V6i3 by The Octant

FRIDAY FEBRUARY 17, 2017

VOL. 6, ISSUE 3

NEWS

Students Express Concern Over New Study Abroad Policy

ARTS

1987: A Missing Narrative

OPINION

Chinese Privilege Checked, Now What? Designated Parks: Notes on Academic Freedom After the Town Hall: Now What?

YALE-NUS, SINGAPORE

FEATURES

Should Yale-NUS Compete As Separate Residential Colleges in ICGs?

STUDENTS EXPRESS CONCERN OVER

NEW STUDY ABROAD POLICY

story | Joshua Wong, Contributing Reporter photo | Lucy Kuo

ecent changes to study abroad policies have spurred a wave of discontent. Some students say the changes restrict their options and, in some cases, may force them to reconsider — or abandon — plans to study at an overseas institution. On Jan. 19, the Center for International and Professional Experience (CIPE) announced several changes to regulations regarding study abroad in an information session. CIPE implemented policy changes to the quota for places at non-partner institutions, credit transfer and funding for trimester-based institutions, and study abroad fees. Students expressed discontent at the restrictions imposed by the new policy on their study abroad opportunities. The new policy limits the total number of students who can study at non-partner institutions (schools which do not have an exchange partnership with Yale-NUS) in Academic Year (AY) 2017/18 to 40. Prior to the introduction of this restriction, around half of the 222 students who studied abroad studied at nonpartner institutions or programs.

CIPE implements individual limits on the number of non-partner spots by geographical region. For instance, the number of students who can study abroad at a non-partner institution in Asia, Latin America, or Africa is limited to nine. In comparison, six members of the Class of 2017 studied abroad in Japan alone. The lack of geographical diversity is also reflected in partner institution offerings. Of the 103 places spread across 21 partner institutions for AY2017/18, only 18 are for institutions located outside of Europe and North America. Students expressed concern over the limitations on places at non-partner programs, and the lack of diversity in partner institutions. Heng Yeng Tan ’18, who studied abroad with the International Honours Programme (a non-partner programme), said in an online correspondence that “an over-saturation of students studying at partner institutions (that are large, campusbased, corporate, ‘elite’, and largely situated in the Anglophile world) is damning to the diversity in the perspectives and changes 1

NEWS | FEATURES that study abroad is supposed to cultivate.” Students who require semester abroad courses to count towards their major found themselves frustrated by the new restrictions. Risa Shindo ’19, a Mathematical, Computational and Statistical Science (MCS) major, said that “almost none of the partner institutions [...] are appropriate for providing an intense program for computer science students.” As a result, she wanted to apply to a non-partner institution. However, her CIPE advisor told her that she needed to raise her Cumulative Average Point (CAP) in order to successfully compete for a place. “I was extremely enthused to apply for study abroad next semester,” she said, “[but now] I may or may not obtain the opportunity to apply for the institutions that I would love to study abroad at.” Lindsay Allen, Associate Director of International Programs at CIPE, said in an email interview that study abroad is transitioning to an exchange-based model in order to promote long-term sustainability. Places at non-partner programs will gradually be reduced in the future as CIPE builds more partnerships with various institutions, including those in Asia, Africa, and South America. “We are confident that most of our students will be able to find multiple [partner] institutions on the list that are a good fit for their interests,” Ms. Allen said. “We believe that the exchange model is the best option for Yale-NUS, but for now we do plan to keep some non-partner spots for students whose unique interests and needs cannot be met by current partners,” she added. While Melody Madhavan ’17, who also studied abroad at a non-partner institution, expressed understanding of the motivation behind the policy change, she said that the change should only be implemented after Yale-NUS expands its list of partner institutions. The current system, Madhavan said, makes it “very hard for people who want to achieve specific things that cannot be met by the partner institutions already available.” Under the second change in the study abroad policy, CIPE

will cover only one trimester’s worth (approximately eight weeks) of tuition for trimester-based institutions such as Oxford or Cambridge, but students will pay Yale-NUS tuition for a full semester (14 weeks). Students who study abroad for one trimester will be allowed to transfer a maximum of 14MCs to Yale-NUS. Students who wish to study abroad for longer will have to fund subsequent trimesters themselves. They can transfer a maximum of 20MCs for two trimesters, but will have to pay one semester’s worth of Yale-NUS tuition fees and one trimester’s worth of overseas tuition fees. Previously, students could study abroad for two trimesters while paying one semester’s worth of Yale-NUS fees. The large increase in financial cost for studying abroad at trimesterbased institutions has deterred some students from doing so. Charis Lim ’19 said that she felt she had been shortchanged. “A part of why I chose YNC was the ample overseas opportunities,” she said, “[but studying at a trimester-based institution] is not an option if I need to pay more than what I’m paying now. [It’s] just a bit of a financial stretch.” Lastly, under the new policy, students are responsible for covering the costs of their room and board, airfare, and other personal expenses when going abroad. They will pay Yale-NUS tuition fees, but not residential fees. This change was implemented in AY2016/17. Previously, students had to pay Yale-NUS tuition and residential fees, as well as a study abroad fee of SGD3,000 for a semester (or 10,000 for a year), but had their overseas tuition, accommodation, and food expenses covered by CIPE. Students who require financial assistance to pay for room, board, and other expenses under the new policy can apply for need-based funding. While acknowledging student concerns about the new policy, Ms. Allen said that students should “look at study abroad not just as a way to fulfill courses in their major, but also as an opportunity to build regional expertise, explore niche areas of interest, and gain a meaningful intercultural experience.”

SHOULD YALE-NUS COMPETE AS SEPARATE RESIDENTIAL COLLEGES IN ICGs? story | Justin Ong, Managing Editor photo | Rachel Juay

hen the last road relay runner sprints past the finishing line on Feb. 16, Yale-NUS College will have completed its first Inter-College Games (ICG) as a full house. After three years of ICG participation, how has college spirit and representation been, and what can be done to improve it? Some, including Pericles Lewis, President of YaleNUS, have a somewhat radical suggestion: divide the college into the three separate Residential Colleges (RCs) (Cendana, Elm and Saga) when competing for the ICG. Athletics Director of Student Government Brandon Lee ’20 also said that this is a sentiment shared by neighboring colleges. “One of the athletics directors [of a neighboring college] did ask me if it was possible for us to compete as separate colleges,” said Lee. The first merit of splitting the school into separate colleges is to increase student participation. “You’d want to get people who don’t always play out there on the court,” said Mr. Lewis. Having fewer students to choose from means that more students have to participate. Asher Chua ’19, captain of the College’s Ultimate Frisbee team, said that separating into three RCs for ICG would mean not only more student involvement, but also

another avenue to build RC identity. “You’re able to build that competitive spirit but at the same time maintain good relations within the RCs,” said Chua. Mr. Lewis also said that competitiveness is integral to college spirit, and that it would be good to have a platform to “build a little bit of healthy rivalry.” Lee said that building RC spirit would be a potential benefit of competing as separate RCs, but also said that “that seems to be the only benefit.” Although ambitious on the outset, logistical challenges loom. Focusing specifically on space and scheduling concerns, Lee said that since the college only has one Multi-Purpose Hall, it is difficult to have three separate colleges training at different times, especially when the current schedule is already fully packed. Lee also said that whereas other colleges have one training facility per college, this would not be the case if Yale-NUS were to split into three colleges. Splitting the three RCs would also mean that each RC would have roughly 300 students, approximately half of what the other colleges in UTown currently house. “If you were to hold the ICG at the same scale as it is held now, the individual RCs will face problems getting representation,” said Chua. He added that “only if we were to revise the format of the ICG [with the consideration of smaller colleges] can this idea be feasible.” A decision to compete as separate RCs would affect some sports more than others. Madeline Tan ’19, captain of the women's

FEATURES | OPINION

basketball team, said that it would be feasible to send one team for every RC as only three players and one substitute are needed for her sport. However, sports such as Ultimate Frisbee would require higher representation, where each College sends two teams of 10 players, which would be difficult if there were less than 300 students to choose from. Sarah Weiss, Rector of Saga College, also said that “talent is not distributed equally across the RCs,” where some sports would be dominated by good players that happen to be in each college. Concerns over the College’s performance in the Inter-Faculty Games (IFG) were also raised. Both Chua and Lee said that team chemistry would be compromised should the College train as separate RCs. “What we lose is the ability to train together to build understanding between players,” said Chua. This would thus “affect how competitive we are on that larger scale [of the IFG].” There are some who said that forging a salient school identity should come before building an RC identity. Tan said that an overall college identity is especially important because “the other [Colleges] are defining themselves against Yale-NUS.” Ms. Weiss talked about the competitive spirit of Yale-NUS in the ICG since the College’s inception. “The animosity that was generated towards us [evoked]

a competitive spirit in U-town and [the other colleges have] gotten much better,” said Ms. Weiss. She also said that the individual RCs do not have enough people to generate that same competitive spirit. Furthermore, lack of manpower and representation are not only problems faced by individual RCs, but with Yale-NUS as a whole. According to Lee, even with more than 700 students to choose from, “forming a full team is already a challenge” and “for almost half of the sports we don’t have a full team.” Lee said that this is partly due to the sporting culture in Yale-NUS, which he said “is still not mature yet.” Yet RC spirit need not be forged by competition on the scale of the ICG. Inter-RC games were held last year, said Tan, where students could try new sports without the same competitive pressure. “It was way more chill [than ICG],” she said. Overall, Ms. Weiss said “RC identity is okay,” and that there are other means besides sports to build on it. Activities such as Werewolves! organized by RC^3 and the Squat Challenge by Bacon serves to build RC identity in a fun and interactive manner. At press time, Yale-NUS College leads the ICG standings, with a total of 59 points.

AFTER THE TOWN HALL: NOW WHAT? story | Kan Ren Jie, Staff Writer photo | Aditya Karkera

oming from a school where students never had much of a stake in its management, I found last week’s Town Hall an extraordinary experience. I cherish the opportunity to be part a student body that is deeply concerned about our College, and willing to engage in civil conversation with the administration. However, as I left the Town Hall, I started to wonder whether anything had changed. Though the Town Hall

has brought to light the concerns of the student body; will we have the momentum to follow through with concrete changes? As we move forward, the student body may face the obstacle of apathy. Past events, such as the most recent Student Government by-election and the elections before that, demonstrate a persistent struggle to increase student involvement in governmental affairs. While the Town Hall was an encouraging sign of civic participation, this problem of apathy will probably not go away overnight. I must confess that I myself am guilty of apathy: indeed, as 3

OPINION

I buried myself in my usual commitments in the days after the Town Hall, what struck me was an extraordinary sense of ‘sameness’ in the school. The highly charged atmosphere of indignation and frustration was replaced by one that was placid and perhaps a tad bit too complacent. I fear that we have come to view the Town Hall as the resolution of all our differences. However, as an email from the Student Government aptly stated, the Town Hall is only the “start of a conversation”. If we view it as the end of a saga, or record it down in the history books as a monumental event, we attach to the Town Hall a dangerous sense of closure. By doing so, we ignore the fact that much effort is still required to turn the ideas so passionately expressed into reality. The Student Government has got down to work on various “Deliverables” and “Action Items”. According to their email, they will establish more opportunities for students to meet with the administration, and various student committees will continue to work with the Dean of Students’ office and senior administration on issues like the event booking policy, graduation, and mental health. As I read through these action items, what struck me was how seemingly mundane they were. While greatly significant, the way forward will nonetheless be filled with “regular meetings”, “clarifications” and the “editing” and “collation” of documents. This grunt work will be left to the Student Government by those of us who are unobservant or uninvolved. Much work is still left for all of us. Whether or not we have a role in the Student Government, the Town Hall should not be diminished as a feel-good kumbayah event. Rather, it was a clarion call: a call to see the value of being engaged, no matter how unexciting the tasks at hand can be, given that school policies

DESIGNATED

can evidently have an impact on our personal interests and values. Additionally, the Town Hall demonstrates that we all have the ability to continue to shape the level of discourse in the school community into one that is civil, yet incredibly effective. Even when the hype of the Town Hall has faded, it remains incredibly important for us to be conscious of the efforts that we will be taking, and to contribute to the College in whatever ways we can. Get to know members of the administration, attend Town Halls regularly, or at the very least read the weekly student government emails. If there is a need for another series of high-profile incidents in order for us to react with another well-attended Town Hall on a rainy Wednesday night, then clearly, we have not learnt the lessons of the first.

SPACES:

NOTES ON ACADEMIC FREEDOM story | Shawn Hoo, Guest Contributor photo | Conal Gallagher and Dave Chappell

"We still fly our kites In designated parks.” (Alfian Sa’at, “Apathy,” A History of Amnesia)

n many ways, Yale-NUS College carves out an odd space within Singapore’s landscape of freedom—as odd as Speakers’ Corner’s perimeters perhaps—things happen here with little resistance where they hardly happen elsewhere. Inverting the existence of ‘authoritarian enclaves’ within democratic states, Bruce Gilley has termed the ‘democratic enclave’ to denote spaces within an authoritarian state that have “gained an enduring ability to act in democratic ways or in espousal of democratic norms.” These spaces are often institutionalized and “operate on a repeated basis according to relatively fixed pattern of interactions that are valued for their own sake.” There are

other ways to explain oddity and exceptions—designated parks. Recently, I helped successfully organise in Yale-NUS College a “Skype Discussion with Joshua Wong” on social movements. The event drew a crowd of more than forty—albeit forty YaleNUS College staff, faculty and students. Amidst a campus-wide debate on ‘academic freedom,’ this event seemed to signal that ‘academic freedom’ still largely remains in the hands of Yale-NUS College faculty, students and staff. But that was the sum of it. This comes slightly more than a month after the Community Action Network (CAN) had organised a separate public Skype interview with Joshua Wong and other Singaporean activists. They were investigated by the police for investigations on grounds of their not having applied for a permit. What were the Singapore authorities afraid of that a 20-year-old University student could say? In any case, the investigations loomed over our event during the planning process and we were at stages wondering if the same kinds of ‘investigations’ would be launched upon us. Fortunately, the event ran smoothly despite tense jokes being cracked when the internet connection went

OPINION

ity and unacceptability are drawn. One action sets a precedence; a set of actions can only set out freedom in perpetual motion. With the recent surge in political events, how do we turn this into a momentum instead of allowing it to fizzle out? 2. Who stands on the other side of the line?

down for a few minutes. After all, this is still a designated park. Our event also came at the same time as several other ‘political’ events on campus. . The screening of Jason Soo’s “1987: Untracing the Conspiracy” and Dean’s Fellow Brea Baker’s talk on organising the Women’s March are just a few examples. have been transforming seemingly neutral spaces like lifts and corridors into highly visible and politicised areas. Protest artists have been transforming seemingly neutral spaces like lifts and corridors into highly visible and politicised areas. One hopes that we would carve out more spaces for ourselves. Looking outside, in a time where authoritarianism is on the rise, is political engagement not a responsibility that is urgent for our resistance and survival? We only need to look to other universities—past and present—to find this call to action close to heart. Where do their kites fly?

What to do with a space that is oddly carved out? 1. Carve more space around to make its outline discernible. In all likelihood, we will receive support from the school to organise events, screenings, or talks of a political nature. Where are these unwritten rules inscribed? They are inscribed in the outline of the space that we’re given. We can push boundaries, even if it just to find out where the borders of acceptabil-

What are the implications that a certain event is restricted to Yale-NUS College students only? What kind of privileges do we have as a college in terms of institutional support compared to the rest of the National University of Singapore (NUS) with respect to the organising of ‘political’ events? I ask this question not to feel good about ourselves, but for us to understand that to protect our academic freedom, we must also believe in freedom—academic or otherwise—elsewhere, in Singapore or the world. Is Yale-NUS College’s academic freedom a symptom of a larger ‘containment policy’ that is reluctant to spill-over? In relation to the larger Singapore population—what kinds of class differences are playing out when only university students get to read some books, watch some films, hear some speakers? 3. The inside is the outside. What is Yale-NUS College’s responsibility to the larger Singapore society it resides within, and to the larger society which is the world? Is the inside not also the outside? As a relatively new college, we are only beginning to ask what our college identity is. Perhaps we should ask the broader question of: what is our college’s identity in relation to the larger social world? The university as an institution may be critiqued as elitist and closed, but let me naively consider that we can counter that critique if we start looking outward, and acknowledging our social and political responsibility. Kites have no need for designated parks. References Sa’at, A. (2001) A History of Amnesia. Singapore: Ethos Books. Gilley, B. (2010) Democratic Enclaves in Authoritarian Regimes. Democratization, 17:3,389-415.

CHINESE PRIVILEGE CHECKED: NOW WHAT? story | Daryl Yang, Guest Contributor photo | Institute of Policy Studies

n “Coming To Terms With Chinese Privilege”, Kan Ren Jie describes his personal experience in realizing the privileges that he enjoyed as a Chinese Singaporean. While this led him to question the twin national myths of meritocracy and multiracialism, I found his concluding rumination on the “cold dose of reality” unsatisfying.

After all, confessionals such as Kan’s are aplenty and there is even an article with almost the same title dated Jul. 2, 2015 published on Thanapal’s website. Moving beyond on whether and in what ways we are or are not privileged, we need to embark on a more urgent task of interrogating and dismantling where and why these privileges arise. Indeed, this is a question that I have pondered for some time now: what do we do after we have checked and supposedly left our privileges at the door? It seems that for many liberal5

OPINION

minded young people today, our commitment to anti-racism, homophobia and other forms of oppression tends to stop at calling ourselves and others out for microaggressions, and acknowledging and deprecating ourselves for the privileges we may possess over others. In the article The Problem With Privilege-checking, Midlane argues that “the whole discourse around privilege is inherently destructive—at best, a colossal distraction.” As much as micro-aggressions and casual racism have very real effects on minorities, which Thanapal’s tumblr has effectively highlighted, it runs the risk of over-emphasizing the impact of individual, rather than, institutional racism. The types of privileges that Kan outlined in his piece did not arise naturally as a result of his being Chinese; rather, they are the products of historical, social and political forces over the fifty odd years of our nation-building project. Data taken from IPS report "Insights from the IPS Survey on Race, Religion and Language”.

After all, it is not news that our much-valorised myths of meritocracy and multiracialism are exactly that: myths. In Constructing Singapore, Michael Barr traced the historical developments underpinned by what he termed “a Singaporean version of Chinese ethno-nationalism” that has, among other consequences, led to the troubling under-representation of Malays here at Yale-NUS College and other tertiary institutions. Similarly, discriminatory employment practices are not uncommon. Instead, the government prefers a “promotional and educational approach” through the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices which sets out guidelines for “fair employment practices that should be adopted by employers to help prevent discrimination in the workplace.” Yet, such an approach seems wanting in light of a recent IPS survey that found that one in four non-Chinese Singaporeans have felt racially discriminated against when seeking employment or a promotion. Anti-violence activist Andrea Smith observed that “the undoing of privilege occurs not by individuals confessing their privileges … but through the creation of collective structures that dismantle the systems that enable these privileges.” At the same time, I suspect that many of us have, perhaps unknowingly, distracted ourselves with checking and calling out privilege because of the seeming impossibility of dismantling these systems. After all, the Goliath that is our government has not been the most kindly against its critics and detractors. Yet, that is what we must do. Acknowledging our privilege is important and clearly a necessary first step. However, we need and must move beyond identity politics and privilege-checking to interrogate instead the institutions and systems that confer and cement these privileges. Only by doing so can we finally utilize these privileges that we so religiously check, to progress towards the day when meritocracy and multiracialism are no longer merely national myths.

IMMIGRATION FRUSTRATIONS: AN ASIAN PERSPECTIVE ON TRUMP'S TRAVEL BAN story | Aaron Pang photo | Politico

n Jan 27th US President Donald Trump signed an executive order that banned travellers from a seven predominantly Muslim countries. While Yale-NUS exists halfway across the world, the order itself held the potential to affect our students abroad and should be deeply unsettling for all of us. Asian Americans have seen Trump’s immigration order before. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 left a severe mark on Asian American History. From the end of the Civil War to the middle of WWII (when China became a wartime ally), it barred the entry of ethnically Chinese people into the United States regardless of their country of origin. Naturalization of already present Chinese immigrants was also outlawed. Twice upheld by the Supreme Court, the act was preceded by a series of legalization that threatened Chinese immigrants with imprison-

ment and even deportation for the pettiest of crimes. As a result Chinese enclaves sprung up in what we now know as “Chinatown”s across metropolitan areas. Racism was codified into law and it sent out a clear message: Chinese persons are unwelcome. Trump’s latest executive order eerily recalls this dark period. Legal residents of the country and even dual citizens of the US will face immense scrutiny upon re-entry. Even then, the Chinese Exclusion Act did not go so far as it held provisions allowing students, teachers and tourists into the country. Trump’s ban, much like his campaign, lacks such nuance. As an immigrant to Canada myself I was taught at an early age to assimilate. We enjoyed Chinese New Year alongside Thanksgiving, eating burnt turkey as well as burnt nien-gao. I played hockey, learnt French and sang in choir, all in an effort to fit in. My parents did all that they could to Canadianize my family, showering us with love and possibilities that we simply didn’t have elsewhere.

CLOCKWORK | ARTS

What’s happening on campus?

Love is in the Air: Happy Valentines to all. Feb. 14 is the perfect day to revisit the common curriculum classics, Yusuf and Zulaikha and The Plum and The Golden Vase. In honor of the occasion, RC^3 organised blind dates and Tandem sold special Valentine's day merchandise.

The Gift of Giving: Yale-NUS College has set up its first Senior Class Gift. The Senior Class Gift is a twoweek, class-based effort to raise money for Financial Aid, with the College matching gifts between $20 and $100 one-to-one. If the participation rate meets 90% the 'Class of 2017 Award' will be established. At press time the fund had achieved a 29% participation rate and raised $1655 before matching.

ICGs: The Inter College Games (ICGs) concluded on Thursday, Feb. 16 with the road relay. At press time, Yale-NUS College was leading the competition with 59 points. The College of Alice and Peter Tan (CAPT) was second and Residential College Four (RC4) was third, with 55 and 54 points respectively.

All Publicity is Good Publicity?: Opinion articles in The Octant were recently picked up by the Singaporean media, including Today and the Straits Times. We were flattered (and a little surprised) that they felt this was worth reporting on. However, we were disappointed by the lack of original reporting and the lack of hyperlinks to our articles.

Modes of Protest: In the wake of the Town Hall, The Octant articles and coverage in the wider media, YNCForum organised a discussion on “Modes of Protest” and how students should respond to authority. With attendees permission, a recording of the event will be distributed to the wider community and the administration.

A Well-Earned Rest: Saturday, Feb. 18 marks the start of the midsemester break. The Octant hopes everyone at Yale-NUS enjoys a well-earned rest. We will be taking a break from publishing and will return after the break.

As someone who’s gone through the whole process of migrating elsewhere I empathize with those affected by the recent bans. Families similar to mine who turned right at the 49th parallel were told a big and abrupt “fuck you” to all their contributions. They have been taught that their positions within American society ultimately remained precarious, their very futures irrelevant even in spite of all their efforts to be accepted. The livelihoods of immigrants, many who risked their lives coming to america, now are in the tiny hands of a president more interested in pageant shows than intelligence briefings. Proper procedure and extreme vetting is more akin to a farcical game show now, where the prize is hours of detainment at the nearest airport. Enshrined within the constitution is the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all - not just americans. How that manifests itself is up to us and President Trump. While Asians in America today face little of what our forebears have, it is our duty to ensure the same tragedies of history are not repeated again. It took Congress 60 years to repeal the Chinese Exclusion Act; I wonder how long it’ll take to finally defeat Trump’s immigration ban permanently. Those interested in helping our refugees and immigrants across the US and elsewhere should contact either Maggie Schuman or Meredith Jett about their Wednesday Night phone banking sessions.

1 9 8 7 : A MISSING NARRATIVE story | Neo Huiyuan, Arts Editor photo | Lynn Voight

hat happens when the very institutions you trust for protection turn against you? What happens when the social contract is broken? These are questions that people detained without trial are uniquely qualified to answer. On May 21, 1987, 16 Singaporeans were detained without trial under Operation Spectrum. The number detained eventually increased to 22. They were social workers, church workers and professionals. A legal remnant from British colonial rule, the Internal Security Act (ISA) allowed these Singaporeans to be kept behind bars, some of them for up to 3 years. In the documentary 1987: Untracing the Conspiracy, director Jason Soo examined what the ISA meant for Singapore both personally and politically. On Tuesday, Feb. 7, 2017, students of Yale-NUS College gathered for a rare screening of this story about injustice and courage. The title of Soo’s documentary, is a reference to Tracing the Conspiracy, a documentary produced by the Singapore Broadcasting Corporation, featuring detainees of Operation Spectrum confessing their alleged Marxist conspiracy on national television. Soo’s documentary lets the real stories of the detainees be heard, correcting the imbalance in perspectives. The documentary is a tapestry of personal recollections about the experience of detainment without trial, from the first hour of arrest to the day of release. The film opened describing the initial arrests, edited to cross-cut one after another. This created a sense of collectiveness; the experience of Operation Spectrum was both a shared experience for the detainees and for the nation as a whole. Following the opening sequence, the documentary focused on individual interviews. These interviews with ex-detainees, including Vincent Cheng, Chew Kheng Chuan and Tan Tee Seng, detailed their experiences in Operation Spectrum. They recounted the psychological and physical torture they received from the Internal Security Department (ISD), as well as the way their words were twisted in their forced confessions.

ARTS

To the state, Operation Spectrum might be a clampdown on political conspiracy. To the ex-detainees, however, the Operation was an individual ordeal. Ex-detainees recalled minute details such as their initial thoughts when the ISD knocked on their doors, or the overwhelming glare of the lights during interrogation. The documentary’s emphasis on details, coupled with the chronological detailing of ex-detainees’ experiences, successfully placed the audience in the shoes of the ex-detainees. This is a reminder that a state’s actions reach far into an individual’s life. The personal stories of the ex-detainees are really the story of each and every Singaporean, whose nation was impacted. The interviews were conducted in a spacious house, welllit with natural light and well-ventilated. The openness of the house and the light-hearted way some of the ex-detainees spoke was juxtaposed against the dark undertones of their stories and the political climate in 1987. Some ex-detainees, such as Chew, relayed their experiences with ingenuous humour, provoking laughter among the audience. The ex-detainees were forthright in their depictions--a projection of their simple and pure intentions in their social activities in 1987. One could begin to feel the exdetainees’ sense of incredulity when faced with how the state interpreted their activities. The ex-detainees’ frankness contrasted sharply with the complex motivations of the state and the mass media, both of which twisted the portrayal of the ex-detainees’ motivations. This was especially so as Soo highlighted the official media’s blatant denials of ISD’s use of torture techniques. At certain parts, the dynamic between the ex-detainees and the state was reminiscent of that between Josef K. and the institution in Franz Kafka’s The Trial. The former were not sure of what they had done wrong and why they were targeted, while the latter and its decisions were impenetrable and opaque during the entire process. Perhaps the greatest legacy of Operation Spectrum was fear — fear of instability, and consequently, fear of political 8

participation. In a similar vein, as long as documentaries and movies that allow Singaporeans to tell their side of the narrative continue to be restricted, the Operation never really ends. V eteran socialist leader, M. K. Rajakumar wrote in Comet in Our Sky that “the task of these new generations...is the reinvention of our societies.” 1987: Untracing the Conspiracy is a timely reminder that Singapore’s history consists of more than just the few familiar faces and that it is more than just a linear, uncontested arc. One of the organizers, Matthew Ware ‘18, said that the ex-detainees have given a lot for the country and faced giant hardships. He also noted, however, that,, “not very many people have heard these narratives from their perspective, or have even heard them at all.” Hence, as this generation emerges from the shadows of the past, it becomes their responsibility to reexamine Singapore’s history and reshape Singapore’s society and citizenry.

EDITORIAL TEAM Editor-in-chief Dave Chappell Managing Editor Justin Ong Managing Editor Zula Badral Co-News Editor Pham Le Vi Co-News Editor Elaine Li Co-Opinion Editor Aditya Karkera Co-Opinion Editor Yip Jia Qi Co-Features Editor Yip Jie Ying Co-Features Editor Nicholas Lua Co-Arts Editor Neo Huiyuan Co-Arts Editor Terence Anthony Wang Co-Visuals Editor Lucy Kuo DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of The Octant. Questions can be directed to yncoctant@gmail.com