It was another monthly committee meeting in a seminar room. That day was less than two weeks after the Chinese New Year. Jim the President decided to have a small celebration and had asked someone to buy yee-sang and prepare paper plates and chopsticks the previous day. The meeting ended and the committee was distributing the chopsticks and plates.
Hans barged into the meeting room and looked for Jim. Hans demanded the President to give him an additional 8 CCA points for being in the executive committee for less than 3 months. (He was asked to resign in peaceful terms by the management due to irresponsible attitude toward work, unable to contact him, late and absent without valid reasons after three warnings given to him.) Jim had agreed to his request to give him maximum 4 points for an event which he occasionally came to help. Apparently, Hans was not happy with Jim’s decision and he started to raise his voice. Jim felt that that was a fair decision, so he denied Hans’ request. Jim told Hans that he will consider Han’s request provided that Luke (Hans’ direct supervisor) and both VPs (Scot and Karl) all agreed to that request because all three of them work more closely with Hans. Hans became frustrated and threatened to lodge a complaint at the Office of Student Affairs (OSA). Jim replied coldly, “Go ahead as you wish.” Hans fumed instantly hearing such reply and began to show his anger, spitting out some vulgar words.
Karl couldn’t take it any longer and jumped into the conversation. Karl commented on Hans’ attitude when talking to the President. It soon turned into a small fight. Hans grabbed his fist tightly, looked like wanting to give a punch at Karl’s face. He even used his finger to point at Karl right at the face, while Karl used the chopsticks in his hands to push it away. The situation becomes tenser than ever. Karl blurted a line, “This is my country; you cannot do whatever you want.” Upon hearing this, Hans’ face turned but he didn’t say anything but from his face, I could tell he was angry with a little upset inside.
A few days passed, Jims, Scot and Karl was shocked to receive an unexpected e-mail from OSA regarding a complaint on racial discrimination and request to present themselves at OSA on a specific date and time. The matter was resolved with Karl apologized to Hans and staff of OSA as witness.
Below are some of my thoughts on this incident:
1. If the phrase “my country” were to be replaced by “Singapore”, I supposed this was not an issue at all because the whole meaning of the sentence would have been very different and the message conveyed will not come across as being discriminating a non-local. The emphasize of the message now turns into Singapore is a country abided and well regulated by the law and people cannot just do anything they wish for they are responsible for their actions. In addition, if this sentence was directed to a Singaporean, that would not be a problem at all.
2. Jim could have been more sensitive toward what Karl said and settled the argument there and then. If he were to ask Karl to apologize to Hans for that unintentional comment which is seen to be racist, then this matter would have not been brought to light to OSA.
3. The choice of words we used in conversation can have some impact to the listener and at times we may not be aware ourselves. It is important that we always think how the other party will interpret our message before we send the message across.
I believe the key to healthy human relations is respect. Respect should transcend backgrounds, cultures, beliefs and values. Stereotype and generalization should be minimized because every individual is unique and generally most people are nice if you know them long and well enough. Hence, it is important to be more conscious and sensitive coming to relationship with people, especially with new people that we meet.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Jason, this is a well-described post. Good job!
ReplyDeleteYou'd shared some thoughts on the incident, and I very much agree with your third point, that in communication (regardless of whether it is intercultural or interpersonal) one has to be careful and sensitive with regards to the choice of words used. However, I disagree with your first point, that the incident would not have been an issue at all should 'Singapore' be used in place of 'my country'. Perhaps to a certain extent, the impact of the sentence may be soften in that the statement did not delineate the distinction between Singaporeans and foreigners, but it merely shifts the conflict from intercultural to interpersonal.
If the following statement "This is Singapore; you cannot do whatever you want" was directed at a Singaporean, it really would not be a problem? At all?
You may want to take note of some errors in your writing. Here are some glaring ones:
1. (He was asked to resign in peaceful terms by the management due to irresponsible attitude toward work, unable to contact him, late and absent without valid reasons after three warnings given to him.) - phrasing
2. Hans grabbed his fist tightly, looked like wanting to give a punch at Karl’s face. - clenched fist?
3. He even used his finger to point at Karl right at the face - usually we say 'point a finger in a person's face'
Thanks for the sharing, Jason (I have a feeling this is not a hypothetical scenario?)!
Hello Jason,
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing this incident!
I believe that when Karl blurted out that sentence, he had the intention to display a certain degree of discrimination towards Hans. An originally non-cultural conflict turned very sour because of this very hurtful remark. I think that Karl should have been alot more sensitive and not involve any discrimination in this situation; that remark was certainly uncalled for as it would not aid in resolving the mini fight, instead had undoubtedly worsen it.
I suppose when Jason said that it would not be a problem if "This is Singapore; you cannot do whatever you want" was directed at a Singaporean because it would not reflect discrimination because it is directed to a local in a local context but yes, as Ms. Lim has mentioned, interpersonal conflict may arise in this situation.
I can't agree more about how a good choice of words will aid in improving interpersonal relationships and of course, the vice versa stands too. Indeed, we have to learn to understand each other and accept that no 2 people have the exact same thinking, therefore we have to respect one another and be sensitive enough to not spout offending words or do something deemed inappropriate by the others during (intercultural) interaction.
Joanne(:
"This is Singapore; you cannot do whatever you want" was directed at a Singaporean, it will cause discomfort to the listener and wouldn't be considered as discrimination because the speaker is merely stating the facts. Thus, I agree with you, there will still be problem but it's a less serious one. ;)
ReplyDeleteThank you for taking time to correct my errors.
The first one should be changed to:
Due to irresponsible attitude toward work, unable to contact him, late and absent without valid reasons even after three warnings being issued, he was asked to resign in peaceful terms by the management.
It is not a hypothetical situation, if it is, then I think I can probably consider to become a scriptwriter as my future career~ =)
Thanks for the reply, Jason.
ReplyDeleteThe corrected sentence definitely saw some improvement =)
What do you think about this:
He was asked to resign in peaceful terms by the management due to his irresponsibility, his lateness and his frequent unannounced absence despite repeated warnings.