The following is a Facebook post by Cheryl Marie Tay in response to an article by the general secretary of the Singapore Kindness Movement, William Wan, in the Straits Times on 24 January, with regards to the Anton Casey saga. [You can read Mr Wan’s article here: “Where has all our empathy gone?“]
We publish Ms Tay’s note with her permission.

William Wan's article in the Straits Times
William Wan’s article in the Straits Times
 
Perhaps it’s my disdain for the standard of “journalism” ST is known for, or perhaps I’m just missing the empathy chip, but Mr. William Wan, please spare me your highfalutin calls for “empathy” for “the least deserving”, i.e. Anton Casey.
I didn’t say much on the issue because, well, he isn’t the first rich person to have such a condescending attitude towards those whose entire net worth is but a monthly salary for him. I’ve met locals and foreigners who think money alone makes them superior, so I wasn’t surprised. Also, I knew very well that an angry Internet mob would form in a matter of hours and rip him apart, and I was right.
But of course, trust ST to publish an article encouraging us to be “empathetic” towards him, and to take the opportunity to slip in pro-PAP lines such as “those who chastise the Government for groupthink also themselves fall prey to a groupthink mob mentality”.
When Amy Cheong made derogatory remarks about the Malay community, did anyone call for “empathy” for her? She was fired from her job, and fled to Australia to escape all the negative attention she was receiving. So what makes Anton Casey so special? His race? His nationality? His money? His so-called “status”? And let’s not forget Sun Xu, the infamous NUS “scholar” from China, who called Singaporeans “dogs”. Long before any disciplinary action was taken against him, Baey Yam Keng had the nerve to tell us to “reflect” upon ourselves.
To be absolutely clear, I don’t think such offences warrant a termination of employment, especially if the offender has done well at his job; I am merely highlighting the blatant double standards being practised.
I don’t condone mob mentality, and certainly find it unacceptable to drag someone’s personal life into the spotlight, or implicate his friends or family for HIS actions. However, that has nothing to do with empathy but everything to do with being a logical, sensible human being. Punish the perpetrator and his accomplices (if any), not his family or friends.
On a related note, people should be free to speak their minds, even if it means offending certain sections of society. And other people should be free to respond to them, so at least all cards are laid on the table, views are properly expressed, and we can all progress – collectively and as individuals. But in a country where issues such as class, race, nationality, immigration and the like are not talked about (enough) simply because they are “sensitive” issues, one can surely expect more incidents like this, where Singaporeans go all CSI and paparazzi on the offender and his family.
So instead of forming angry Internet mobs and burning down everything in your virtual path to revenge, or writing patronizing articles calling for “empathy” for the offender, how about trying to determine the underlying issues and root causes before passing judgment? Because if we can’t (be bothered to) understand the reasons behind a problem, how can we possibly deal with it or prevent / minimize the chances of its re-occurrence?
Also, I have nothing against rich people or their riches in general, but how can I, an average middle-class working Singaporean, possibly “empathize” with a rich expat who clearly thinks his material wealth places him above the rest of society? There is a difference between empathy and forgiveness, and I’m sure we will all put this behind us, sooner or later. But please, Mr. Wan – you should have looked up “empathy” in the dictionary before writing an article about it.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

选区范围检讨委员会8月1日成立

工人党秘书长暨阿裕尼集选区议员毕丹星,在国会质询总理,究竟选区范围检讨委员会是在八月的什么时候成立? 选举局在9月4日,在官网发布文告,宣布总理已召开成立选区范围检讨委会。但是并没有道明确切的成立日期。 贸工部长陈振声则在昨日代总理李显龙,以书面方式回答毕丹星提问,指上述委会是在8月1日成立。 今年7月,毕丹星曾询问有关委会是否已成立, 惟陈振声当时也代表总理答复,尚未。 今年3月1日,毕丹星曾质问,为何不在上述委会成立后政府自行作出宣布,但陈振声则代总理回答,惯例是让委会专业地进行工作,不受不必要媒体关注或公共压力影响。 事实上,此前在野政治人物张媛容也认为,新加坡人有权通过自由和公平选举,选出人民领导,这也意味着,鉴于群众利益,选区范围检讨委员会什么时候成立,也应立即公告国民。 “在2015年选举前夕,当总理在7月13日在国会受到提问时,才透露选区范围检讨委会已成立,但委会早已成立了两个月。” 在2006年和2011年,选区范围检讨委会用了四个月时间提交报告。但在2015年,从委会公布新的选区地图,到9月1日的提名日,只有39天。 目前,由总理秘书陈基荣担任选区范围检讨委会主席。选举局局长许松岭担任委员会秘书,其他委员包括:建屋发展局局长蔡君炫博士、新加坡土地管理局局长陈文凯和统计局局长王辉锦。

S$72 million to support manpower upskilling in the built environment (BE) sector

An additional $72 million will be set aside over the next two…

SPP: “The people shall not be bullied any more.”

Benjamin Cheah / photos by Jean Loo Sound and fury were the…

WP/AHTC/PRPTC court case – making a mountain out of a molehill

I would think that it would be common practice to cross your…