Ann Hui's "The Way We Are" (天水围的日与夜)

I hope more people will get to see Ann Hui's latest film "The Way We Are" (天水围的日与夜). But I doubt it will get mass screening in Singapore, even though it won best director, best screen play, best actress and best supporting actress at the 28th Hong Kong Film Awards.

I suspect that the typical Singaporean movie goer, who prefers the typical Hollywood fares, will find "The Way We Are" too slow-moving and boring, and that the film is unlikely to do well at the box office. For this reason, I believe the cinemas in Singapore will not be too keen to screen the film.

Still, I hope this quietly charming film will at least be shown at the Picture House.


Film review by Kozo:
http://www.lovehkfilm.com/reviews_2/way_we_are.html
*****************************************************

Tin Shui Wai is a place where bad things happen - or so the Hong Kong media has been quick to tell us. A northwestern New Territories town, the Tin Shui Wai New Town emerged in the 1990s thanks to land reclamation and financial help from the Hong Kong Government. Unfortunately, the town currently suffers from widespread unemployment, leading to domestic violence, suicide, triad activity, and plenty of bad stuff that, again, the Hong Kong media has been quick to tell us about. Exacerbating that was the unfortunate October 2007 incident when a mother and her two children reportedly leapt to their deaths from one of the area's high-rise housing estates. The negative media attention and public perception of the town as a "City of Sadness" are reasons that Lawrence Lau's Beseiged City, a 2007 drama taking place in Tin Shui Wai, has been chided for sensationalizing the city's woes.

However, there is another side to Tin Shui Wai, namely the side where people get up in the morning, live their lives, and contribute the best they can to their communities. Ann Hui's HD-video docudrama, The Way We Are gives voice to these other, less sensational residents of Tin Shui Wai, and manages to give their lives weight and depth, while also not glorifying their working-class honesty. Despite the title and presumed intentions, The Way We Are is not didactic or moralizing - it's just real, in all its serene, mundane, everyday glory. The more cinematically inclined could knock the film for its lack of action and its snail's pace, but Hui seems unconcerned with telling anything resembling a true narrative with a beginning, middle, or end. The Way We Are picks up the threads in people's lives, follows them, and reveals nothing more than unglamourous reality.

Bau Hei-Jing (Lost in Time) stars as Mrs. Cheung, who lives with teenage son Ka-On (Juno Leung). Mrs. Cheung works part-time in the local Wellcome supermarket, while Ka-On lazes about their home and occasionally attends church fellowship meetings, where he may or may not admire one of his church mentors. Life occurs when the two befriend a new neighbor (Chan Wai-Lun), an elderly woman who lives alone, and soon joins Mrs. Cheung at her workplace. Meanwhile, Mrs. Cheung's mother enters the hospital, and Mrs. Cheung is too busy to visit right away, but Ka-On visits from time to time, bringing soup with him. Meanwhile, their neighbor needs a light bulb changed, but she's too old and unwilling to do it. Will Ka-On help her change her light bulb? And will Mrs. Cheung ever visit her mom in the hospital?

It may sound like I'm mocking The Way We Are, but I'm just trying to poke fun at standard moviegoing expectations. Oftentimes we expect active narratives and characters in our movies, and indeed, some films could be called to task for not delivering those effectively. The Way We Are, however, is not one of those films, and its aims can plainly be seen in the Chinese title: Tin Shui Wai Dik Yat Yue Ye, meaning "Tin Shui Wai At Day and Night". This is a simple story about regular people, and Ann Hui breathes credibility and affection into her characters and their lives by choosing not to overdo the film. Her approach is decidedly quiet, utilizing sparing amounts of music or manipulative technique, and making no attempt to cajole the audience into the role of active participant. The viewer's role here is passive, much like the characters themselves, who react naturally and without forced emotion or incident. The result is not action-packed, and The Way We Are proves so unexciting as to soporific. Yes, this movie can put a person to sleep, and if you've had a glass of wine and only 3-4 hours sleep the previous evening, expect a nap attack.

Again, however, that's not cause to deride the film. The Way We Are is not a classic, as it never surpasses its humble aims, but Hui's hand is assured enough to make this a worthy visit. The director displays extraordinary confidence and control in that she resists the temptation to make the film more than what it truly is. The characters lives never threaten to become the stuff of melodrama, and though details are revealed about the history of the characters and the town, little qualifies as an outright dramatic revelation. The emotions here are simple and respectful ones, and show us that the people of Tin Shui Wai have a heart and soul. Living there is like living anywhere else; it's full of ups and downs, small successes and setbacks, and people who are worth getting to know if you just give them a chance. The Way We Are makes Tin Shui Wai seem like home.

那一季妻枪寓绿

就这样迫不及待地, 甚至还没正式认真起来, 惨绿的三个月结束自己, 以一种义无反顾的坚决。

如今坐在警察学院的宿舍里，面对着厚厚的法律课本，我正不遗余力地设法使自己认真起来，迎接警长课程第一阶段的结束、还有考试。如果这次顺利过关，六个月之后再闯过大考那一关，我就能摆脱训练的束缚、教官的苛刻，重回民间、投身社会了。

而六个月前，我首次被流放到一座岛上，开始经历我生命中一个既冬又夏的春季 – 怀着一颗悲秋的心。

甫入德光，十二月的连绵雨带来了心中微微的抽泣以及想家的病。而家的温馨，前所未有地呼唤着患病日深的我，如此情真意切， 越发使我难以忍受岛上严寒的人情世故。而长官可以无情得如此寒冬，训练却竟那般炎夏，以致我们这些虾兵蟹卒汗流浃背的灌溉，居然足够绿化整座岛日作夜续的生息、甚至我们浓缩的梦境。梦里，仍隐隐透散无边无际、无止无歇的绿色表情和叹息，夹着泥土的芳香和身体的汗臭。

幸好圣诞拯救了梦的阵亡于军绿的窒息，几抹节日的缤纷祥和了兵戎的戾气，也为我们这群新兵注射了一股越狱逃生般的兴奋。记得那次，也是自踏入德光岛后首次回家，我在日记中如此记载我的心情：虽然天空下着雨，我的心情却晴朗无比 – 所有的笑容也都禁不住拥挤到脸上来了。

那一段日子，最最高兴的就是每回乘风破浪的归乡之日。周末和假期是我们最殷切的期盼。尤其是喜气洋洋的农历新年，更让我那常耽于秋色之中的心猛然觉察到春的讯息。其他的日子， 除了陪我那无奈何迎娶过门的“妻子”在荒山野岭捕风捉影，或在打靶场印证百发百中这句成语的不实际，就是日间睡一些漫长的有关战争的课，夜里读一些短篇的有关和平的梦。

当然， 也少不了挨些翻山越岭、披荆斩棘、长途跋涉之苦，时不时做些强身壮胆的体操、还有学习诸般兵器，实行行军阵法。

时至当时，我才刻骨铭心地对战争深痛恶绝，才发现许多我平时视之为理所当然的寻常事物（如白开水），居然可以变得极其珍贵神奇。更巴不得天下马上大同，人人和谐共处、安居乐业， 好让我可以放下屠刀，立即回家。

所以我说， 当兵真好，不单栽培一批批强悍自主的卫国汉子，更教会我们这些毛头小子如何珍惜家、珍惜自由、珍惜日常生活中许多琐碎平常的事物。

并且， 军训的煎熬除了烧焦我们脸上的青春豆外，也催促青春岁月的成熟。而成熟不仅是学习自立，更是学会学习。观点的角度多了：除了个人的、社会的，额外有了军事的、国家的。以前，蓝色代表淡淡忧郁，而青色代则表无穷活力。当兵后，青色提醒我们训练的艰辛，触动我们心中的深层的忧郁。如此，我们领悟了青出于蓝的真谛。

那一季妻枪寓绿，我们一个两个都是坚毅的卫国兵、好男儿。 如今，我已卸下一身的绿，与莱福枪离婚，从军戎中迁居， 开始过着离沙场烽火较远，离人间烟火较近的深蓝警察生活。我当然深感庆幸，因为每年众多新兵中，仅有八十个被挑中接受警长训练课程。毕竟军旅生涯无论如何都是比较苛严难熬的。但是，仍在军绿中伴枪为妻的你们，可千万别荒废了这几个月来练就的工夫：坚毅和忍耐。要堂堂正正、积极乐观地接受每天的挑战。

生活就是一场没有尽期的争战，时时都需要我们打起精神，拿出勇气来应对。考期迫不及待地逼近，虽然目前我胸中的法律墨水仍严重缺供，但为了要做个堂堂正正称职的执法先锋，我会认真地备考，以一种义无反顾的坚决。

(1990年5月31日联合早报副刊〈文艺城〉)

听雨

四季之中， 特别偏爱秋天。喜欢那时序的节奏逐渐放缓的感觉；喜欢泛黄的秋叶在微扬的风中飘落时那种悠然的姿态，以及略带落漠的神情。

没有四季的岛国，常年是夏、一雨成秋。偏爱秋天的我，对于能够为炎热的岛国带来些许秋意的雨，自然情有独钟。虽然无法安排让我邂逅我所钟爱的秋叶，雨的清新凉爽却常常可以帮助我舒缓烦躁的心和匆促的脚步；有时，甚至还会激起我寻访一首好诗的意念。

欣赏一首诗的方法可以包括感受、默想、聆听。同样的，欣赏一场雨，除了感受它的清爽、默想秋天的意境，我们还可以选择聆听它的滴滴答答、淅淅沥沥。

雨简单的词汇经常被译成琐碎的聒絮、悲伤的呜咽。然而，雨的言语不一定只能够与单调乏味或阴霾哀痛挂钩。雨声也可以是美妙绝伦、多姿多彩的：细雨的飘转回旋可以旋律成优美的乐曲、配乐情侣伞下的漫步；豪雨的滂沱可以节奏成欢娱的拍子，助兴顽童水中的嬉戏。

有一些人听到雨声就会发怨言，就会愁容满面。或许他们考虑到风雨所带来的种种不便，或许他们回想起生命中一些风风雨雨、不愉快的经历。我偶尔也会如此。但是更多的时候，我会提醒自己，选择以平常心去迎接风雨的来临、学习细听其中的节奏与旋律，盼望能够听到欢娱的拍子和优美的乐曲。

聆听得够专著的话，也许还能听到一片秋天里的落叶，以它微声的叹息，吟咏美丽的诗句。

(1999年10月18日早报副刊<四面八方>)

Sexuality Education and Homosexuality - a discussion

TWIT asked:
The Word of God says homosexuality is a sin. IF you are a parent would you encourage your children or anyone and say to them, "It is ok , it is ok...you can try it...it your choice?"

Lip Kee's reply:

POINTING TO THE FATHER'S HEART TO PROTECT AND TO BLESS

If I were a parent, I would tell my child(ren) the following:

I believe God does not condone homosexuality because He has our best interests at heart. God knows that a person who leads a homosexual life-style is subjecting himself to more risks and harms: physically, emotionally and socially, that is why God warns us against getting involved in homosexuality. God's heart is for us to enjoy our lives by living healthily and joyfully.

I would highlight to my child(ren) the risks of sexually transmitted diseases, the danger of emotional hurts and the pressure of social stigma. I would emphasize that because God loves us and wants the best for us, God does not want us to get involved in homosexuality.

Just like how I would warn against playing with fire or being rude with others, I would make sure that I explain the reasons why the warning is given.

Instead of just resorting to "because God's Word say so" and making God appear as if He is unreasonable and a spoil-fun, I would want to make sure that my child(ren) understand(s) that God is a perfectly reasonable, caring and fun-loving Parent who wants the best for His children.

NOT LABELING PEOPLE AND SINGLING THEM OUT FOR CONDEMNATION

As a principle, I am against labeling people. I think once we put a label on a person or a group of persons, the tendency is for us to treat the person or the group as a generic concept (e.g. the enemy, the threat etc.) instead of as unique individual(s).

I believe the Bible teaches us that God loves everyone, and that Jesus died for the whole world, including those who are considered homosexuals. As Christians, we are called to reject sins but to love the sinners. If we truly want to love and help the homosexuals, we should treat each of them as a person, with respect; instead of as a label, with prejudice or fear.

I personally don't think it is helpful to label homosexuals/ homosexuality as being "abnormal" or "unacceptable" or "not okay". Instead of using such value-laden words, I believe it would be more useful to use factual terms such as "minority" and "non mainstream".

The fact is that homosexuals are a minority in our societies. And I believe that because they cannot reproduce after themselves, they will always remain a minority.

The way I see it, to the extent that the homosexuals are not able to be fruitful and multiply, to that extent they are falling short of God's purpose for the human race. But should they therefore be singled out as being especially "sinful"? No, I don't think so. In my view, the homosexuals are no better and they are no worse than heterosexuals.

From the Christian perspective, ALL (irrespective of sexual orientation and reproductive success) have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Everyone (irrespective of sexual orientation and reproductive success) is equally sinful. Everyone (irrespective of sexual orientation and reproductive success) needs the tender mercy and saving grace of Jesus Christ. Everyone (irrespective of sexual orientation and reproductive success) should be treated with due respect.

I don't think it is necessary to single out the homosexuals as a group to condemn or to fight against.

ENCOURAGING RESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOUR

In my feedback to MOE, I raised my concerns about certain non factual statements which I find questionable in the instructor's guide to the CSE programme developed by AWARE. In my opinion, statements such as "anal sex is healthy", "homosexuality is neutral", "pre-marital sex is not negative" are not values-free statements. To the impressionable young kids, such statements could be nudges strong enough to encourage them to "go over". I therefore suggested that such statements be taken out from the CSE programme.

I also stated that the objectives of the CSE should be to encourage responsible behaviors among the students and to prevent undesirable consequences such as: teen pregnancies, abortions, sexually transmitted diseases, dropping out of school, disrupted education etc., it is therefore important to highlight to the students the risks and dangers associated with sexual activities. The aim, I believe, should be to provide relevant and sufficient information to help students understand that their actions will have consequences, and that it is important for them to decide and act responsibly, for their own sakes and for the sakes of others.

I am glad that MOE has addressed the concerns raised by issuing the official statement on 6 May 2009 (http://lipkee.multiply.com/journal/item/122) and by suspending the CSE programme until its internal vetting system has been properly enhanced.

The original discussion took place in my Multiply blog: http://lipkee.multiply.com/journal/item/121

MOE statement on Sexuality Education Programme

The following was released by the Ministry of Education to the media on May 6, 2009:

In recent weeks, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has received feedback on the Sexuality Education Programme conducted by AWARE, as well as other lesson material not involving AWARE. MOE has done a thorough investigation. This statement presents the Ministry’s findings and future steps.

MOE and the schools do not promote alternative lifestyles to our students. MOE’s framework for sexuality education reflects the mainstream views and values of Singapore society, where the social norm consists of the married heterosexual family unit.

Today, schools are allowed to engage external vendors to supplement MOE’s sexuality education programme. MOE has reviewed the internal processes for selecting and monitoring vendors and found that they can be improved. MOE will put in more stringent processes to ensure that training materials and programmes delivered in schools are in line with the Ministry’s framework on sexuality education. Schools will suspend the engagement of external vendors until the new vetting processes are completed. The Ministry is also reviewing ways to provide parents with more information about sexuality education in the specific schools that their children are in.

MOE has examined AWARE’s “Comprehensive Sexuality Education: Basic Instructor Guide”. The Guide contains some positive aspects, like the accurate information provided on STIs/HIV and role-play practice for students to say no to sex. However, MOE’s assessment is that in some other aspects, the Guide does not conform to MOE’s guidelines. In particular, some suggested responses in the instructor guide are explicit and inappropriate, and convey messages which could promote homosexuality or suggest approval of pre-marital sex.

In view of this, AWARE’s programmes in schools will be suspended and subjected to the new vetting processes.

MOE has also investigated feedback about materials used during General Paper (GP) lessons in junior colleges which carry information on alternative lifestyles. These materials and lessons did not involve AWARE. GP lessons are meant to promote critical thinking and discussion on contemporary issues. MOE investigations showed that the teachers had used these materials to initiate discussion on family structures, and not to promote alternative lifestyles. Nevertheless, MOE will remind school leaders and teachers to exercise greater professional discretion in guiding their students when such topics are discussed. They should also adhere to social norms and values of our mainstream society.

Parents are ultimately responsible for inculcating values in their children. MOE’s sexuality education programme aims to complement parents’ role in helping students make informed, responsible and values-based decisions regarding sexuality.

Excellent analysis by Cherian George on the AWARE fiasco

AWARE: Lessons from a fiasco

- by Cherian George

The battle for control of Aware can be a learning experience for civil society activists and the wider public. There are at least three lessons to reflect on: the brand of secularism that works for Singapore; the type of representation that civil society organisations should offer; and the level of transparency and accountability that the public deserve from such groups.

Secularism

Some may view the outcome of the Aware showdown as a triumph over religious values and then – depending on their standpoint – either despair or gloat. But, this would be a wrong reading of events and only set the stage for more confrontational encounters.

The battle for Aware should be seen instead as a struggle over how – not whether – to insert faith-based values into public life. While there are some societies that interpret secularism as delegitimising the entry of religious values into the public sphere, that has never been Singapore’s way. Secularism here acknowledges that many Singaporeans are spiritually oriented; it respects their right to inject faith-based words and actions into public life.

Crucially, however, the state stays separate and equidistant from the different religions. Even more crucially, when there are disagreements over public matters, Singaporean secularism cannot recognise religious arguments as a trump card. One could allow one’s reading of God’s will to dictate how one runs one’s own household or faith-based community (and even then only within the limits of the law); but God’s word cannot be the final word on how collective decisions are made in the public sphere.

People of a particular faith must therefore be able to translate their values into secular terms to the satisfaction of fellow citizens who do not share those values, or else accept graciously that their desires are, for the moment, incompatible with what the wider society wants.

The Aware battle was not between the profane and the sacred, but between those who understand Singaporean secularism and those who apparently do not. The concerted steps they took to subvert a secular organisation and rid its leadership of its traditional diversity showed that the insurgents did not want merely to be part of a conversation; they wanted to be the only voice.

When intolerant – and considerably more violent – voices have surfaced in other religious communities, the moderate mainstream had to rise up to reclaim the microphone, to assure themselves and their fellow citizens that their faith was entirely compatible with peaceful co-existence in a multicultural and democratic society. Similarly, one of the most positive outcomes of the Aware saga is the strong assertion by Singaporeans of faith and their religious leaders: we are here, our faith makes us and our society stronger, but we will not impose our values on others.

Representation

The Aware old guard accused the insurgents of not reflecting Singapore’s cultural diversity. The insurgents retorted that, compared with the liberal old guard, their conservative values were more representative of Singapore’s majority. Who was right? Both, probably. But, neither diversity nor representativeness is a necessary or sufficient criterion when assessing a civil society group.

First, while the expectation that a civil society organisation (CSO) should represent the majority view is superficially seductive, it is in fact fundamentally flawed. CSOs are not political parties, which must appeal to the majority to win elections. One of the chief values of CSOs is precisely that they fill the gaps left by political parties (and by the private sector), by serving causes that the majority may not embrace.

For example, the majority of Singaporeans would probably not go out of their way to improve the lives of strangers with disabilities. When voluntary welfare organisations work passionately for the interests of disabled, it would be rather perverse if we criticised them for not representing the views of most Singaporeans.

Indeed, if crude democratic logic were applied to gender issues, there would have been no Aware in the first place: when it was set up, most Singaporeans – men and women – held sexist views about the proper place of women and the abuses that they should endure quietly. That many CSOs are not representative is a fact, and a healthy one.

Still, some may wonder if society should tolerate CSOs that embrace seemingly far-out views. Again, it is important not to confuse CSOs with political parties. Electoral politics is more or less a zero-sum game. The winning party controls the government, which in turn monopolises certain powers and resources – including the powers to tax and to command the armed forces.

Civil society space is quite different. CSOs can gain influence, but have no power to set national policy. Furthermore, multiple CSOs can work within the same space simultaneously. Since a CSO has no monopoly over its area of work, it has no moral obligation to be representative in its values – or, for that matter, in its racial or religious composition. If others are fundamentally opposed to its direction, they can set up their own organisation.

CSOs face an inherent tension. On the one hand, they require a certain solidarity and unity of purpose if they are to overcome challenges. On the other hand, internal diversity can be a key strength: a group’s problem-solving capacity is enhanced when it is able to look at situations from multiple angles.

While it may be unfair and unrealistic to expect each CSO to reflect all colours of the rainbow, a CSO that aims to have national impact should certainly be outward-looking. An internally homogeneous community-based CSO is not a problem in itself; it should be judged by the friends it has. It deserves to be viewed with skepticism if it is unable to work with groups representing other communities. Fortunately, several faith-based and ethnic-based groups in Singapore have excellent records of working side by side with other groups, regardless of race, language or religion.

Transparency

Setting aside the substantive disagreements, the Aware saga offers lessons about civil society governance and process. What alarmed many neutral observers was the way the insurgents went about their plans.

Civil society groups that want influence and respect should be transparent in their dealings and be ready to account for themselves. It would be an understatement to say that the insurgents were unprepared for the intense public scrutiny they attracted.

They were secretive in their plan to take over Aware and coy about their intentions. Based on their public statements, it is still unclear how much they were motivated by a single issue: their opposition to Aware’s liberal stand on homosexuality. If this was their target all along, it does not speak well for them that they did not state it plainly and publicly at the outset.

If this was not their primary concern, then an even more troubling concern arises. Their allegations at the height of the dispute, that Aware had been promoting homosexuality to children and teens, smack of a cynical (but, sadly, historically effective) political ploy: win support from the masses by turning a marginalised minority into an object of fear.

In many societies, the tactic would have worked. Governments lacking in moral courage are known to side with intolerant forces when they whip up mass sentiment against minorities. Fortunately, it did not work here. The Ministry of Education’s measured and rational response took the wind out of the sails of the insurgents and exposed them as scaremongers.

The Government is not known to be sympathetic to the progressive agenda of Aware’s liberals. Perhaps the insurgents had hoped that dragging the school sexuality programme into the debate would prod the Government to take its side. If so, they miscalculated. If there is one thing that is stronger than its antipathy towards liberal values, it is the Government’s resistance to letting its power and prestige become tools in the hands of any lobby group, whatever its ideological complexion.

No doubt, the weekend’s events would have made the insurgents feel utterly misunderstood and underappreciated, as losing factions are wont to. They have nobody to blame but themselves. No matter how pure their intentions, their words and actions were patently out of place in Singaporean civil society.

Cherian George is an assistant professor at Nanyang Technological University’s Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information and a member of Maruah, the Singapore Working Committee for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism. Email: cherian@ntu.edu.sg.