Clarifications
‘Little People’: A Clarification
I have noted with some concern that my use of the term ‘little people’ in my letter on the Mas Selamat scandal has been deemed offensive. And since there are quite a number of you who have been offended or even upset, I can only conclude that I have used the term inappropriately, creating a gap between the intended and the perceived meaning, and therefore owe an explanation. Hence I would like quickly to make the following clarification:
My intention in the use of the word ‘little’ was purely to emphasize the humble, low-ranking position of most of the nine people being punished; if the word carried any emotions at all, they were chiefly those of sympathy and compassion. Never ever could I see myself–or any of you who wrote in–belittling people such as security guards who make a simple, honest living in our society.
Below are the responses to my letter that was published in the Straits Times on May 28, 2008.
‘Little people’ don’t need the grand gesture
by Mr Ooi Boon Hock
I HAVE always appreciated Dr Catherine Lim’s insights in the past, for often saying what we have thought of but have not found the words for. But this time, I think she is really out of sync. I am referring to her letter on Wednesday, ‘Mas Selamat: Shocked and disappointed’.
Dr Lim is being very patronising in describing the officers, who have been taken to task, as ‘little people’. They are professionals who, also being human, had unfortunately made some mistakes.
We all make mistakes. These officers must not lose heart and must endeavour to do better and learn from this incident. It seems to me that the officers have accepted the disciplinary actions and sanctions imposed on them. I salute them.
It is Dr Lim who cannot accept this outcome because it is too boring and bloodless. She obviously wants a more dramatic and colourful ending to the Mas Selamat story. As she writes in her blog, she demands that a ‘large public gesture’ be made and this grand gesture must be nothing less than a minister offering to resign and the Prime Minister rejecting it.
I know Dr Lim means well but she must continue to suffer her disappointment in the real and virtual company of a few.
Any claim that her view is universally held by ordinary people in the real world is fictional.
This kind of political theatre is not what the ‘little people’ want.
We want straightforward, practical action. No need for grand gestures, symbols and theatrical effects.
This is my humble opinion but it is also shared by my friends and family in the world of ‘little people’.
Top officials should do more
by Dr Johnny Lee
I REFER to Wednesday’s letter by Dr Catherine Lim ‘Mas Selamat: Shocked and disappointed’. I read the news of the closure of the Mas Selamat escape episode with shock too. I am also utterly confused. Am I to understand from such a judgement that it is the lesser officers who must shoulder the major responsibility, while the top officials need shoulder only little or no responsibility?
At the very least, and in good faith, the top officials should have volunteered for a pay cut or a smaller chance for future promotions, or both.
Nobody should have been punished
by Mr N. Rajendran
All the officers involved did their duty honestly but the circumstances were favourable to Mas Selamat and he took the opportunity to escape.
Disturbed by the outcome
by Dr Rosemary Chwee
I feel a disturbing uneasiness laced with a deep-seated feeling of unfairness on the issue of professional accountability. This is a clear-cut case of national security. The lower-ranking officers who were punished should have at least been shown some compassion, given that the top-ranking officers got away with barely a slap on their wrist. The positive and negative influences surrounding an organisational culture that includes its work ethics, always flows from the top – its leadership – to the bottom.
The buck stopped at the wrong place
by Mr William Tay
I fully agree with Dr Catherine Lim that it is very disappointing that only the ‘little people’ are punished for Mas Selamat’s escape.
May 30th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
thank you for clearing things up
indeed, quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
May 30th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
so she only clarifies and wouldnt even deign to apologise?
she is no different from the rest!
is S.O.R.R.Y such a difficult 5 letter word?
May 30th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
[...] so many clueless ingrates around, Catherine probably decided it was best to clarify her use of the word–which she needn’t have, of course, but she was nice enough [...]
May 30th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Is Singaporean so uneducated as unable to deciphering the meaning of ‘little people’ ? Catherine Lim is just using a analogy for lesser people and Singaporean can’t detect that ? Look like Singaporean prefer to look at tree rather than the forest. Singaporean ought to bush up their English, and dispense with Singlish.
May 30th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
She gives an explanation but too proud to give an apology! The same howlian act blur tactic like the PAP she criticise? The great affective divide happening right now! Then all the apologists come and try defend this taitai. Come on la. They are all sama sama elitist.
May 31st, 2008 at 2:21 am
Hi guys, What all the fuss ? I have my views and you have yours. When I clarify I have the second chance to make clear my views. You are a civil servant, I am not.
I do not take “Little” as a descriptive to be an offensive word. Indeed in a philosophical plane we sometime think of “less is more” as wisdom, and worthy experiences ; humility is a great virtue and I believe that there are more than a 100 million people who have their given name as “Xiao” – cute & lovable as well, and that include one of the most powerful ex-Chinese PM. Take it easy guys.
May 31st, 2008 at 3:16 am
Hello Catherine, I am one of those “little people” in Singapore and I fully understand the gist of your comments. I appreciate your contributions and I do not have any hang up with “little people”. Please keep up the good work and more of it despite the usual distractions.
May 31st, 2008 at 3:45 am
At least now i know Madam Catherine’s intent. I really appreciate the response. Thank you.
Hmm ex civil servant … “xiao ren” too …. i…. i …(speechless)
educated David.. I think Catherine in her own quote ” I can only conclude that I have used the term inappropriately, creating a gap between the intended and the perceived meaning, and therefore owe an explanation” maybe there are lots of uneducated people, so we don’t care about their interpretation? I always appreciate responsible people who cares and make responsible comments. i love my friends and people around me, enough to appreciate their individualism, so what if we are not good in our english. I salute Catherine for her willingness to explain. But David i feel sorry for you.
May 31st, 2008 at 11:00 am
get out of my elite uncaring face
May 31st, 2008 at 11:34 am
There is nothing to feel sorry about. Catherine Lim is a prolific writer and have her own unique style. Reading her work before and that is how she writes. Look, let’s not blown the word out of proportion. She quote it as ‘little people’ and she feel this word is inappropiately used and therefore she change it. Now I read her words in her work before but I do not appreciate many of her words literally, can I demand that she change the words in her book ? Even a fool can tell she change the word to satisfy popular demand. Demand for apology and sorry for word used.
If you prepare to read Catherine’s work then be prepared to accept her style of writing. Give her the benefit of doubt. She always write in this style.
Singaporean must learn to have a board mind rather than narrow mind, and learn to accept analogy.
I hardly imagine what will happen if Catherine going to use words like “Birds of same feather flock together” Next moment, you will have Singaporean complaining that Catherine treat Singaporean as bird and full of feather.
May 31st, 2008 at 1:03 pm
David, That is precisely the difference between the us. I feel sorry for you because you are so distant from the general public who don’t read Catherine’s beautiful works. So you agree that “popular demand” will triumph, and this is precisely my point
May 31st, 2008 at 1:29 pm
If any of us old enough to remember that in the eighties, we were all singing a local mandarin song called “Voices from the heart” – å°äººç‰©çš„心声….
“å°äººç‰©â€œ = Little People..
I am sure we remembered many Ministers singing that during official functions. If we are not the little people vs the bigger people in the “establishment”, then who / what are we singing about?
Little People of the world Unite !
May 31st, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Dr Lim, I agree wholeheartedly with what you said.Unfortunately or sadly, we do not have freedom of speech.
Thumbs up!
May 31st, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Obviously those here who had critised Catherine Lim had some political agenda. Just ignore them lah, they don’t seem to have a mind of their own or rather they seem to the mind of a running dog.
May 31st, 2008 at 10:15 pm
the problem with the people who are critisizing her over the “little” words is that they are not reading it in context.
That so like the selective statistics that the government like to position.
In the view of the singapore government machinery, everyone of the us citizen is a “little” person. Is this the way it should be? No, but that’s how we are told to be have and treated.
But as the saying goes, you can bring a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. Those who are unable to see the context (and how appropriate it is) and continue to make a issue of it, you will never be able to make them see. So, save your breath.
Catherine, stay the course. We are behind you.
May 31st, 2008 at 11:37 pm
“I feel sorry for you because you are so distant from the general public who don’t read Catherine’s beautiful works. “
So should Catherine Lim deviate from her usual self of expression just to appease the majority of public ?
Will you yourself change for others just to keep your originaity ? Don’t do to others you are not willing to do yourself.
Writing is a form of expression and just because people do not understand Catherine Lim doesn’t mean that the people has the right to impose their opinion on her.
Don’t you think so ?
May 31st, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Correction: “Will you yourself change for others just to sacrifice your originality and individuality ?” At best it seems superficial to me to change oneself to suit other’s taste.
At least Singaporean learn to understand analogy before start criticizing the writer. Using analogy is a creative form of expression and the it is the meaning that is more important than the individual word itself.
Catherine Lim can start explaining as best as she could, and let see if she could even spare time explaining all her analogies in her work first.
Now, “Give a man a fish, he lives for a day. Teach a man how to fish, he lives forever”
At least learn to find out the meaning before finding fault with the writer. Learn to be critical of oneself before been critical of others.
June 1st, 2008 at 12:02 am
OBH, you don’t have to feel sorry for me, you should feel sorry for Catherine Lim instead because every time she writes now she has to write in a style that appease the public instead of writing in the most creative and imaginative way possible least she has a lot of explanation to do.
June 1st, 2008 at 12:34 am
Very sad, indeed, very very sad David. I am another one to feel very sorry for you.
June 1st, 2008 at 1:05 am
Also a Concerned Citizen, should not take on multiple identity ? Should you ?
June 1st, 2008 at 4:00 am
david, when catherine made a public reference about the “little people” the people will react, in the real world, whether you like it or not. Catherine should be proud that people response to her writing. It shows that people do care about what she writes, and in this instant disagree with her. at least i know that we (you, cat, and me) can freely debate our thoughts without some secret police cramping down on us. If Catherine chooses to write in isolation, she will not have an audience like you and me. She chose to write to the forum so that she can reach out to the wider audience. I think you can’t feel what you cannot feel and that is being called “little people” the many who are leaders in their own rights, insulting. So David accept this and move on.
June 1st, 2008 at 7:44 am
“Little people” could be referring more appropriately to our 2million-dollar Ministers who are all 5 feet nothing- Wong Kan Seng, Khaw Boon Wan and Mah Bow Tan (anymore?). But weren’t Napoleon, Deng Xiao Ping and even Hitler also “Little people”? Sorry for my unforgivable heightist behavior, but if I were a despot or dictator, I’ll ban anyone less than 5′ 5″ from being a cndidate for the GE. See the problems we get with such shorties?
June 1st, 2008 at 8:00 pm
I think most civil servants understand that in the course of their work, certain types of mistakes will have a wide and heavy impact on public policy and welfare. While I feel sad and sorry for the officers who had slipped up (whether due to complacency or just bad luck) in the escape of MSK, I think they are aware of what the impact is on national security.
I guess they wouldn’t feel that they are “little people” who have been made to bear the brunt of it all. I would prefer to believe that they do understand the seriousness of it all and even if upset over the punishment, have found courage to accept that their actions have led to an increased opportunity for people with ill-intentions to target Singapore. I would prefer to believe that they have not appealed because they accept that their actions have caused much trouble for everyone and not because they have been frightened to death by some big powers.
Of course, the above are my presumptions and assumptions only, but then and again, so is the views held by Ms Catherine Lim for these “little people”.
Also, there are other terms to describe the rank-and-file officers who deal with operational work, which if Ms Lim had used would not have caused that much ambiguity. Hence, while I’ve noted the clarification, I can’t help but think that it would have been nice to see Ms Lim apologise for the discomfort caused.
I think about the incident and I feel that Mr WSK’s apology is sincere… at least, he did not just give a statement, explanation or clarification for MSK’s escape.
Anyway, someone mentioned in the previous posts’ comments whether I think Mr WSK is the best that Singapore can have. My answer is “I don’t know for sure”. Because, while I am not sure if he is Singapore’s best, I think he’s one of the best Ministers that the country has. Because alot of times, people just comment and comment, condemn and condemn… but none of these detractors actually step out or did anything constructive to become better.
The above are just views from a rank-and-file officer.
June 1st, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Dr Lim, We are a group of students from Raffles Junior College currently doing research for our Project Work, an A-level subject that will be assessed at the end of the year, and we would like to interview you to hear your views. We hope you can assist us and you can reach us through my email. thank you very much!
June 1st, 2008 at 11:10 pm
For the purpose for those who are not sensitive to the word little people, it means “xiao ren” where in most part of the chinese community means “little dogs” and this is not a nice phase to use on people.
Look what Catherine has done, she has actually created a following of people who blindly defended her on the use of “little people” even after Catherine explained her position. So do we hold Catherine responsible for people who keep insisting that there is no wrong in the phase she used about the little people published in ST? Or is Catherine’s language teachers to be blamed for her inappropriate used of the Little people? i guess not. Should Catherine apologise? well, this will tell us what kind of person she is.
June 1st, 2008 at 11:42 pm
I have no problem with the use of the word “little people” – in this context (and others, as in application of English as lingua franca), it applies to those who are not powerful, not the prominent politicians of the ruling party, who have seemingly come away from the Mas Selamat escape unscathed, while those much lower down. Other use of “little people” include people suffering from genetic dwarfism. Based on what I know, Catherine Lim was not Chinese-educated, there’s little likelihood she knows what is “xiao ren” when she wrote her letter. But my contention is “xiao ren” is “xiao ren” and absolutely has no connection to “little people”. “Little people” is an totally inaccurate translation of “xiao ren”. Anyone with several years’ education in English will not miscontrue “little people” as “xiao ren”. The chinese term for generous is “da fang”, which in word-for-word conversion is “big square”. Would you call a generous person “big square” or someone petty as “small gas/flatulence”? Are we inventing a new language here? In my opinion, those who pick “xiao ren” as literal translation of little people are trying to make something out of nothing. If you use “little people” to imply “xiao ren” in O level English, the examiner will not see the link! obh, I took CL1 at SAP school. I don’t recall “xiao ren” as little dogs in chinese. It means the cunning, devious, stab you in the back vengeful kind of person (in contrast to jun zi, the gentleman). Use english as it is, don’t adulterate it but adding new meanings that don’t exist.
June 1st, 2008 at 11:51 pm
oops, I didn’t finish one of my sentences in the first paragraph….it should read,”….while those much lower down are made to pay with their jobs.”
June 2nd, 2008 at 8:30 am
The funny thing about the people who are against the word “little people” is that they failed to read the whole letter and also failed to read all the previous letters from Ms Lim.
I find it consistent what she had been saying all along. If you have enough exposure to how one word in the English language can have many meanings — depending on the context, you will understand why “little people†is the best word to describe her opinions about how the “bigger people†escaped this fiasco.
I also think that any other word she would have selected would have diluted the strong message she wanted to give.
In this world, there will be people who will only see their point of view. People who want to talk about a small debatable point and missed the whole message.
June 2nd, 2008 at 1:49 pm
I was glad to note while reading the comments to Ooi Boon Hock’s letter to ST that the vast majority agreed that he read too much into the “little people” phrase. As one commentator wrote “what crap”. I think that said it all. I agree with the following statement in
http://www.unsolicitedopinion.net/2008/05/30/some-people-can-be-so-hung-up/
The last time I heard, Straits Times wrote— ‘If it is determined there was only one weak link, at junior escort level, then the people should stop carping about why it is usually small fish that get fried†—in their April 24th editorial and nobody complained about being called ‘small fish’.
It baffles me that some Singaporeans can be so clueless, deliberately or not, I do not know. And I wonder why Catherine bothers to speak up for them.”
Totally agree with the blogger on his comments. Don’t understand why they nit pick on the “little people” and fail to see that Catherine Lim was pointing out that the buck stopped just short of the “bigger people” (and I suppose I have to clarify that I mean rank here; lol !)
June 2nd, 2008 at 2:13 pm
I fully concur that there are some netizens who failed to understand the “gist” of Catherine Lim’s comments. A very important point to note is Catherine’s track record over the years. She has consistently been speaking up for ordinary Singaporeans despite the extremely negative reaction from the leadership running our country. That says a lot about her and there is no doubt she means well. Her blog should not deviate too much into some English lesson.
June 2nd, 2008 at 2:54 pm
How can people not understand the context of which how the “little” word was used?
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:17 pm
the people who find the term little people offensive are probably the smallest of all.
June 2nd, 2008 at 6:43 pm
I am surprised that some netizens took offense over the use of the expression ‘little people’. It is only a form of metaphorical expression referring to people holding humble positions.
According to a Chinese dictionary “Ci2Hai3″ (in Han4Yu3pin1yin1), the expression ‘little people’ means “xiao3ren2″ refers to one of the following:
I do not think that the expression ‘little people’ used in Dr. Catherine Lim’s letter in this particular instance is offensive at all.
I must confess I am also one of those ‘little people’ who could only watch helplessly over the misfortune of those nine people being punished.
June 2nd, 2008 at 8:44 pm
hehehe…
there will be people who speak up against people who speak up against the government.
Catherine – I am also a little people and like you, I also angry that little people kena shot arrows- when it was the big people getting the army / police / public agitated with a little person like Mas. I thought a malay chap was being put up as a new president with all the posters!! haha!
It happened – what to do
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Quite clearly, Dr. Lim used “little people” in a sardonic way, to rib the PAP government for its often-stratified view of society. The government tells us: “Know your place, respect those in authority, don’t act bo tua bo suay.” Yet shouldn’t respect be earned, and can’t it be lost? Aren’t we entitled to question our leaders in light of the Mas Selamat escape? Shouldn’t they take responsibility?
I think it’s appalling that people could misinterpret Dr. Lim’s message. It shows a general uptightedness and a lack of sensitivity to language.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:39 am
I guess Catherine Lim being a prolific and influential writer, the use of words is no longer her personal matter. After all, the pen is mightier than the sword, and it may cut deep into the the hearts of all those “little people” she conveniently uses in her bid to thrust the sword into the hearts of the so-called “bigger people”.
Sharon Stone claims she was quoted out of context for her comments on the Sichuan earthquake, people don’t buy it. More recently, one ex-Singapore lawyer Gopalan Nair was arrested for sending an email insulting the judiciary system and inferring that Belinda Ang is a whore – his exact words were “prostituting herself”. Some claimed the choice of word – “prostituting herself” does not amount to BA being a prostitute. Not sure many will buy it, definitely not her husband and children (if she has any).
Just my ten cents worth.
June 3rd, 2008 at 1:27 am
a good number of Singaporeans just love to pick on insignificant issues n and upset themselves over stupid things due to their own insecurities n lack of understanding. the whole thing is beyond ridiculous.
write one letter expressing your opinion and the papers have to publish as many rebuttals as they can possibly find. i wonder if they might have to invent some in event of a shortage?
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:34 am
terrence,
sharon stone’s and gopalan nair’s statement is totally different from catherine lim’s statement.
sharon stone meant what she said that bad fortune befalls on bad people. gapalan comment actually meant that BA actually is not a independent judge and is a running dog for the government in return for financial reward.
catherine lim’s message is that the “big people†got away while the “liitle people†was made to pay.
sharon took back her words because she knows she is wrong about china and her sponsor probably added some pressure there.
sharon stone and gapalan nair both should be challenged for their views – which in my view is wrong.
catherine lim should be praised for hers.
again the words selected is actually very precise for what they wanted to communicate however it’s the message that we should all focus on.
just because some people choose to pick on words without understanding the context is not reason to want to perform self censorship. for such people, there is no possible to help them understand the message because their minds are closed and they have long decided to not listen to anything else but their own.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:20 am
When Ooi Boon Hock wrote “We want straightforward, practical action. No need for grand gestures, symbols and theatrical effects,” he was spot on. Except that his political masters, instead of addressing the inflation and employment problems that continue to plague the little people, yours truly being one of them, they splurge millions on road surfacing for F1 races, two casinos when the idea of building one was already contentious, bidding for the Youth Olympics when they had no idea what the exercise really requires, et cetera, et cetera. What was it about “grand gestures, symbols and theatrical effects?”
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:03 am
[...] Fallout – catherinelim.sg: Responses and clarifications to my letter on the Mas Selamat Scandal – Chemical Generation Singapore: Catherine Lim and The March of the Lilliputians – [...]
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:34 pm
amused
3 June 2008 at 01:27 “a good number of Singaporeans just love to pick on insignificant issues n and upset themselves over stupid things due”
Then why are you so bothered to come into this site to give your own insignificant & stupid comments.
June 6th, 2008 at 10:34 am
HaHaHa,this really is an interesting piece.
Remember when NKF was found to be mis-using the donations of the public,many indignant contributors were shouting loudly about the mis-treatment of our many poor kidney patients.
I do not remember such an uproar from the public or kidney patients against calling kidney patients “POOR” under such background.
Why?it is PAP politics in Singapore,stupid
June 7th, 2008 at 11:12 am
[...] Fallout – catherinelim.sg: Responses and clarifications to my letter on the Mas Selamat Scandal – Chemical Generation Singapore: Catherine Lim and The March of the Lilliputians – [...]