2005-09-17 17:23:48Richard Chua
In and Out of Singapore and Malaysia
The Second Link,
Singapore-Malaysia Text Exchange, by Wild Rice
Separation 40, by The Necessary Stage
Nothing could be more boring than to spend an evening in a theatre watching plain enactment of text on stage when you could just read them in the comfort of your room.
Ivan Heng, Alvin Tan and Zahim Albakri have taken the easy way out by “allowing the text do the job of engagement”. Shouldn’t there be more when text is performed, such that there are additional layers of meaning to the text? I am not saying that there weren’t any, but they were very few.
Again, the question: Is there something more? To Separation 40, have Singapore and Malaysia progressed before and after the separation? What is it like to be a Singaporean or Malaysian 40 years ago and in the present day? To The Second Link, what’s there in the literatures of Singapore and Malaysia writings that reflect the voices of the people in both countries?
Riding the Nice Bus was purely a re-staging of late Krishen Jit’s work. It came across as a plain dramatised reading with performance. Anyone could have picked up the books and read them. There wasn’t any insights to what Singapore texts could offer. In fact, the texts offered more than what Krishen and his team could. For example, Cyril Wong’s Interrogation was done with great injustice. The poem contained strong elements of self-reflexivity between the poet and his words. That was totally ignored in the performance. In replacement, the performance was plainly about prison interrogation! Tikam-Tikam came on as a stronger piece with good performances by the actors. Weak direction was covered by the strength of the texts Leow Puay Tin has curated. It was a nice mix of proses, excerpts from interviews and words from non-writers. They gave truthful accounts of Malaysians living in a country where ideals could only be thought of and not be carried out.
I was moved by the words Malaysians wrote.
The Malaysian texts gave additional definitions to what a line from Separation 40 (The Necessary Stage) claimed, “… this is not Islamic…” They are voices beyond what’s considered Islamic, the truth beyond the Malaysian ideology. It would be convenient to say that the Malaysian texts are stronger because the voices came from outside of the teachings of Islam, the use of the religion to serve as an over-arching backdrop to single out marginalised voices. What matters is that every single Malaysian voice is unique in the collection of voices. That strengthens the texts with resonance of truthfulness.
Conversely, I find it difficult to relate to Singapore writings, as the collection of texts has no character to anchor on. Perhaps, there is really nothing in Singapore we could anchor ourselves on. Singapore texts came across as individual voices that have no relation to other voices. Apparently, there wasn’t a collective voice. So, should there be a common "enemy" in order to unite the voices? Who’s the common enemy here in Singapore that can unite our voices?
Recently, we have heard voices from marginalised groups of individuals based on racial proportion in Singapore society, sexual orientation, the uneducated, the aging population etc. Each and everyone of them, directly or indirectly, seems to have allusions to the Singapore government. Is the Singapore government the common "enemy"? As the ruling authority, the Singapore government became an easy target for these voices. Singapore’s authoritarian style of state governance served as a platform for these voices to emerge, but do these voices represent the Singaporean psyche? Should this be the common character to unite our voices? Are they authentic voices that can represent Singapore, or are they mainly complaints with no substance within? If not, what is the Singaporean voice?
I question Eleanor Wong’s artistic choice when collating the Singapore texts together. What was her artistic intention? What was the collective Singaporean voice she was looking for?
Separation 40 by The Necessary Stage, on the other hand, had much potential to flesh out single voices of individuals. But, these voices were not properly organised, thus making them difficult to emerge.
However, the initial premise to question what would Singapore and Malaysia be like if they were not separated gave much space to project an alternative state of affairs in both countries. Singapore as a vibrant Suzhou province in China is a good angle to revisit Singapore’s stand against communism when Operation Coldstore was carried out during the time when probable merger with Malaysia was in the pipeline to form the Federation of Malaysia in 1963. It is a pity that it wasn’t further explored.
Instead, the production went on to talk about the various “what-if” scenarios in Singapore-Malaysia separation, which were funny on the outset, but fast becoming stale as the performance progressed. Lighter scenes were incoherent with the “serious” ones. That makes the production toppled in balance. Some personal voices were not well presented, while texts were truthful, it came forward in a rather pretentious fashion. This was evident in the old woman’s monologue in the early part of the play. The choice of the song containing words “Be all right” sounds like lip service. However, Alin Mosbit’s performance as the mother facing her son’s death penalty came forth very strongly. It mirrors recent calls local arts community made against death penalty in Singapore.
In the last few paragraphs, I have been talking about finding personal voices from the texts in these two countries. What I have been referring to are personal voices that don’t sound like social commentaries. These voices help us understand the current human condition under the larger political climates in these two countries. Politics here are not restricted to state politics alone, but also the larger political relationships between people and societies.
It seems that common responses (from the two productions) against Singapore and Malaysia are targeted at the governments or, more specifically, the national ideologies of the governments. This is inevitable as the governments are the main powers in the countries, powers invested by the peoples. Talking about effecting changes in the respective countries seems archaic. We are not China, there isn’t a need for a revolution to effect change. Singapore and Malaysia are more pragmatic in that way. Changes will be made if there is value to be added.
The greater issue the creators should address is Singapore and Malaysia’s pragmatism in trying to be the same with others in power in the world so as to promote progress. It is not a recent move. Singapore’s choice in the early days to use English Language as the national working language to strengthen itself in world economy paves the way to make Singapore accessible to the world. Malaysia’s Multimedia Super Corridor programme that has hosted more than 900 multinationals, foreign-owned, home-grown companies in one place, promoting global information and communication technology (ICT) industry in Malaysia, has made "Malaysia" a cosmopolitan city.
Both countries are trying very hard to “globalise” themselves.
Separation 40 could have touched on that, but it wasn’t well explored. In the words of the directors and the playwrights, “ We need to deal with what happened to us, and what better time than now? In today’s globalised world, we are all connected and interdependent. What then becomes of national allegiance, or nationality? What then happens to the notion of neighbours? …”
There is something more - "We are becoming all the same. Is there anything different left for us to fight for?"
Singapore-Malaysia Text Exchange, by Wild Rice
Separation 40, by The Necessary Stage
Nothing could be more boring than to spend an evening in a theatre watching plain enactment of text on stage when you could just read them in the comfort of your room.
Ivan Heng, Alvin Tan and Zahim Albakri have taken the easy way out by “allowing the text do the job of engagement”. Shouldn’t there be more when text is performed, such that there are additional layers of meaning to the text? I am not saying that there weren’t any, but they were very few.
Again, the question: Is there something more? To Separation 40, have Singapore and Malaysia progressed before and after the separation? What is it like to be a Singaporean or Malaysian 40 years ago and in the present day? To The Second Link, what’s there in the literatures of Singapore and Malaysia writings that reflect the voices of the people in both countries?
Riding the Nice Bus was purely a re-staging of late Krishen Jit’s work. It came across as a plain dramatised reading with performance. Anyone could have picked up the books and read them. There wasn’t any insights to what Singapore texts could offer. In fact, the texts offered more than what Krishen and his team could. For example, Cyril Wong’s Interrogation was done with great injustice. The poem contained strong elements of self-reflexivity between the poet and his words. That was totally ignored in the performance. In replacement, the performance was plainly about prison interrogation! Tikam-Tikam came on as a stronger piece with good performances by the actors. Weak direction was covered by the strength of the texts Leow Puay Tin has curated. It was a nice mix of proses, excerpts from interviews and words from non-writers. They gave truthful accounts of Malaysians living in a country where ideals could only be thought of and not be carried out.
I was moved by the words Malaysians wrote.
The Malaysian texts gave additional definitions to what a line from Separation 40 (The Necessary Stage) claimed, “… this is not Islamic…” They are voices beyond what’s considered Islamic, the truth beyond the Malaysian ideology. It would be convenient to say that the Malaysian texts are stronger because the voices came from outside of the teachings of Islam, the use of the religion to serve as an over-arching backdrop to single out marginalised voices. What matters is that every single Malaysian voice is unique in the collection of voices. That strengthens the texts with resonance of truthfulness.
Conversely, I find it difficult to relate to Singapore writings, as the collection of texts has no character to anchor on. Perhaps, there is really nothing in Singapore we could anchor ourselves on. Singapore texts came across as individual voices that have no relation to other voices. Apparently, there wasn’t a collective voice. So, should there be a common "enemy" in order to unite the voices? Who’s the common enemy here in Singapore that can unite our voices?
Recently, we have heard voices from marginalised groups of individuals based on racial proportion in Singapore society, sexual orientation, the uneducated, the aging population etc. Each and everyone of them, directly or indirectly, seems to have allusions to the Singapore government. Is the Singapore government the common "enemy"? As the ruling authority, the Singapore government became an easy target for these voices. Singapore’s authoritarian style of state governance served as a platform for these voices to emerge, but do these voices represent the Singaporean psyche? Should this be the common character to unite our voices? Are they authentic voices that can represent Singapore, or are they mainly complaints with no substance within? If not, what is the Singaporean voice?
I question Eleanor Wong’s artistic choice when collating the Singapore texts together. What was her artistic intention? What was the collective Singaporean voice she was looking for?
Separation 40 by The Necessary Stage, on the other hand, had much potential to flesh out single voices of individuals. But, these voices were not properly organised, thus making them difficult to emerge.
However, the initial premise to question what would Singapore and Malaysia be like if they were not separated gave much space to project an alternative state of affairs in both countries. Singapore as a vibrant Suzhou province in China is a good angle to revisit Singapore’s stand against communism when Operation Coldstore was carried out during the time when probable merger with Malaysia was in the pipeline to form the Federation of Malaysia in 1963. It is a pity that it wasn’t further explored.
Instead, the production went on to talk about the various “what-if” scenarios in Singapore-Malaysia separation, which were funny on the outset, but fast becoming stale as the performance progressed. Lighter scenes were incoherent with the “serious” ones. That makes the production toppled in balance. Some personal voices were not well presented, while texts were truthful, it came forward in a rather pretentious fashion. This was evident in the old woman’s monologue in the early part of the play. The choice of the song containing words “Be all right” sounds like lip service. However, Alin Mosbit’s performance as the mother facing her son’s death penalty came forth very strongly. It mirrors recent calls local arts community made against death penalty in Singapore.
In the last few paragraphs, I have been talking about finding personal voices from the texts in these two countries. What I have been referring to are personal voices that don’t sound like social commentaries. These voices help us understand the current human condition under the larger political climates in these two countries. Politics here are not restricted to state politics alone, but also the larger political relationships between people and societies.
It seems that common responses (from the two productions) against Singapore and Malaysia are targeted at the governments or, more specifically, the national ideologies of the governments. This is inevitable as the governments are the main powers in the countries, powers invested by the peoples. Talking about effecting changes in the respective countries seems archaic. We are not China, there isn’t a need for a revolution to effect change. Singapore and Malaysia are more pragmatic in that way. Changes will be made if there is value to be added.
The greater issue the creators should address is Singapore and Malaysia’s pragmatism in trying to be the same with others in power in the world so as to promote progress. It is not a recent move. Singapore’s choice in the early days to use English Language as the national working language to strengthen itself in world economy paves the way to make Singapore accessible to the world. Malaysia’s Multimedia Super Corridor programme that has hosted more than 900 multinationals, foreign-owned, home-grown companies in one place, promoting global information and communication technology (ICT) industry in Malaysia, has made "Malaysia" a cosmopolitan city.
Both countries are trying very hard to “globalise” themselves.
Separation 40 could have touched on that, but it wasn’t well explored. In the words of the directors and the playwrights, “ We need to deal with what happened to us, and what better time than now? In today’s globalised world, we are all connected and interdependent. What then becomes of national allegiance, or nationality? What then happens to the notion of neighbours? …”
There is something more - "We are becoming all the same. Is there anything different left for us to fight for?"