Affirmative Action or Objective Observation?

A few weeks ago, there was a promo spot on TV urging us to watch "Project Superstar".

Words flash on the screen, white upon black background:

Do you vote ...

Because of his good looks?
(Cut to shot of generic spiky haired pretty boy contestant)

Because of her beauty?
(Cut to shot of doe-eyed pretty girl contestant)

Out of sympathy?
(Cut to particularly unflattering shot of Kelvin Tan Wei Lian, a visually handicapped contestant)

That was just about the most offensive and tasteless thing I had ever seen on any Mediacorp channel (and I am watching the second season of Nip/Tuck!!). Even 8 Days, a publication of Mediacorp Publishing, took Mediacorp TV to task for airing this promo. I was thrilled that someone had the guts to rap a sister organisation on the knuckles. It must be really bad when even your "family members" are giving you a very public thumbs-down.

And it was really bad. It was insulting both to the contestant and the people who vote for him. It seemed to suggest that the only reason he gets any votes at all are because of sympathy; the only reason anyone votes for him is because they pity him. His talent is given short shift (in fact, the entire promo seemed to discount talent as a reason for anyone voting, which might tell you something about how the industry sees its cash cows). Worst of all, the choice of visuals made it seem like a battle of the beautiful people against the less telegenic. Okay, we KNOW that having good looks usually gives someone an unfair advantage in life (hey, like I said, I watch Nip/Tuck!). Does the media need to perpetuate and hammer the point quite so blatantly?

I don't know how much the promo might have hurt Kelvin Tan, or even if it did at all. It was certainly insulting, but it might not have done him any damage in terms of votes. In fact, it might even have spurred a few outraged viewers to vote for him, just to snub Mediacorp for airing something that was so politically insensitive. At the time, I was mainly horrified that his blindness was being exploited for the purposes of marketing and promoting a TV show. Even worse, it was being exploited in a way that made him the butt of a not very funny joke.

The guy should be allowed to compete with others as their equals. It is for him to win our votes with his performances, just as it is for him to lose our votes, turn us off or simply bore us. His blindness should not be an issue in the competition. If it isn't an issue when he is performing, then it should not be made a selling point by advertisers, promoters and headline writers.

I am not saying that everyone should treat him as it he wasn't visually challenged and just allow him to bang into things or fall over. I am just saying that in a competition, his blindness should not be exploited; not by himself to win pity votes and not by others to get a bit of cheap publicity. Nor should his blindness be a reason for the judges to soften their critiques, as I believe they have done more than once.

One month later, and Kelvin Tan is one of the last 2 male contestants standing. He is competing in the male finals, and has every chance of sweeping into the grand finale as the male champion. What has brought him here? His journey to the final has shown us the two very different sides of Affirmative Action.

When I said that his blindness should not be an issue when he competes, I was talking from the principles of affirmative action. The disadvantaged should be given more than equal access to opportunities so that they might compete as equals with mainstream society. When we bend our own internal rules and reshape our preconceptions, we are practising Affirmative Action. When we say "Give Kelvin Tan a chance to compete on Project Superstar", we are asking saying "Let's judge him on his talent, it doesn't matter if he is visually impaired". When we do this, we are practising Affirmative Action, and I believe strongly in the need for it in unequal societies (ie ALL societies).

When we move beyond affirmative action, we pay people like Kelvin Tan the ultimate compliment. We objectively observe and judge them on their talents and abilities, as we would anyone else. They are able to prove their worth against a wider common denominator. Instead of being "a great singer for someone who is blind", they get to be simply "a great singer". The full-stop is everything.

But then there is the other side of Affirmative Action - the one that never moves on to objective observation. This is the side that thinks that the disadvantaged will always need to be given special treatment. I have seen a lot of this in the rise of Kelvin Tan. People say things like, "He has managed to do so much when you consider that he is blind. We must continue to support him". Now, this is a lovely and noble sentiment. But it doesn't really do him any favours. Like it or not, it smacks of pity. Yes, I have no doubt that people are motivated by his talent, but statements like this do show that it is NOT ONLY about the talent.

Fine, it should NOT be JUST about the talent. This is a competition to find a superstar. Talent is part of it, yes, but so is stage presence, likeability, appearance and that ever elusive X factor. Okay, then. Judge Kelvin Tan on these - on measures and attributes of a superstar. Not on his "struggle" and "what he has overcome". You may admire him for his inspirational courage but you should vote for him because of his inspiring performances. I think that is what he would want.

I don't know Kelvin Tan, so I cannot speak for him. I am certain that he is proud to represent the visually impaired community. I am sure he is proud that he has shown what can be accomplished by people with disabilities. But I am sure he would not want his success to be defined along those narrow terms. He would want to do well because he is good, not because he is blind.

If Kelvin Tan wins because of misguided affirmative action, what will happen to him in the big bad world of the pop music industry? It is fickle and greedy and not for the faint-of-heart. If the people who helped him win do not stick with him, he might be swallowed whole by the industry. And that would be sad indeed, because he does seem such a nice, sweet-natured fellow. My fear for him is that if he wins for the wrong reasons, his fan-base might not survive intact beyond the few weeks of post-finale fanfare. Those that throw votes his way because they want the underdog to win might not stick around to support his long-term career. They might deliver him his impossible dream and leave him to deal with his nightmare. He deserves better than that. He deserves to win if his people like his performances. Just as he deserves to lose if people preferred his opponent's performances. It really IS that simple.

My objectively observations about Kelvin Tan:

1. He can definitely sing, no question about it. His technique is sometimes suspect and he appears to need more training, but he usually pulls through because he has innate musicality.
2. The quality of his voice is uneven. His chest voice is very pleasant, although unremarkable. His higher notes are extremely nasal, because he doesn't seem to quite know how to project his head voice properly.
3. He is wildly inconsistent. He can score a hattrick one week and three own-goals the next. Sometimes he can do both on the same night, or even within the same song. The night with the "oldies done in a new way" theme, he sang so poorly, I thought he deserved elimination just for that alone.
4. He seems to be a very, very nice, genuine and sincere person. It's touching how the other contestants always seem so pleased for him when he makes it to the next round. He appears well liked.
5. When interviewed, he is articulate and well-spoken. He is humble and truly grateful for the experience he is having on Project Superstar.
6. He really needs to back away from the sappy ballads. I almost feel bad saying this, but when he sings these slow "touching" songs, he goes overboard with the emoting, so that it becomes overwrought and veers towards artifice. Maybe I am just cynical and unable to process the sincerity of his performances. But really, the quavering upper lip and the furrowed brow? So hammy!
7. His stage presence has improved but is still closer to zero than hero. It has nothing to do with his blindness The problem is his lack of charisma. Ray Charles was blind and so was Stevie Wonder, yet they could electrify a room while rooted to the piano seat.
8. He's a decent performer. He can have a career as a singer in some capacity. But he is not a superstar.

This mini-thesis is not about Kelvin Tan, although his name gets mentioned a lot. It's not even about Project Superstar. It's about good people who want to do good things, but might end up not helping and instead hurting those they seek to help. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.