SS guidebook saga: Much ado about nothing, or is it?

BY SEAN LIM

So, there was this uproar over the controversial content in a social studies textbook a while ago, eh?

While OB markers have usually been in the context of press coverage, books, films or plays, this case study is rather novel – regarding a guidebook. From conventional understanding, guidebooks are usually politically-correct with not much room for controversy.

The observations noted by the author may not be exactly false. In fact, from anecdotal evidence, it may even be true for some cases. We don’t usually see those from the lower socio-economic status (SES) patronising restaurants. Neither do they play expensive sports such as golf.

However, the issue is not so much about facts, but the portrayal and target audience. As true as it may be, we should not allow portrayals to create the “politics of envy” between Singaporeans, especially at a sensitive time when class divisions are a concern, according to media reports and the recent study by Institute of Policy Studies.

Critics of my stand may argue this is making a mountain out of a molehill, because Singaporeans are mature enough to look beyond the portrayal and discern stereotypes and overgeneralisations for themselves. I wouldn’t deny that, if we are referring to adults. In this case, the target audience of the guidebook is secondary school students. Are they mature enough to discern through the content?

Moreover, this guidebook is supplementary material which may not even be used in schools. Will there be teachers, then, to break down the content in this particular book for students to understand clearly? Possibly so, if the teacher happens to use the guidebook, but rare. Secondary school students are teenagers but may not be as mature or well-informed as we like them to be – they are still growing up. Their world views are shaped by what they read and taught in these formative years. If books like this perpetuate stereotypes, it can be dangerous in forming a warped mindset among students. This is made worse when students read about such divisions from a guidebook – a material they would presume as reliable and truthful. Being young, unexposed and easily influenced, such views only reinforce their echo chambers. I shudder to think the kind of Singapore we will have in the near future – one that is further divided?

Which brings me to the next point – if such gibberish was said by a typical uncle at a coffee shop, chances are people would dismiss it as comments made by those on the “lunatic fringe”. This portrayal by the author, who is an academic, is worrying because as someone with higher social standing, his words hold greater weight. Such portrayal of half-truths, stereotyping and over-generalisation is irresponsible, especially at a time when the government is deeply concerned onsocial inequality. Anecdotes are fine, but they should be followed up with explanations on how it is merely observations and not to be taken as an absolute fact. Anecdotes in this context of SES, when left alone, may be misinterpreted and taken as stereotypes. Information presented in guidebooks ought to be portrayed authoritatively and grounded instead of being anchored on hearsays.

That being said, it is not a crime to talk about these stereotypes. It may even be good for them to be confronted in public discourse. But what we should be doing is to confront those stereotypes and eliminate it, not reinforce it with divisions as written in the book. In the MOE-approved textbook, the concept of SES is better explained. Even though the same examples are used, it is less deterministic and not portrayed in a way that reinforces a stereotype. It reads:

“The SES of an individual may shape one’s life experience as it affects the choice of housing, food, entertainment and activities. This in turn can influence the circle of friends that one interacts with. In this way, one’s identity can be shaped by one’s SES.

For example, activities such as polo and golf, fine dining and travelling to distant destinations for vacations are usually activities carried out by people with higher SES. Activities such as swimming, soccer and basketball are enjoyed by individuals across all SES as street soccer and basketball courts are easily accessible to the public.”

If you ask me if it was justified to print such stereotypical portrayal of Singaporeans with different SES profiles on the book, I will maintain that it was wrong to do so. Not because the information is completely wrong – like I’ve mentioned earlier, it may be correct to a certain extent especially if we look at an anecdotal level, and not because I am trying to be politically-correct, but seriously, that portrayal is inappropriate for secondary school students. They have yet to reach the level of maturity to confront these on their own in the guidebooks. By doing so on their own, they might misconstrue it and have the wrong idea of SES. Unless the students have someone to explain to them properly the controversial ideas in the book, it might be safer to remain politically-correct to avoid misconceptions.

If there was indeed a need to mention the stereotypes, it should have been accompanied by follow-up explanations to address them, so students do not go away thinking those stereotypes are the absolute truths and let it ingrain in their sub-consciousness. This is one way both the guidebook and MOE-approved textbook could have done better.

From a macro perspective, it is important to continue having this OB marker on stereotyping to ensure the media do not play up stereotypes and cause social divisions – as seen in US media where they tend to portray white gunmen positively and the non-whites otherwise. For instance, in Singapore’s newspapers, editorial policies have been such that race and religion of a person involved in a crime is typically not mentioned unless pivotal to a story. This is a good move that should be continued. But then again, I do not foresee a sudden “surge”, where the media immediately turns rogue and pursue certain agenda with stereotypes, should this OB marker be removed. It is not characteristic of our media to do such a thing. 

Behind this story: Apparently, this story is a scoop by The New Paper. It happened the reporter was a friend whom I knew during my internship. She told me the original story was merely a follow-up of what transpired on social media, i.e. uproar over the book. She unintentionally found out the books were withdrawn when she walked past Popular bookstore and went in for the sake of curiosity. She discovered the books were no longer there and upon asking, she was told they have been withdrawn. She edited the story such that the withdrawal of books became a page one lead the next morning. The Straits Times did not get the story, and it was puzzling that they rewrote it and placed it under the Premium section of the website. Also, it would have been newsworthy to hear MOE’s views on this affair, instead of a mere statement that the guidebook was not approved by them.

(Photo Credits: Ahmad Martin's Facebook)