Dr Wong Wee Nam/

“Humour is therapeutic and a lack of it could be a sign of mental illness.” – Sigmund Freud

A friend, who stays in US for nearly 40 years, came back recently and observed that there is some change in the political climate of fear after the General Election 2011.

Another friend who had just come back from Australia also keeps hearing people telling him that things have change.

One friend suggested that the change has something to do with the internet. Before that people were angry about certain things but kept quiet because of fear and they also thought that they were in the minority. Through the internet people suddenly realised they were not alone and could speak openly about their concerns. There is security in numbers.

This collective awakening was what drove thousands of citizens to turn up at the numerous rallies held during the GE 2011 every night. It also emboldened people to openly declare who they were going to vote, something that they would not dare to do even one year before that.

The massive crowd that had turned up at the rallies night after night were not a rabid group. Nor were the speakers fiery demagogues out to incite riots. They came from all walks of life. People turned up at rallies for various reasons. Some were genuinely angry. Some wanted to be entertained. Others sought to be politically educated.

For eight nights, the various stadia that were used by political parties for their rallies were turned into huge open air theatres for their citizens. For many of the listeners the eloquent expression of their concerns by the various speakers opened both their eyes and their minds. They laughed, clapped and cheered uninhibitedly at every hyperbole, pun and wit. Every time a punchline was delivered, the crowd roared.

Why did our people enjoy going to election rallies? In our daily life, we face many stresses and frustrations from family, work and financial problems. We feel unhappy, angry and powerless in face of the intrusions of the authority into our lives. The various government policies that affected us also made us disgruntled. Furthermore, as demonstrations are banned, there is no avenue that a citizen can vent his pent-up emotions.

Thus, we went to the rallies to laugh, cheered and clapped and used humour as a form of emotional catharsis to help us vent our hostility in a non-physical way.

In the past, our political climate had discouraged the citizens to express themselves freely and such a therapy was only available to the limited number of our affluent theatre-goers attending some of our local plays.

This time round, the whole nation went through nine days of therapeutic emotional release.

This is not to say rallies are just theatres where frivolous speeches are made. Apart from helping to sharpen the mind, satire, humour and punchlines can benefit the society in a number of ways.

Jokes at rallies actually deliver serious messages. Isaac Asimov, the famous science fiction writer who had one of the most repertoire of jokes, said that when jokes of the proper kind are properly told, they actually do more to enlighten questions of politics, philosophy and literature than any number of dull arguments.

Indeed, most jokes are crafted on the basis of some bitter truth. It is a polite, non-confrontational and non-aggressive way of making a social criticism and so is an acceptable tool for bringing up issues of social concern. Perhaps this is why the crowd at the rallies did not turn rabid after eight nights of light-hearted polemics.

However making rally speeches is like licking the food off a sharp knife. A slip of the tongue and you could cut yourself. Each butt of a joke has various degrees of tolerance and sensitivity. It is, therefore, difficult to tell how someone would react. George Bernard Shaw once told us, “If you want to tell a person the truth, make him laugh or he’ll kill you.”

Thus, if you make fun of a person and he happens to be the humourless type, you risk getting sued. Since no defamation suits had been brought against anyone in General Election 2011, it can be assumed that the jokes must be made in good taste or that our politicians have become more tolerant and less sensitive. If this is so, then my friends’ observations may be right. There is, indeed, an atmosphere of change.

Still it is too early to tell. However, even if there is no great leap forward, there is at least some progress. In past elections, people were afraid to have their photographs taken at rallies. Now even celebrities and others have no issue seeing their pictures posted all over the internet.

Yakov Smirnoff, a comedian from Russia and also a professor at Missouri State University and Drury University where he teaches “The Business of Laughter”, once complained that when a comedian in his country tells a joke, people look around to see who was watching them before they laugh.

In our case, in the GE 2011, the response was spontaneous and uninhibited. This is change.

This article is also published at sgpolitics.net

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

被控无准证办集会、拒签口供有罪 高庭驳回范国瀚上诉

社运份子范国瀚因无准证举办集会、拒签署口供,合共被罚款3200元,不服判决于日前(10月4日)向高庭提出上诉。惟今日被高庭裁决驳回上诉。 根据书面判词,高庭法官蔡利民驳回范国瀚辩护律师杜莱辛甘的辩述。后者指当时范所举办的“公民抗命及社会运动”论坛,只不过是“讨论”和“分享有关公民不服从的观点和经历”。 范国瀚在2016年11月26日,在新民巷美景城(Midview City)的AGORA,主办“公民抗命及社会运动”论坛,邀请香港“黄雨伞运动”中的学运领袖黄之锋,透过Skype与现场观众连线对谈交流。 法官指出,控方展示范国瀚有意透过上述活动,认可“透过公民不服从带来社会改革”,这属于“集会”的范畴。 “依我之见,如讨论涉及捍卫/主张某一立场、宗旨或运动,也形同在宣扬相关志业。” 尽管论坛的主题相对中立,惟法官也指出在脸书对有关活动的简介,可见其“并非纯粹中立的学术讨论”。有关简介指将邀请香港众志秘书长黄之锋,与本地社运分子施兰以及韩俐颖,分享公民不服从和民主,在营造促进进步和改变的社会运动扮演的角色。 法官认为,有鉴于黄之锋的身份,范国瀚邀请对付参与讨论,就显示范认同透过公民不服从带来社会改革的志业。 至于范国瀚被指拒签口供,法官指出警方有法律权力,要求供证者签署口供,以保障口供的可靠性。 控方曾要求调高保释金至1万5000元 法院是在今年1月3日裁定,范国瀚被指无准证举办集会,且拒绝签署口供,被判有罪。他因无准证办集会被罚2000元或10日监禁,而拒绝签口供被罚1200元或6日监禁。 据功能八号氏族会总监张素兰在脸书分享,控方曾要求提高保释金至1万5000元,所幸范国瀚辩护律师回应,范没有潜逃的风险,也真诚地出庭,法庭也驳回了控方的要求。…

何晶推荐自制口罩 称“任何口罩都比没口罩强”

总理夫人何晶昨日在脸书分享,倡议“任何口罩都好过没口罩”,也指假设有两人见面,互相都戴口罩,可以进一步减低感染风险。 “有鉴于一般我们很少有机会遇到病重病患,不一定需要医用级别的手术口罩。”故此,她建议在当前全球疫情严峻、口罩吃紧的情况下,应把口罩留给前线医护人员。 在最新的一则贴文,她则提到20世纪初,一名槟城医生(即知名的伍连德医生)到正发生鼠疫的中国。他让所有医务人员戴上用手术纱布制成的口罩,起初还被嘲笑,但最后拯救了不少医疗人员性命,而备受尊崇。 2月份就有四医生呼吁戴口罩 然而,本地早在2月10日,就已有四名医生联署疾呼,全民若离开家门都要经常戴口罩。 其中一名医生也指出,理解如今不是每个人都买得到口罩,也建议民众可以以可清洗的布制口罩代替,缝入合适的(过滤)纸,或者围围巾包裹脸部,至少比起完全不戴口罩好。 她指出,她从医学院毕业后,也曾使用过布质口罩,故此不见得布质口罩现今无法使用。 麦锡威称将检讨戴口罩政策 当时卫生部医药服务总监麦锡威副教授称,尽管一些建议都很贴切,包括勤洗手等。不过人们必须记得病毒是通过飞沫(droplets)传播的,仍未有证据表明透过空气传播。“戴口罩仍不是最重要的(防疫)事项。” 不过,在本周二(31日)的跨政府部门抗疫工作小组记者会上,他则改口指该部针对口罩的使用政策,将“审慎”检视现有数据和其他国际经验。 总理称只有身体不适才戴口罩 事实上,跨政府部门工作小组领导,包括卫生部长颜金勇和国家发展部长黄循财,都曾呼吁民众不要抢购口罩,人们遵循医疗建议使用口罩。换句话说,即有不适者才需要戴口罩,而身体强健者,可以将口罩让给那些有需要者。…

PMO: Former Prime Minister still warded in ICU

The Prime Minister Office has just released its statement about former Prime…

Ng Eng Hen urges servicemen to speak out on violations, but there no reassurance that those who do will be protected

Following the recent National Service (NS) training death and subsequent discussions about…