Dumberer

Perhaps the animal known as the Politically-correct is a close relation to the species known as the Socially-inadequate. After all, both share the trait of fearing offence, the only distinction between them being that the former is far less conflicted about using politeness to seek attention.

It is easy to mistake one for the other. Take, for example, this letter from the Forum page of the July 4 Straits Times, about a recent publicity poster by Singapore Association for the Deaf:

July 4, 2006

Better ways to tell the public that the deaf can contribute to society

I would like to bring to attention an advertisement by the Singapore Association for the Deaf (SADeaf) that I have seen displayed at a bus stop, which I am rather perturbed by.

The advertisement shows a man who is hearing impaired climbing a wall with a smile on his face and the following text:

'I'm an engineering graduate. I'm a teacher. I'm a sportsman.

'I'm deaf. But I'm certainly not dumb and mute.'

While I understand that SADeaf is trying to create awareness of the hearing impaired, that they have capabilities and skills the public cannot underestimate, I question the ethicality of the advertisement.

Besides telling us that the hearing impaired are capable of doing things like normal people, there seems to be another subtle message hidden within.

Is the advertisement telling the public that the dumb and mute are not capable people, even when compared to the deaf?

Under the Singapore Code of Advertising Practice, 'advertisements should not downplay the importance of having a caring and compassionate attitude for the less fortunate members of the community'. They should also not 'unfairly attack or discredit other products, organisations or professions directly or by implication'.

I feel the advertisement by SADeaf has breached these rules because while it is helping one segment of the disabled, it is done at the expense of another (unfairly discrediting the dumb and mute).

Where is the ‘caring and compassionate attitude for the less fortunate members of the community’?

It may not be intentional but were there no care taken by its sponsors to ensure the integrity of the advertisement?

How did ClearChannel, an advertising space provider and one of the sponsors of the advertisement, allow this advertisement to pass through?

Perhaps SADeaf wanted so much to push its intended message across that it unconsciously ignored the other degrading message, but I am certain that there are better ways to tell the public that the deaf can contribute to society.

Jason Too Jun Long

And the reply:

July 6, 2006

Singapore Association for the Deaf clarifies messages in poster

The Singapore Association for the Deaf (SADeaf) would like to thank Mr Jason Too Jun Long for his feedback on the advertisement which shows a man who is deaf climbing a wall with a smile.

The SADeaf would like to highlight that there are no subtle messages hidden in the poster. In fact, the text was intended to convey two simple messages:

1. “I’m an engineering graduate. I’m a teacher. I’m a sportsman.”
What we meant is the deaf can achieve, if given equal opportunities.

2. “I’m deaf. But I’m certainly not dumb and mute.” Members of the deaf community who prefer to use signs as a means of communication, on many occasions are referred to as “deaf and dumb” or “deaf and mute” which literally means “unable to hear and unable to speak”. Hence, we want to make it clear that “being unable to hear does not equate unable to speak”. The fact is the deaf can articulate. Under no circumstances is SADeaf discrediting or drawing comparisons directly or by implication. Any misunderstanding caused is regretted.

Jenny Ho (Mrs), Executive Director, SADeaf

I must be an insensitive, anachronistic boor, because like Mr Jason Too I wasn’t aware that being called mute was considered stigmatisation. Like my mother, I thought Deaf and Dumb was a technical, descriptive, and widely-accepted term. Nor did I know that being deaf was a superior condition to being mute.

SADeaf's publicity backfired not because of an unmoved, insensitive public; it failed because their tagline was really about propriety, and not real issues. (I had a rough episode this week writing a press release peppered with the acronym "PWD", referring to People with Disabilities. Apparently, it's more acceptable than the simple "disabled people". Is dehumanising people, by reducing them to acronyms, really better than to risk subhumanising them by being concise?)

Martin Amis, who famously described prejudices as cliches and "secondhand hatreds", praised (rightly or wrongly) fellow writer Saul Bellow’s writing as "a source of constant pleasure because of its manifest immunity to all false consciousness." Immunity to all false consciousness. That’s an ideal we can all work towards, I think.