BANGKOK: A man was found dead in his house in Mukdahan’s Mueang district on Friday morning, apparently suffering from hypothermia.
Somyong Kerdsilp, 45, was found dead on his bed at 7am by his family. He was not wearing a shirt and had not used a blanket.
They said Somyong had been drinking and went to bed without first putting his shirt on.
TEN leaders from countries remaining in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) were left “red-faced” by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau when he did not turn up at a TPP-11 leaders meeting.
The meeting was scheduled to be held on the sidelines of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) here yesterday where the leaders were supposed to issue a declaration on a broad agreement to continue the TPP, minus the United States.
Officials said the leaders were shocked when lead chairman Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced that the remaining members were not in a position to conclude the deal.
“Abe just came into the room and announced we are not in a position to conclude and that we will meet again in the future.
“That’s all.
“The leaders were made to wait for an hour. No explanation why. No one was given a chance to talk,” said an official.
Trudeau’s no-show was unexpected because Canada’s list to suspend certain provisions of the original TPP deal has been accommodated.
“I think it is more political. We can’t find a technical or economic reason for them to do what they did today,” said an official.
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and International Trade and Industry Minister Datuk Seri Mustapa Mohamed were present at the TPP-11 meeting.
An official said Vietnam President Tran Dai Quang, who hosted the meeting, almost stormed out of the venue after Abe made the announcement.
He said it would be an embarassment for Vietnam because the Apec Summit this time ran into several controversies, including Apec trade ministers for the first time, could not agree on a statement due to United States’ objection on the language for multilateral trading system.
And yesterday, within an hour of US President Donald Trump’s arrival, he spoke about America First policy at a business forum for a regional meeting that promotes globalisation.
“And now, this no-show by the Canadian Prime Minister.
“This kind of things can put a country’s credibility at stake. Next time, if you want to go negotiate with them, you have to think twice,” said an official.
Asked if the TPP-11 is in limbo, he said it was too early to tell but there was a lot of uncertainties following yesterday’s incident.
“It is really frustrating because as of this morning, Canada’s issues were taken onboard, not to say 100 per cent, but there were some future work, just like a few others.
“But they didn’t give any indication. As far as we are concerned, as of last night during the ministers’ meeting, we have reached a broad agreement to move forward the deal,” said the official.
“We are now left wondering what had happened to Canada.”
It is understood that a last-minute discussion among the TPP-11 ministers is still ongoing last night.
The TPP-11 countries have stepped up efforts in the last five months to salvage the deal after the US withdrew in January.
Some of the partners have submitted a list of items to be suspended in the original provisions as asked by the United States in the original agreement.
YANGON: Malaysian Mok Choy Lin, Singaporean Lau Hon Meng and two Myanmar reporting crew members were sentenced to two months in prison for flying a drone over parliament, their lawyer said.
The duo were arrested last month along with Myanmar journalist Aung Naing Soe and driver Hla Tin when shooting a documentary in Naypyidaw.
The team was working for Turkish state broadcaster TRT, which said the crew wanted to film the parliament building after an interview with an MP.
“They were surprised when they heard their sentence,” lawyer Khin Maung Zaw said after their one-day trial in the capital.
The group faces up to three more years in jail for the import of “restricted or banned” goods without a proper licence, their lawyer added, with a trial expected to take place on Nov 16.
TRT claims the reporters had informed Myanmar’s Ministry of Information about their filming plans.
In a statement after the arrests, the Turkish broadcaster said police raided Aung Naing Soe’s home and confiscated his computer and hard drive.
The incident comes amid tensions between Turkey and Myanmar over its treatment of Rohingya Muslims.
The Committee to Protect Journalists slammed the reporters’ arrests as part of an “escalating clampdown on press freedom” in the fledgling democracy.
SINGAPORE: The East-West Line was hit by two train disruptions in under two hours on Friday night (Nov 10), culminating in a suspension of train services between Bugis to Tanah Merah in the direction of Pasir Ris.
Train operator SMRT announced in a tweet at about 11.40pm that there are no train services along that stretch of the line, due to a train fault at Aljunied.
This came after SMRT announced a half-hour delay on the west-bound stretch and a one-hour delay on the east-bound stretch.
Stationary train seen at Paya Lebar MRT station during a train disruption on the East-West Line, the second one in a night. (Photo: Olivia Siong)
The first delay of the night happened at around 9.50pm. In a tweet, SMRT urged commuters to factor in an additional 30 minutes of travel time between Bugis and Queenstown MRT stations in the direction of Tuas.
This was due to a train fault, SMRT said, adding that the delay was not linked to new signalling project.
About 45 minutes later, at 10.35pm, SMRT announced that the train fault had been cleared and normal service had resumed.
However, at 11.15pm, SMRT took to Twitter again to inform commuters of another train fault.
This time, commuters were advised to add one hour of travel time between Tiong Bahru and Pasir Ris stations in the direction of Pasir Ris. That is about half the number of stations along the EWL.
Train service was eventually suspended between Bugis to Tanah Merah in the east-bound direction.. There will be no trains along this stretch until the end of service, said SMRT.
“We are sorry that your journey this evening has been affected,” it added.
The East-West Line was disrupted on Friday (Nov 10) evening. (Photo: Diane Leow)
Earlier in the morning, the North-South Line was hit by a train fault, which added travel time from Yishun to Ang Mo Kio stations.
SINGAPORE: As the Christmas season approaches, Orchard Road will once again light up in celebration of all things merry and bright. This year’s decorations, which come under the theme Endless Wonder, will span 2.88km – running from Tanglin Mall to Plaza Singapura.
Social media is abuzz with the Orchard Road Business Association’s (ORBA) announcement that the Christmas lights will be turned on at 3pm for the first time – instead of 6.30pm in previous years.
Here are five other things about this year’s light-up along Singapore’s famed shopping street.
1. There will be 5 set pieces in addition to the arches and lights
The Tree of Time, which will be located outside Ngee Ann City. (Image: ORBA)
The set pieces, designed to be snap-worthy, include a mini version of the main arch between Tangs and ION Orchard, which will be located right outside ION Orchard.
Others include the Walk of Wonder, a 20-metre long passage made of reflective fabric and fairy lights, which will be placed outside Forum the Shopping Mall, as well as The Tree of Time, a 4.5m-tall free-flowing “tree”, inspired by a dancer. It’s even topped with a Christmas countdown clock.
2. There will be a European-inspired Christmas village for the first time
Artist’s impression of the Christmas village, which will be open from Nov 25 to Dec 25, 2017. (Image: Orchard Road Business Association)
The village, which will be located at Ngee Ann City’s Civic Plaza from Nov 25 to Christmas Day, will feature a double-decker carousel, as well as stores by more than 25 brands – including Starbucks, Toast Box and PAUL.
If you’ve decided to spend Christmas Eve along Orchard Road, you’ll find local bands performing Christmas classics at the village from 8pm, ahead of a pyrotechnics show at midnight.
3. It took more than 76,000 man hours to produce all the Christmas decorations
According to ORBA, this year’s Christmas decorations took about 76,800 hours to make – and that’s not including the time spent to put them up.
The association expects that an additional 15,120 man hours will be spent to get Orchard Road ready for the Christmas season.
4. You can cast your votes in Orchard Road’s annual Best Dressed Building Contest
Taking place from Nov 17 to Dec 3, buildings along Orchard Road will be competing for 10 awards, including Best Dressed Building, Most Unique Theme and Most Insta-worthy Display.
Members of the public can vote for their favourite building at this website.
5. It will run from Nov 11 to Jan 1
Last but not least … the Christmas light-up kicks off on Nov 11 with a ceremony officiated by President Halimah Yacob.
Those hoping to catch the lights after dusk should note that they will remain on until 2am on Fridays and Saturdays, and until midnight on all other days except Christmas Eve and New Year’s Eve, when they will stay on until 6am the following morning.
SINGAPORE: It’s no secret that in Singapore, one’s academic prowess plays a pivotal role in the trajectory of one’s career and future overall success.
However, the official narrative surrounding education has been changing.
Finance Minister and former Education Minister, Heng Swee Keat recently said that an overemphasis on “credentialism”, or one’s academic results and material achievements, is a “narrow way of judging success” that could affect how well a country fares.
Mr Heng is not alone in raising such issues.
Current Education Ministers Ng Chee Meng (Schools) and Ong Ye Kung (Higher Education and Skills) both made powerful statements upon taking up their posts in 2015.
They emphasised the importance of a well-rounded education taking into account values, non-academic interests and passions in order to set the stage for a lifelong love of learning.
Efforts are being made to further these objectives in schools today.
The question is whether circumstances on the ground have changed or are likely to change considering decades of assessment-focused conditioning.
THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO WALK THE TALK
Education is inextricably tied to employability. Have enough employers changed their hiring practices to consider factors other than academic qualifications? Has the government, the largest employer in Singapore, done so?
Soon after the release of the Applied Study in Polytechnics and ITE Review (ASPIRE) Committee’s report in 2014, it was announced that non-graduates in the civil service who perform well and are ready to take on larger responsibilities will be able to progress faster in their careers, based on their performance at work rather than academic performance.
The ASPIRE Committee also stressed the importance of not relying on grades and paper qualifications in the hiring process. However, most civil service job postings still indicate a Bachelor’s degree as a pre-requisite.
This is compounded by the special status accorded to Government scholars.
What kind of future should education be preparing us for? (Photo: Alvin Chong)
In a recent On the Record interview, Dean of the Academy of Principals, Belinda Charles, told me the “reward system” for scholars over the years has perpetuated perceptions that increase academic pressure.
She talked about parents wanting to secure “advantages” such as priority employment in the civil service that come with such scholarships. She added:
Promotions may come more easily too. There is still this unspoken expectation that because he’s a scholar, he will be given opportunities more so than others.
The Government may not be walking the talk enough to change perceptions on the ground. Or if it is, it may not be doing enough to publicise its efforts.
Perhaps what we need are Cabinet Ministers who deviate from the traditional profile of high-credentialed technocrats.
Lim Soon Hock, the Founder and Managing Director of PLAN-B ICAG Pte Ltd, in an On the Record interview last year said, “Singapore would have arrived if our next PM is not somebody from the elite administrative service, but an ordinary person with special skills. Perhaps, a great painter, a successful businessman, a successful sportsman.”
What kind of skills and talents are we prepared to recognise? (Photo: Teck Ghee Primary School)
WHY WAIT FOR GOVERNMENT?
Then again, one could ask why we need to take the cue from the Government.
Why aren’t we prepared to formulate our own benchmarks of success?
Business leaders have been saying that while our education system produces high academic averages and we do well on international tests, our graduates tend to lack confidence and creativity.
The fixation on academic qualifications is obviously not serving us. This should be our cue to effect an ideological shift and have it reflected in our actions.
MOE seems to be making efforts in encouraging this within schools, but educators acknowledge that this will take time as they learn to adapt to new ways of teaching to encourage self-directed learning.
THE POINT OF EDUCATION
While employability is important, society also needs to answer what some might consider more complex related questions.
What is the point of education? Is academic competition killing our children’s love for learning? How do we define success?
Is success still measured by how well we do in school? On a sheet of paper? (File photo: TODAY)
Are those who pursue alternative careers such as the arts, encouraged to do so even if it means they won’t live particularly luxurious lifestyles as a result?
In the last few years, school rankings have been done away with.
PSLE results slips no longer indicate the cohort’s highest and lowest aggregate scores and the PSLE grading system will be changed. From 2021, the T-score system will be replaced by eight Achievement Levels (AL) delinking a student’s performance from his or her peers.
Whether this will really reduce academic competition is debatable. Many parents say they feel their kids will still face pressure as one point could make the difference between a lower and higher banding.
This raises the question of whether the changes at the top are powerful enough to uproot entrenched views and expectations in society.
MORE CONVINCING NEEDED
Perhaps not, and one might say it’s completely understandable. Decades of an excessive fixation on grades and educational streaming have left a seemingly indelible mark on the Singapore psyche.
Also, it’s believed the fixation on grades was, in some part, perpetuated by the Government so much so that its attempts at a paradigm shift are met with scepticism.
What keeps us fixated on academics as the main indicator of success? (File Photo: TODAY)
Today, schools have introduced subject-based banding as a refinement to the streaming process to help each child realise his potential based on his interests and strengths.
This may lessen the impact of labelling that came with the old system.
Efforts to integrate students are also being made. From 2019, all affiliated secondary schools will have to reserve 20 per cent of their Secondary One places for incoming students who do not have any affiliation priority. MOE has also been setting aside at least 40 places in every primary school for children without prior connections to the school.
In principle though, if we were to operate on pure meritocracy, prior connections would never be a factor in school admissions at whatever level.
Also, in spite of the current changes, as long as some of us believe that going to certain schools will make or break our children’s futures, the competition and stress will remain.
Is it possible to look at schools objectively and acknowledge that all schools in Singapore are well-resourced enough to support our children’s learning needs holistically? MOE perhaps has yet more convincing to do.
The tensions over such issues have also raised concerns over how a “parentocracy” might have superseded meritocracy in Singapore.
Those who are able to afford tuition and enrichment classes manage to get their kids into what are considered the best schools and even have advantages when it comes to initiatives that aim to de-emphasise academic performance such as the Direct School Admission programme. After all, not everyone can afford sports or arts tuition.
A huge tuition industry exists today. (Photo: Justin Ong)
Experts often point out that meritocracy is about equal opportunities, not equal outcomes, but unequal outcomes could have deep societal implications, so the Government has made efforts to level the playing field.
School-based levelling-up programmes have been strengthened and more financial support is being provided for students from financially challenged families, but these efforts certainly may not be able to nullify the advantages that some in society will inherently have.
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS
While providing students with equal opportunities in education is vital, the stress that comes with education could be markedly reduced if we stopped to consider the true objectives of education.
Should the main objective really be winning in the academic rat race?
Some experts say it should be about helping students find themselves – learning what they are good at, what they can be good at, learning how to overcome challenges and most of all, developing a love for learning.
In fact, there is a camp that believes one of the ways in which all these can be achieved is through integration of students rather than stratification along academic or socio-economic lines.
What other kinds of skills and values should an education encompass? (Photo: Linette Lim)
Member of Parliament Denise Phua has suggested scrapping the PSLE and having through-train schools with students from diverse academic and socio-economic backgrounds learning together.
This will free up more time for learning rather than just preparing for the PSLE.
Collaborative learning in classrooms where students with diverse abilities learn together could not only reduce academic competition, but have other positive societal impacts.
“That’s how good leaders are developed. How can we have leaders come from schools where all the people they mix with are people who are just like them?” she said in an edition of On the Record.
Importantly, the through-train programmes need to be of quality and must be scaled for all students, not just a small group of elite individuals.
To those who doubt teachers will be able to manage students of diverse abilities in a classroom, she said, “There’s something called ‘differentiated instruction’ within the same workspace. It’s not even rocket science.”
Is an education system that is inclusive and yet caters to different learning needs and styles achievable? (Photo: TODAY)
In the meantime, the culture of judgement needs to be eradicated.
I believe schools need to communicate differently about exams and assessments – it should not be about labelling or sorting children, but really just finding out in which areas they might need help or can be developed further.
We must also recognise that exams may not be the best way to assess a person’s abilities.
Key to all this is to encourage a love for learning which will further national efforts to encourage lifelong learning. One could argue that if you enjoy learning, success is a given whatever field you choose and success isn’t just about money or prestige.
Nominated Member-of-Parliament Kuik Shiao-Yin said it best when she connected our approach to education to personal happiness:
Many parents who are adopting a kiasu approach to their child’s education are generally unhappy and their child is unhappy. If it’s making you so grotesquely unhappy, why do you keep doing it?
The answer she usually gets is that they have “no choice”.
Do we really have no choice?
Let’s instead ask ourselves what the point of education is and how we define success. We might each have a different answer and the key is to help our children find the answers for themselves regardless of social constructs and government policies, especially since there are more educational pathways today.
The process of finding those answers in itself could be an invaluable education.
Bharati Jagdish is presenter and senior producer for Digital News at Channel NewsAsia.
This is the eleventh commentary in Channel NewsAsia’s series on learning and education.
Read the first commentary on whether Singapore schools should adopt digital textbooks here.
Read the second commentary on how Singapore teachers should manage issues on race in the classroom here.
Read the third commentary on whether our young need expensive enrichment classes here.
Read the fourth commentary on the struggle parents face in choosing a good school for their child here.
Read the fifth commentary on the role parents must play in their child’s pre-school years here.
Read the sixth commentary on whether passion and patience are sufficient qualities of an ideal pre-school teacher here.
Read the seventh commentary on whether private higher education is a ‘second chance’ option in Singapore here.
Read the eighth commentary on why teachers should sensitise kids at a young age about racial harmony here.
Read the ninth commentary on how the ways in which we nurture children stay the same even if the tools have become digital here.
Read the tenth commentary on why the gifted education programme is but one of many paths to success here.
SINGAPORE: Singaporean filmmaker K Rajagopal’s first feature film, A Yellow Bird, made headlines last year when it was invited to participate in the Cannes Film Festival’s International Critics’ Week and was in the running for the coveted Camera d’Or award.
The film, which tells the story of an ex-convict who tries to re-connect with his family after his release from prison, continues to tour the region.
The self-taught filmmaker has plans to make another short film and feature film, but is keeping mum about the details. He continues to mentor young filmmakers and will play an active role in this year’s Singapore International Film Festival from Nov 23 to Dec 4, as one of the jury members of the Southeast Asian Short Film Competition.
Raja went “On the Record” with Bharati Jagdish about the issues that films have opened his eyes to, why he does not mind that his films are not commercially successful, and what led him to the craft.
K Rajagopal: I think I became a filmmaker because I was a very frustrated actor. I was doing theatre for the longest time, a good 10 years from the mid-80s to the 90s. My teacher in school introduced us to the arts. She would bring us to plays and so I got hooked on it, and I think I’ve always been like that since young.
I liked going on stage and telling stories. I did only one stage play in school but when I started watching local plays like the ones put up by TheatreWorks at that time and William Teo and Kuo Pao Kun, I was very attracted to acting and I remember watching Lim Kay Siu and Lim Kay Tong on stage, and I said to myself that I wanted to act. I wanted to be on stage. I wanted to do more and I did.
Bharati: Why were you frustrated though?
Raja: There were no roles for me because I think they were always looking for experienced actors or people they knew. So I decided to stage manage for TheatreWorks, just to get Ong Keng Sen’s attention. Just so that he would recognise me, acknowledge me. Finally, one day he asked if I wanted to act in a play.
It was a small part – the role of a policeman and I said “sure”. That’s how it started. I did a lot of his plays. I went for Kuo Pao Kun’s workshops. I did a few with William Teo. This was actually the best education in filmmaking, especially education about acting. I got to learn about actors, to learn how to work with actors.
Bharati: But you said you were frustrated. Why?
Raja: My frustration was because I was not getting the lead part. Because of the scripts, they were for the majority.
Bharati: When you say majority, you mean in terms of race?
Raja: Yeah, I mean Chinese because the writers, the playwrights were mostly Chinese. There were very few Indian writers. But I carried on and I said to myself: “Okay, the minute I get a lead part I’m going to stop.”
And then finally Keng Sen gave me a lead part in a play opposite Kay Tong. It was amazing and after that I just felt satisfied and I felt it was enough. I took a break from theatre. I worked full-time. There was also a change in the whole theatre scene because there were a lot of full-time actors. A lot of my contemporaries decided to quit their jobs and take on full-time acting in theatre.
FAMILIAL COMMITMENTS FUELLED HIS STORY IDEAS
Bharati: We’ll talk more about the race issue in a moment, but why didn’t you do what some of your contemporaries were doing – go into the arts full-time instead of stepping away?
Raja: I had commitments. I had commitments at home. I couldn’t do it.
Bharati: It was about money?
Raja: Yeah,
I had to earn money because my father died and we were a family of five siblings. So I couldn’t. My mother was putting a lot of pressure on me to be responsible and things like that. So I worked and that was when I was in fact, moonlighting. I couldn’t study film. I had to work.
I had two jobs and everything. I was working in the hotel industry and I was also teaching in a school for mentally-challenged people. I was a training officer.
So I had different jobs at different times. In my job at a hotel in Little India, I was exposed to a seedy side of Singapore – Sri Lankans running away from their country during the war and they were trying to seek asylum in Europe. There was an influx at that time of foreign workers. A lot of them were illegal and there were sex workers and things like that and it was a very compelling thing. I had all these story ideas in my head and I wanted to tell them.
THE MINORITY EXPERIENCE
Bharati: You actually made a film based on what you saw there. A short film called I Can’t Sleep Tonight. But your filmmaking, as you mentioned earlier, is also connected to your being a “frustrated actor”. You were not able to get lead roles as a result of being of a minority race in Singapore. You’ve said before that you make films, in part, to represent the minority experience.
Raja: As an actor, I played Indian parts, but they were supporting roles. There were local plays with minority characters but I think they were caricatures. There was no identity, no proper representation. When I looked around, there was nothing about my community or where I came from, what I’m familiar with, the language, or the people. It was so prominent. We are multi-racial. So I thought of doing something to protect this. I’m Indian, so whomever I create, the characters I create have to be very close to me.
K Rajagopal with the cast of “A Yellow Bird” at the Cannes Film Festival 2016. (Photo: Alice Kohl)
Bharati: You said most of the writers were ethnically Chinese and you think that’s why minorities were not represented. Some might say in a multi-racial society that is, on the face of it, as integrated as we are, that’s no excuse. Even Singaporean Chinese individuals should be able to be conscious of being inclusive and have their writing be representative of the racial realities on the ground. Writers should be aware of sometimes making their protagonists a minority race, whether it is Indian or Malay, or having actors of a minority race, based on merit, play lead roles. You shouldn’t need Indian writers to do that for Indians or Malay writers to do that for Malays. What do you think?
Raja: I think it is very important that when we create new work, whether it’s in theatre or film, that you should not just write in a character for the sake of having a multi-racial mix in that film.
I think you should be honest and if you feel that it is required, then you do it. Otherwise, we can’t force it.
So I’m Indian, and I can tell the Indian story, but my work often requires a character to interact with someone of a different race. It’s part of the story, so I might have a Chinese protagonist too.
But if a Chinese writer feels that they want to write about their own experience and that does not include a non-Chinese person, you can’t force them to create work for the purpose of being inclusive.
I think you should be honest with what you want to do. I think there are a lot more filmmakers, Indian filmmakers telling Indian stories today. I think if you want to be part of it, you have to stand up and create your own work.
Bharati: You make a good point in that it shouldn’t be forced, and in some cases, the work may not call for minority representation. But to some extent, based on what you’ve said, the exclusion could be indicative of people living insular lives where their experience does not include people of other races, hence does not get reflected in their art.
Also if they wouldn’t, based on merit, give a lead role to a minority actor especially if the part does not call for a person of any specific race, it’s rather disturbing. Don’t you find these possibilities disturbing?
Raja: Honestly I think on the surface, yes, we may all seem to be living harmoniously but we have huge differences. It’s also about the way we live. We tend to not fully want to understand each other. I think because there’s too much emphasis on racial integration and in fact, because of that, you really feel the difference. Maybe if there weren’t too much emphasis on this, you wouldn’t.
You may just not think about it and get to know each other as human beings. There might be talk about Deepavali and having the other communities find out more. But we do it in a very artificial way in schools and sometimes at the grassroots level. If you look at Singapore in the early days when we had kampung style living, I think it was more natural.
Bharati: More organic?
Raja: Yes, and people just didn’t think and they just lived together. But now even in the HDB blocks, there are racial quotas.
When it’s controlled that way, these enforced rules about multi-racial living make a lot more obvious – the differences. I think that’s created a problem in a way.
Bharati: I can see where you’re coming from, but if there hadn’t been policies to encourage racial integration, might there have been even more serious problems? We’ve seen evidence of this in our past – the racial riots.
Raja: Yes, that did happen. But I think there’s a bit too much control in trying to make us think in a certain way or participate in activities that are organised and it’s not because all of the people sincerely want to know more about someone of another race. So I think the approach needs to change.
Bharati: How would you suggest this be done instead?
Raja: I think you should allow people to do it on their own and I think a lot of us do it naturally. I may not go to grassroots events but I’m I naturally concerned about my neighbour whether they are Indian or Chinese.
Bharati: Not everyone naturally feels that way.
Raja: I think it has to start in school. You may want to acknowledge that we are different but at the same time, we should be taught human values where things have nothing to do with race. Talk about the human experience regardless of race. In that way it is more inclusive in a natural way.
Saying that there are Indians and Malays and in a multi-racial society you have to know more about them – people tend not to pay attention to too many of those messages. Allow people to learn from each other or to understand each other in a more natural, organic way.
“I WAS EMBARRASSED BY MY INDIAN-NESS”
Bharati: You yourself have said that you’ve felt as if you were “on the edge and an outsider in your own country”.
Raja: Because now I’m seen as a foreigner. I think also because there are more Indian expatriates now, Singaporeans ask me where I’m from.
When I tell them I’m from Singapore, they don’t want to believe me. They’ll say: “Ya, I know. Now you’re in Singapore. But before, where were you from?” But I was born here.
They think I’m from India. They forget or don’t know that many of us have been here for generations. A lot of people, a lot of people have this idea that the Indians living here are all expatriates, that they were not born here. That’s frustrating. That’s why I write, put it into a film to sort of explore you being a foreigner being in your own country where you are not accepted, where you are seen differently.
Bharati: So clearly something has gone wrong. In spite of the fact that so many members of the minority communities were born in Singapore and some of us have had family here since Singapore’s independence, if not even before that, some Singaporeans are only familiar with the expatriates who’ve recently entered the country.
Raja: I don’t know what it is. There’s a disconnect somewhere. We need to go out and get to know people more. Not be so self-absorbed maybe and have more dialogue with each other about identity.
Bharati: I understand you’ve struggled with your identity for a long time though. It’s not a recent thing for you.
Raja: Because I felt like I was Chinese for the longest time when I was growing up. I felt like I couldn’t identify with the Indian race because I was embarrassed by my “Indian-ness”.
Bharati: Why were you embarrassed?
Raja: Because I was made fun of. It wasn’t serious. It wasn’t like I was bullied or anything like that, but it affected me when I was made fun of for being Indian.
Bharati: How were you made fun of?
Raja: The oil in my hair. I refused to use oil after that. I stopped speaking my language because people made fun of it. But I made friends with Chinese and they accepted me.
Bharati: But you felt you had to distance yourself from your Indian-ness. You don’t think that’s serious?
Raja: Definitely, I was ashamed of my culture. But I made very good Chinese friends so I can’t say that people are racists.
Behind the scenes of “A Yellow Bird”. (Photo: Facebook / A Yellow Bird)
Bharati: But you felt that you had to distance yourself from your Indian identity in order to be accepted by your Chinese friends. We can’t say what they were thinking. But the fact that they made fun of you and you then distanced yourself from your culture in order to be able to make friends and be accepted – surely that’s serious.
Raja: Yes, there’ll always be a group of people who discriminate. Maybe they don’t know better. I think it’s a question of ignorance. So as a child, I too didn’t know better. I just wanted to be accepted and I changed in order for that to happen.
Bharati: Unfortunately, that doesn’t really help others understand the differences and accept a person who might be different from them.
Raja: Yes, if we had better dialogue about our differences and talked about them as human differences rather than racial differences, and help our children do that as well, things might get better.
Bharati: We also have to bear in mind that not all people of a particular race are the same as each other– so yes, human differences rather than racial differences.
Raja: I don’t really know how but I think if someone talks about their experience in school … if you want to make someone respect another person’s culture, religion or race or customs, then it’s for them to understand it from its roots, more than just very superficial education.
I think it should go deeper than telling people that during Hari Raya they do this, or during Deepavali, they just eat cakes. It shouldn’t be about food or clothes.
There needs to be more dialogue – have kids talk about it or write about it or express what they feel, why just because a person’s skin colour is different from yours, they are worse or better than you.
“MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE IN MY SKIN”
Bharati: You’ve said before that you’ve spent a lot of time searching for your identity. Have you managed to find answers?
Raja: Yes, I’m much more comfortable in my skin.
Bharati: How did you get to this stage?
Raja: I went to India. It was the migrant population that I encountered in Singapore while I was making my films that made me want to go to India. I had gone there as a child. My next trip was as an adult on a backpacking trip from the South to the North. I realised how beautiful it was and how ignorant I was to be ashamed of my culture. But the trip made me feel proud of having that kind of ancestry. I went back to Kerala where my ancestors came from and right up to Nepal. And when I came back I think I realised that a lot of it is something that I can feel for – the language, the food, the customs, religion. I could understand myself better. I was not so anxious about who I was.
Bharati: How did connecting with India help you connect here in Singapore, as a Singaporean Indian?
Raja: I think I started to look at people and where they came from differently. I was happy to converse in Tamil, which I also learnt to speak. So I was not shy about being Indian anymore. I was not shy to talk about the fact that I watched Indian films. Before, I wouldn’t say if I watched a Tamil movie, or listened to Indian music because I was worried that my friends would make fun of me. They may not have made fun of that but because I had been made fun of in other ways for being Indian, I thought they might make fun of this too.
“SINGAPOREANS ARE VERY CLOSED OFF, IGNORANT”
Bharati: What else has filmmaking opened your eyes to?
Raja: When I screened A Yellow Bird, I realised a lot of people are not familiar with the marginalised in society. They are not familiar with the people, my characters.
They asked me and actually these questions came from young Singaporeans: “Where did you do your research? Are these people real?” When I told them I did the research right here in Singapore and these characters are based on Singaporeans and people who live here, they were surprised.
They asked about the locations.
“Where did you film this? Did you go abroad to film?”
I said: “No, this is Singapore. Have you looked around?”
These were all real locations here. It was not a set. There was a foreigner in the audience who said: “You know, I’ve only been here three months and I’ve seen all this.” I filmed at Maude Road, Little India, a quarry in Tampines. They thought these places were overseas. It was all done in Singapore and they didn’t know.
I think Singaporeans are very closed off, ignorant. Either they do not want to learn or they are too engrossed in their own lives.
Maybe it’s the affluence but I think it is also how we live our lives now. Everything is about the phone and the technology has kind of closed us in. We don’t explore real life. We don’t walk around. We don’t want to know about other peoples’ lives that are not represented on social media.
When we see someone who’s not like us, we keep them out. We are not interested. And I think it has become quite selfish that way – ignoring things that don’t interest you or involve you, things you are uncomfortable with.
So even when it came to my film, when they were watching these characters, they were very uncomfortable with the characters. Some of them asked me if these things happened in Singapore. Did the sex workers really hide here? I said: “Yes, it’s from a newspaper article.” They just didn’t know. So they’re not even reading.
“A Yellow Bird” is K Rajagopal’s first feature film. (Photo: Photo: Facebook / A Yellow Bird)
Bharati: What do you think it will take for people to open up their minds to what’s happening around them, to care a little bit more?
Raja: I think it starts with the kind of education that we have. I think although they say it’s more leaning towards critical thinking instead of rote learning or creating bookworms now, I think it has to change a lot more at different levels. It’s not just in primary and secondary, but at the tertiary level.
People need to be made to read more, to think more, to look more. I do think a lot of people have been affected in a strange way by the migrant situation. I think that has changed the way people looked at other races because the coming of the Chinese from China has created a kind of tension between Singaporean Chinese and the Chinese from China as well.
I mean it’s not just about two different races, right? I think all that has to change as well. I recently saw a story from Lebanon where the education minister was fighting to take in migrant kids and giving them places in schools. He said he felt strongly about it because he was once a migrant and he ran away from his country and came to Lebanon and that gave him hope. So he wants to give all these people who are stranded, hope. So he created a school and positions for them so that they could study. These kinds of stories inspire me to think that we should be more accepting. We should open up, we should integrate. We should take this as a part of our lives now. We should see where it goes instead of being antagonistic.
Bharati: Some efforts are being made to encourage integration between new Singapore citizens and the rest of the population, efforts to increase acceptance of transient workers. What do you think of those?
Raja: Again, while they are good, it shouldn’t be too forced like our racial integration policies. I think let it all happen. I mean why even try to force. Just encourage people to look outside themselves generally and everything will evolve and slowly find its own kind of resolve. It will resolve. And then a new problem will arise and I think that makes it more interesting. We shouldn’t force it. Let everyone live through it and see what happens.
Bharati: Even if living through it means living through some chaos, some unrest?
Raja: Yes, I think sometimes you need it. I think it’s important to find out. Like when the Little India riots happened a few years ago, it made us realise that we cannot take anything for granted, and more also needs to be done to look at the welfare of migrants. It was shocking. Something like that happening in Singapore – no one expected it. It’s not that I’m saying we need such things to happen or that I wish it upon Singapore. We are peace-loving people, but sometimes, in spite of efforts things go wrong, and you need that little bit of a shake-up to make us think better. I feel that we take a lot of things for granted and when such things happen it could make more realise that these people are just like us.
Bharati: Or it could have a reverse effect. It could make people fear the people involved.
Raja: That’s where education and awareness can come in. We need to take care of them too, accept them. Why are we so antagonistic? Why are we trying to create this tension that could result in chaos?
MORE HELP NEEDED FOR THE UNDERCLASS
Bharati: Your movies are often about an underclass. What do you think helped you develop this sensitivity?
Raja: I’m very interested in them. I think because I’m of an older generation, in my 50s now, we were more exposed to such things. We were less on our phones and explored the island more. Plus I held jobs like the one at the hotel in Little India which exposed me migrants, but also the lower-income class in Singapore.
Sometimes I feel that there’s a neglect of these people; for example, older people collecting cardboard. I think a lot more can be done to raise their status. It makes me sad to see old people working. I feel that that should stop. I think it’s time they enjoy their old age, but I see so many working.
Bharati: The government does provide assistance, but we largely live in a society that encourages self-reliance. While you say more needs to be done to help, what’s a good balance?
Raja: Not everyone has the same capacity. Some people make mistakes and don’t plan well for their futures, or just lived in bad circumstances from the start. When people are young, they should be encouraged to fend for themselves, but I’m talking about older people who after a certain age, should be taken care of much, much better. They shouldn’t be looking for cardboard.
We are not a big country. We can identify who these people are and do something about it. I’m sure there is support, and NGO support as well, but then why do we still see such things. Why don’t we have policies that say that if you come from a certain income group, and are of a certain age, we will support you with maybe, a pension.
Bharati: Of course, social assistance is not free. It’s taxpayers’ money.
Raja: Yes, I realise that such policies have caused huge problems in the West and countries can go bankrupt. But I think we are much smaller and maybe we can do slightly better in looking after the old.
Bharati: Your films often touch on sensitive issues like race and discrimination. I know that none of them have been officially censored or banned by the authorities after they were made, but have you ever had to self-censor during the filmmaking process?
Raja: Actually, no. The rating system has helped, I think. I’ve been okay with the ratings my films have been given. There were no cuts for A Yellow Bird. It was given an M18 rating which is fair enough. I think any one younger would not have enjoyed the film because I think you need to have a bit more life experience in order to understand what these characters were doing. When you’re a bit younger, you may lose interest in the film. So I didn’t mind that.
There were a lot of vulgarities in the film, but there were no cuts. I’m ok with the ratings system, but not with cuts and bans. Why should we ban something? Honestly, I think when a filmmaker makes a film and they want to say something, we should learn to trust that the audience is mature enough to process it whether or not they like the film and if they disagree with something – they don’t have to watch it themselves, but don’t prevent others from doing so.
So far, I don’t think I’m saying anything adverse in my films. I think it’s because I present it as it is. I try to be as honest as possible. In terms of issues that I want to talk about, I’ve not had to self-censor at all.
MORE FUNDING FOR LESS COMMERCIALLY VIABLE FILMS
Bharati: We’ve seen a number of successful filmmakers such as yourself in the spotlight lately. What are the enduring challenges that you face as a filmmaker today though?
Raja: I think there’s a lack of faith in films that are not commercial.
The authorities sometimes don’t have faith when giving grants. They tend to bet on commercially viable films.
But having said that, I must say I’m grateful for the grant that I got. But I think more such films need to be funded and without too many conditions. I don’t expect things to happen overnight. Every system will take time. Let’s also be okay with making mistakes. Sometimes bad films are made; we shouldn’t let that stop us. Let’s learn from those experiences and move on.
Bharati: I understand that while your film was sold out at certain festival screenings even in Singapore, but it didn’t do well at the commercial cinema box office. Why do you think this was so?
Raja: I wish more people had gone to watch it. But I understand because the film did not have any big mainstream stars. It was not fast-paced and it was heavy. Also it was released in December. It was the holidays and people don’t want to see a depressing, dark film about a man who is struggling.
Bharati: How do you think the audience for artistic independent films can grow? How can people be encouraged to explore difficult issues through art and not just look at films as entertainment?
Raja: I think we should encourage them a lot more in terms of exposure. I’m hoping that the younger lot of people who are studying film would come out and influence others more, or attract more audience with good content. I don’t think a good film would ever go unnoticed. Eventually it will find its place. It would be good if private investors or the government could pump more money into marketing such work too.
We need to see the value of the work and take a risk. Often, people wait for the work to win an international award before they watch it. Why must it be internationally recognised before you think it’s good? I think we have to change our mindset. I think as long as we keep doing the good work and we are very persistent with it, not give up, eventually, people might come around and say: “Hey, you’re still at it. Maybe I’ll watch it.”
K Rajagopal just before the screening of “A Yellow Bird” at the 2016 Cannes Film Festival. Photo: Facebook / A Yellow Bird)
Bharati: You’ve said that you never had the luxury of quitting your job to become a full-time filmmaker. Considering you haven’t been able to make money out of your filmmaking career, I guess that’s still not an option. Don’t you wish you could though?
Raja: Yes, but I’m okay with the current circumstance. I don’t mind not making money out of my films.
I don’t look at it as work. I don’t look at it as a business. I look at it as something so part of me that I’m creating, so even if it doesn’t make money, it’s fine. If something good happens or comes out of it, fine. I’ll be happy about it, but I don’t set out to say that I’m going to make a film and I want money for it. I do it because I had this urge inside to tell stories.
The short films that I won awards for earlier in my career did help me get paid jobs in TV. They recognised me as a director and they have trusted me with TV jobs that are my livelihood now. But the films themselves are to explore difficult issues, and if that’s not commercially viable yet, it’s fine. And I’m okay to work another job for my livelihood. That’s the reality and it’s fine.
Making films changes me as a person, grows me as a person and that, for me, is very attractive.
Also, I must remember that it was some of these jobs I did that inspired my films. As I mentioned earlier, I Can’t Sleep Tonight was inspired by what I was exposed to in my job at a hotel in Little India. So that provided me with life experience to make films.
Bharati: While it might do that for you, if your work only gets a small audience, doesn’t it make you question the point of it?
Raja: Of course, I really want people to watch the film because I’m sharing a story and it’s important for them to identify with it.
Bharati: Have you ever thought of making the films more palatable to a mainstream audience in order to maximise their impact?
Raja: I want to set out to be honest as possible when I’m doing it. After that, if only one person likes it, I can’t help it. I can’t control that at all.
But I wouldn’t rewrite a scene just to get an audience, make them laugh or something just to get more people to watch it. I just do what comes to my mind, my instincts and I follow that.
And if it reaches out and it reaches out only to a certain point, then I’m not going to force it. I’m not saying I don’t want the audience to watch or that I’m only doing it for myself. I’m not. But really, all I can do is be honest in my work and I know it makes an impact even though it’s not for a large audience.
One lady came up to me after a screening of A Yellow Bird and she was crying, she was weeping. She said she felt like the character in the film, searching for the truth. I didn’t know how to react. I just held her hand and sat down with her. At the same time, there are people who say they didn’t get it. And I’m okay with that. That’s to be expected.
Bharati: We’ve seen a number of successful Singaporean filmmakers emerge in recent years, but based on your observations, can we expect much more considering the financial risks involved?
Raja: Just from talking to students, I realise that a lot of them don’t stick with it. They go off and do things that make them money. It’s a reality. You need to make money to live. I do that as well but to continue with what you believe in and continue filmmaking that way without money, I think, is when you know it sets you apart from the rest. And then you know that’s when you really believe in the art. I realised that I could not live without telling the stories in my head and so I continued. It takes mental, emotional and physical stamina for you to do a film. I love it and I will continue trying my best.
He was also ordered to pay costs to the school.
Anglo-Chinese School (Barker Road). (Photo: Terence Ong/Creative Commons)
SINGAPORE: A man who sued his son’s school for holding the student’s confiscated phone for three months has dropped the case, the school confirmed on Friday (Nov 10).
Earlier this year, the parent sued the principal of Anglo-Chinese School (ACS) Barker Road, after his son’s iPhone 7 was confiscated back in March as punishment for using it during school hours.
The parent had also claimed the phone was his, and made a legal request for its return before the end of a stipulated three-month confiscation period. This was rejected by a judge who deemed the principal was rightly following school rules.
An ACS Barker Road spokesperson said the court has ordered the parent to pay costs to the school.
There has been no change to the school’s policy on the use of handphones, which requires students to keep their handphones in their lockers during school hours, the spokesperson added.
