Ann Ang portrays the generational schism between the older and younger generations in Singapore against the contextual backdrop of the 2011 Singaporean general elections. She interestingly uses a time of political tension, using the centre right PAP and growing opposition centre left Worker’s Party as a representation of the polarisation between the two age populations, with the pioneer generation particularly associated with having a lower education background, and the younger generation argued to be more ‘educated’. Through this, Ang challenges the reductive view the general Singaporean public hold of the pioneer demographic, and through the first person narrative of the ‘Uncle’, she encounters the issue of their misrepresentation and challenges the unfounded prejudices held against and overgeneralisation of this underrepresented social group, eliciting empathy through providing a generational perspective.
Ang initially portrays the hostility of the younger generations against the pioneer generation through using the motif of education. This is first seen when the Uncle’s daughter-in-law, Lee Mei, harshly blames those in the older population, like the Uncle, for having caused the PAP’s loss in the GRC election, targeting ‘uneducated’ and ‘shortsighted people’ like the Uncle and alleging them to the ‘cause of this kind of trouble’. This portrays the Uncles and this social group as being menacing or ‘trouble[some]’ in society, with ‘uneducated’ perhaps connoting to an ill-formed individual carelessly voting during the elections. Lee Mei jumps to the assumption that the Uncle voted for the opposition Worker’s Party. We are further influenced by her biased perspective when the Uncle claims to have ‘start[ed] laughing’ in the midst of their heated and serious political debate. As seen and implied in other sections of ‘Bang My Car’, erupting in laughter In inappropriate times is an ubiquitous Uncle characteristic, which illustrates this uncle as being ignorant or perhaps even incapable of holding an ‘educated’ political discussion with his daughter-in-law. On a surface level, our sympathies initially lie with Lee Mei agreeing with this perspective of the ‘uneducated’ uncle, and his pioneer generation, being perhaps unworthy and outdated for society (opposing progression, becoming a competitive nation/ globalisation – particularly adopting western influences).
Interestingly, Ang subtly reveals the hypocrisy of the younger generations by using the Uncle inner thoughts to contrast Lee Mei’s dialogue. For example, she complains to her husband that his ‘father tell [her son and daughter] to study less’, again putting emphasis on education and suggesting a superficial ‘forward thinking’ mindset about her children’s futures (which align with her support for the PAP). However, upon reading this, we instantly do not agree with her allegations as we are revealed beforehand in the opening paragraph that the Uncle himself knows that ‘Ah boy and Ah girl are not studying … because of what happening on TV’. Ang reveals the fallacy of the daughter-in-law, because while she complains about the uncle’s and his generation’s values (perceived to not be thinking about the future generations when voting), in reality the Uncle is not this at all. Ang instead suggests that the uncle actually values the children’s education and shares this same ‘forward thinking’ value as Lee Mei, interestingly criticises the distraction of the 2011 general elections being shown on the TV. Seeing that the elections and the political conflict in Singapore at this time is a representation of this generational social conflict, Ang could be eliciting reflection about the misconceptions of the pioneer generation which drives us to question the reliability of Lee Mei’s perspective on the uncle.
Furthermore, the incongruent use of the ‘uneducated’ uncle character as a voice of wisdom challenges the reductive perspective reflects Ang’s concerns on misrepresentation and misunderstanding of the pioneer generation – a demographic that composes majority of the Singaporean population. Lee Mei persistently insists that ‘those like [uncle]’ vote rather incompletely for the opposition party, yet Ang mocks her through using the symbol of outward looks and material clothing. Initially in the passage, the uncle thinks to himself, ‘not my fault you [Lee Mei] wear nicer clothes’. This initially seems like a portrayal of the shallow and superficially of the younger generations, or alternatively with the word ‘nicer’ perhaps portraying societal view of their values prevailing over that of the older populations. Yet in part II of this section in the book, in the uncle’s dramatic monologue, he rather wisely reflects on young Singaporeans wasting their votes ‘because they wear nice clothes’, subtly insisting that it is not necessarily the older population that has voted carelessly in the 2011 election (and is therefore less worthy in society), but is instead those like his daughter-in-law who are doing so. Moreover, Ang’s incongruent use of the uncle’s non-standard English, ‘Singlish’, throughout this monologue as he conveys his insightful thoughts on the ‘stupid’ tendencies of Singaporean voters and on how Singapore out to run their elections is an ironic yet powerful representation of the Uncle character. Throughout this text, Ang breaks down the unfounded prejudice and overgeneralisation held against the pioneer generation and their values, representing how individuals in this group, like the uncle, have to ability to hold a bold perception of life, are more far-sighted about the future and make integral contributions to social and political affairs in Singapore.
