PA and Sarah — Dealing with Conflict

15 June 2021 Facebook Post: https://www.facebook.com/firdausdaud/posts/10159264567670883

PA’s recent statement appears to re-characterize Sarah’s complaint as “racist” and used that to paint her as unreasonable.

PA referred to 3 instances in its claim that Sarah was trying to describe the incident as racist (copied from a post by Michael Han):

“First, in one of the Instagram stories, Sarah shared a post by @jeanpsychologist who thanked Sarah for her stand about the incident and “called for Chinese Singaporeans to educate ourselves on our conditioned racism”.

It also claimed that this is “long overdue towards our friends in minority communities who have to put up with our ignorance — which continues to perpetuate the racist culture that hurts them””.

Second, in the other Instagram story, Sarah thanked “those who stood in solidarity with her and her husband as well as other ethnic minorities after the incident (and other racist attacks and incidents).”

Third, PA claimed that Sarah “had insinuated in an online talk show hosted by (NTU) academic Walid Jumblatt Abdullah on June 7 that PA’s staff and volunteers did not find anything wrong with the standee as they might be “blind to racism”.”

In her posts directed to the PA, Sarah described the incident as revealing cultural insensitivity, which the PA accepted. The 3 instances above were not directed at the PA.

In my view, the 3 instances referred to by PA do not show Sarah trying to claim that the PA or the PA incident was racist. In the above instances, she was referring to the broader issues and events outside of this specific PA incident.

The phrase “our conditioned racism” in the first instance came from Jean the Psychologist, not Sarah. In the second instance, she was thanking people for supporting her and her husband in this incident and providing broad support for minorities who suffer racist incidents. Third, in the interview, she points to PA staff not being culturally sensitive and lacking awareness of the broader implications of such insensitivity.

In these conversations (not directed to PA) she links how cultural insensitivity and racism are born from the same thing: ignorance.

To people who have suffered the brunt of racism, the link is clear. Racism stems from ignorance — whether the ignorance is deliberate or negligent. It comes from assuming the worst. It comes from not caring enough to find out and know/act/say/do better.

Was Sarah trying to make things a little bigger than necessary? Perhaps yes, but I think she was entitled to because: (a) she was aiming to assist — and trying to do her part to tackle something bigger (which led her to consolidate actionable feedback from others hoping to bring it to the PA meeting); (b) she and her husband are emotionally invested in this issue due to their wedding photo being illegitimately used and their faces cut out.

So, I think PA was overreaching when it decided to re-characterize Sarah’s complaint as an attempt to pain the incident as “racist”. By doing so, PA opted for a simpler (but wrong) outcome: they can disengage and dismiss; rather than the harder and more complex route of engaging, addressing, working, changing.

Why did PA respond this way?

(a) There is a siege mentality.

PA and other other govt and govt-related orgs (see recent incident against SPF) get a lot of flak from day-to-day from the more vocal oppo crowd. There’s a lot of politically-tinged criticisms and retorts going both ways. Sometimes in this environment, feedback or speech that might appear to be relatively reasonable to the rest of us might be construed by some people who are particularly entrenched with one side to be an attack sufficient to induce a sharp response or a dismissal.

I’ve met few who have been able to rise above this “you’re either with us or against us” filter. Unsurprisingly, these few tend to be intellectual and broad-minded, including some Ministers I’ve met. It’s usually the rank-and-file guys who hold the entrenched, siege mentality.

(b) They forgot about the power asymmetry.

PA did not provide a named representative, but the response felt almost personal. It did not have the measured response of a large, mature organization. Definitely not one purportedly devoted to racial harmony and social cohesion, with 6 Cabinet Members on the Board and PM as the Chairman of the Board.

Even if (and I personally don’t think she is) Sarah was bent on a vengeful campaign to bring down the PA, the PA should be the bigger person. The words from one person surely can’t bring down the works and reputation of an $800 million-dollar 61-year old organization — unless the organization lets it.

© They focused on themselves rather than what Sarah and her husband felt.

From a PA person point of view, they might frame the incident as an innocent mistake: “how were we to know that wedding outfit has nothing to do with Hari Raya.” But that’s not how Sarah and her husband feel about it. And if you fail to try and understand how and why the other side feels a certain way about what you did, you’re not seriously addressing the issue. You’re dismissing — and this kind of behaviour usually comes from people holding positions of privilege or power disparity. “You and/or your feelings are not important — next.”

How do we respond better?

(a) Always aim to defuse.

If what you’re going to say is going to escalate things rather than take things down a notch, don’t say it. I remember with clarity the day I learned this lesson 20 years ago when a friend said to me: “If you don’t have anything good to say, don’t say.”

(b) Bridge the gap.

Recognize that messages and intentions get skewed when received over the internet or heard through other people. Meet in person or over video chat before fully deciding on the person’s intentions and aims. Over 70% of communication is non-verbal.

© Humanize the situation.

Both sides can appreciate the human being on the other side while acknowledging the thing that went wrong. Then it becomes, “what can WE do to make things a little better.”

In 2009, Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. was arrested at his Cambridge, Massachusetts home by local police officer Sgt. James Crowley, who was responding to a 911 caller’s report of men breaking and entering the residence. President Obama invited both parties to the White House to discuss the issue over a beer.

For this PA incident, no beer of course. But if I was a Minister, I would have reached out to Sarah and husband, and invite them to meet me, Melvin Yong, over lunch to defuse, bridge the gap and humanize. I’d invite and appreciate any consolidated feedback. And probably, at another event, give a speech addressing the ongoing racial tensions and invite conversations about it.

But what do I know.

Edit:

Maybe some Ministers did try and reach out to Sarah. Maybe Sarah is more opposition-leaning or “anti-government” and refused. Maybe there’s more behind the scenes than we know. Regardless, the dismissive approach will only backfire.

PA shouldn’t have canceled the meeting. What’s the worst that can happen? She rants for 2 hours. I think she’s entitled to rant. I’d still invite for lunch — and if Sarah and husband reject, leave it as a standing offer. Go above and beyond. And if Sarah doesn’t reciprocate, shrug it off. PA is bigger than that.

If they go low, we go high.