My previous blogs have almost completely disregarded the fact that I’m studying while abroad. I’ll try to correct that misconception with a quick exposé on each of my professors from the National University of Singapore (NUS), each to be completed in different entries.
I have classes from 9 a.m. to noon Monday through Friday. Besides a South Asian literature and film course which we are taking under two UNC professors, we are also enrolled in “History of Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand.” A different professor from NUS specializes in each country. During the first two weeks we focused on the formation of the Singaporean identity (or, rather, a failure to do so). As Singapore split from Malaysia in 1965, the next segment of our course focused on the history of Malaysia so we could draw parallels between the two countries’ social situations. We are currently studying Thai history, but our professor promises we will soon be discussing current politics which will be fascinating considering the upcoming (and potentially explosive) elections in July.
When Dr. Quek Ser Hwee, our professor for the Singapore segment, introduced herself, she told us about the confusion her name caused when she studied in the United States. While “Quek” comes at the front of her name, it is actually her surname. (The Chinese place their surnames ahead of their given names.) To add to the challenge, it is pronounced, “Quack, like the duck.” She repeated this several times, assuring us that we weren’t being disrespectful if we quacked in class. (Apparently, her professors in the United States hadn’t wanted to make duck references and so they’d insisted on using her given name, Ser, “which is pronounced, ‘sir,’” she told us. “So you can imagine the discomfort those stogy old men felt when they used their own title on me.”)
Professor Quek kept us laughing in class. Soaring to an incredible height of five feet, she commanded attention through humor. I could have filled an entire notebook with her one-liners. Using Powerpoint presentations only when convenient, each morning she leaned against her desk, sipping a Coke and just started talking. Her favorite rants included the many shortcomings of former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew (who, as an octagenerian Ministry Mentor, is still very much in the spotlight) and the many shortcomings of Singapore (all of which she can trace back to Lee Kuan Yew). “Many of my students say I act like I hate Singapore,” she said during one of our first classes. She brushed back her short dark hair, a gesture we came to recognize as her one-liner signal, and continued. “And I tell them, ‘You’re right. I do!’”
But Professor Quek didn’t really seem to hate Singapore. In fact, her frustrations bespoke a deep love for her country and a desire to make it better for the people who live here. Our most interesting conversations (for “lectures” would defame her style) revolved around Singapore’s lack of a national identity. The root of this problem lies in the way the government denotes ethnicity. Citizens must identify themselves based on the Chinese-Malay-Indian-Other (CMIO) model which forces them into boxes where they don’t belong. The CMIO model exacerbates inter-ethnic tensions and causes people to identify themselves and others based first on race. Further, the CMIO model doesn’t allow children of mixed races to express a dual identity. They simply have to choose a race. (This is the new and improved version. Before 2010, a mixed-race child was simply assigned his father’s ethnicity.) I wrote my final paper for Professor Quek on this model, and since her class I’ve become really interested in national and sub-group identities. In fact, SEAS 2010 and 2011 students have the chance to apply to return to the program next year for an individual research project, and I would really like to study the formation of ethnic identities in depth next year.
Two Sundays ago (June 19th), Professor Quek took several of us to church at St. Andrew’s Cathedral, the Diocese of Singapore. We had to take two buses and the metro to get across town. When we finally arrived, the church was overflowing with worshippers, some leaving the 9:30 a.m. Mandarin service and some coming for the 11:15 English service.
 |
Inside St. Andrew's Cathedral. |
Fourteen services are conducted each Sunday in a smattering of languages ranging from Cantonese to Bahasa Indonesian to Tagalong, a word I thought was reserved for a type of Girl Scout cookie. The styles varied as well, some were traditional, others contemporary, and still others offered options with and without communion.
In what is starting to seem like a trend, I was blown away by the cathedral’s architecture. Tall windows with intricate molding lit the church’s front, and long white spires pierced wispy clouds. The cross, atop the steeple, was almost lost to the sun’s blinding light. Inside, people were already kneeling in prayer.
When the service started, I quickly understood what Kerri Nicole, a SEAS Episcopalian who also came to church, meant when she referred to “pew aerobics.” We certainly did our fair share of rising and kneeling. In fact, a pattern emerged: Kneel. Pray. Stand. Sing. Sit. Repeat. I had the horrible urge to start counting repetitions.
Despite the workout, the service was wonderful. The church hosted a professor from a Singaporean theology school, who preached about finding God in the simple and everyday. He seamlessly incorporated Father’s Day into the lesson, talking about how a child tends to envision God as someone a lot like his father – quite a responsibility if you ask me!
I was overcome by the size of the sanctuary. We sat towards the back and had to strain to see the preacher’s face. I was thankful for the large screen televisions placed every two rows so I could watch the service, and I was even more thankful for the music lyrics and prayers posted on the same screens as we must have used twelve different books none of which I could find until the next song or prayer was being recited.
Although the church was huge and we sat hip-to-hip for row upon row, I was amazed at the speed of communion. Only baptized churchgoers could receive the host, so those who could not partake in communion were instructed to turn their hands over for a blessing. The priests dolled out the wine and wafers much like workers on an assembly line cap bottles: efficiently and impersonally. Had I not known the blessing said over the host, I certainly wouldn’t have understood the syllabic slur uttered in my direction. Accustomed to kneeling for prayer after communion, I was surprised when the priest blessed me on his second round around the communion railing. Apparently, my folded hands resembled the gesture unbaptized gesture, so I received a double blessing.
Although I didn’t particularly enjoy communion, everything else about the church was inclusive and open. One of the priests (there was a handful– all balding and all unusually merry) even asked members to stand, and although I was one of the first people to sit back down, the ushers still managed to slide me some welcoming materials down the pew.
After church, Professor Quek insisted on treating us to a Burmese lunch. “I don’t know if it’s authentic, but I know that it’s good,” she told us as we walked to the Burmese hawker center. “Because all the Burmese workers come here.” I repeat my professor’s sentiment entirely: I have no idea if it was authentic cuisine, but it certainly was good, and we certainly were the only non-Burmese in the restaurant.
 |
Professor Quek and Toyosi Oyelowo enjoying Burmese cuisine. |
 |
And on the other side of the table, Ceewin Louder, Kerri Nicole, and I doing exactly the same thing! |
Professor Quek ordered us each a different fruit drink (I tried mango) and then we commenced hors’deauvres: fried fish patties and a mango and papaya salad with shrimp. We also enjoyed a seafood/ vegetable platter with shrimp, octopus, mushrooms, and broccoli. Our main courses were served last. I enjoyed seafood rice which came with shrimp, octopus, and prawns along with a mess of vegetables served in a thick clear sauce.
 |
In case you wanted a visual. |
The food was savory, but the conversation was even better. We discussed everything from the sermon to trying to identify Singaporean identity to the problem with Singaporean men (mainly that they’re unromantic). In my opinion, it’s a universal problem and certainly not singular to Singapore, but I digress. (And to my offended guy friends: while I stand by my claim that the lack of romance is a universal male problem, I’m not charging 100% of males with the misdemeanor, just 99.9999999999999999%.)
The following day, Professor Quek organized a movie showing called “Singapore Dreaming.” She said she’s not proud of many Singaporean films, as most of the actors have “beautiful faces and zero acting skills,” but “Singaporean Dreaming” is exceptional as the actors have both good looks and talent. The movie revolves around the Five Cs (or the top five Singaporean ambitions): cash, car, credit card, Condominium, and Country club membership. “Singapore Dreaming” also refers to the lesser-known sixth C which trumps all others: Coffin. I definitely recommend watching it if you’re in the mood for a dark comedy with Singaporean flare. And when I say “Singaporean Flare,” I’m referring to the witticisms and humor which can only come from a woman exactly five feet tall with short cropped hair and a name befitting an entitled duck.