relations in Little Red Dot. They would unhesitatingly declaim: what nation in the world today wouldn’t love to have the type of prevailing ‘racist’ problems that presently haunt the multi-cultural city state. For if the ‘racial’ incident highlighted by Mr. Shrey Bhargava along with the eristic storm that follows, is emblematic of the sort of modern-day ‘racism’ plaguing the heterogenous island state, then, tiny Singapore is indeed blessed and in good shape. More on the details of Mr. Bhargava’s bellyaching of racism later … but going by what happened here, it appears the 50-odd-year policy of government-enforced peaceful co-existence for its various races is paying off and bodes well for the future of race relations for the next 50 in the nation.

    Now, why do I term it ‘blessed’ with respect to the Bhargava sort of ‘racism’ in Singapore? Well, the answer will be self-evident by way of contrast in the following comparison. Lately, two notable incidents of racism in the U.S. — one in LA, the other in Denver in the same time period in late May as Mr. Bhargava’s infamous ‘racism’ incident in Singapore — point to the prevalence and depth of prevailing racism in America 250 years into its race-relation management/experiment. The first involved Lebron James…

    https://lester978.wordpress.com/…/singapores-one-of-a-kind…/

    Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s