SINGAPORE: A TikToker named Kevin Wee recently made waves online when he flew a homeless elderly man from Kuala Lumpur to Singapore for a two-day tour that included stops at Haji Lane, a neon art jam studio and Universal Studios Singapore.
The buzz generated by Mr Wee, who goes by Radical Kindness on TikTok, raises the question: Are such acts of kindness, intentionally curated for social media, inspiring or exploitative?
From the first video that was posted, it appears that the whole interaction with the homeless man, Pang Hong (affectionately called “Uncle” by Mr Wee and others in the clips), was carefully orchestrated to achieve maximum possible impact among social media users.
That Kevin is a TikTok influencer does make the deliberate broadcasting of his kind act highly nuanced. Rather than jumping to judgments, I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt.
But, as more and more of human behaviour becomes co-opted into a performance for online audiences, we need to peel back the layers to discuss the possible interpretations.
Firstly, this would be stating the obvious – but acts of kindness are and should be praised.
The Singapore Kindness Movement, the National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre and the Singapore Silent Heroes give out awards to recognise and celebrate individuals who exemplify service before self, often at elaborate gala dinners held at fancy venues and graced by significant political office holders.
These are often intentionally publicised, reported in mainline and vernacular newspapers, as well as shared on social media.
It’s a relatively common-sense approach: The organisers seek to draw public attention towards issues that are important to nation-building, such as community volunteerism and philanthropic causes. The objective is to inspire others to strive to be a better version of themselves.
When citizens are made aware that many people in society are doing good for others, it can also contribute towards normalising charitable attitudes and actions. More people can be spurred to proactively do good, rather than remain passive bystanders.
But when it comes to doing good, there is a risk of exploiting the plight of beneficiaries.
When we turn human vulnerabilities and struggles into “content” for public consumption, there is a danger of repeating what showman Sam Torr did in the late 19th century to John Merrick – better known as the Elephant Man - whose physical deformity was put on display to shock and entertain audiences for Torr’s profit.
In the same way, when the act of helping people in need is carried out with the aim of increasing one’s wealth or influence by garnering more views or followers, the act is no longer charitable or philanthropic.
It degenerates into the performative – a showcase not to bring attention to real causes in need of aid and attention, but to the one who wishes to be seen to be the benefactor to those grappling with these issues.
Can an act of kindness ever be truly altruistic when the benefactor is the one benefiting more than the beneficiary?
For the less fortunate recipient of such acts, their vulnerabilities and struggles are now treated as the means to someone else’s end. Such a self-serving slant can reduce the act to nothing more than a marketing activity, to boost the benefactor’s own status.
There is also a privacy question of whether the beneficiary is allowed or even able to give consent to be so used in such content. Had it been thoroughly explained to Mr Pang what the content was all about and what it was meant to achieve so that he could give informed consent? Does he adequately understand what social media is – or, more specifically, TikTok?
In the videos, Mr Pang did not always appear to be fully aware of the situations and environments he was being placed into. It often seemed like he had to be coached to act in a way that would help make the footage more engaging.
Of course, when offered the opportunity of a lifetime to enjoy an all-expenses paid vacation, it’s not hard to understand why anyone would be happy to accept. But did Mr Pang fully understand what he was being asked to do in return?
Again, there’s nothing wrong with a homeless man enjoying his first plane ride and two wonderful days in Singapore. But, more critically, was anything done to address his homelessness?
Was any effort made to help raise money for Mr Pang, or rent him a place to stay, or find him a job (if he’s able to work)? Regular follow-ups would be useful to update Mr Pang’s well-wishers on how he’s progressing.
Whether the act of kindness is true depends on the intention and motivation, which only the executor knows. But they can also be inferred from the way the act is executed and subsequently portrayed for others. When it is curated as an “event” or “show”, it is not difficult for the public to perceive it negatively.
If beneficiaries like Mr Pang are merely roped in as “actors” directed to pose and react accordingly at different points in the shoot, that can be a damaging compromise of their autonomy and dignity.
That said, we need to celebrate the possibilities and potential of every human to do good. Our intentions and motivations are mostly mixed – kind and selfish impulses, pride and prejudices, humilities and vanities, the good, the bad and the ugly all swirling together in the human heart.
But being kind is not about being a saint – it’s simply about choosing to do things that benefit others, even if we’re getting nothing in return.
Dr William Wan is managing director at Fervent Chambers. He is also senior research fellow at NUS Yeo Boon Khim Mind Science Centre, as well as senior fellow at The School of Positive Psychology.
Continue reading...
The buzz generated by Mr Wee, who goes by Radical Kindness on TikTok, raises the question: Are such acts of kindness, intentionally curated for social media, inspiring or exploitative?
From the first video that was posted, it appears that the whole interaction with the homeless man, Pang Hong (affectionately called “Uncle” by Mr Wee and others in the clips), was carefully orchestrated to achieve maximum possible impact among social media users.
That Kevin is a TikTok influencer does make the deliberate broadcasting of his kind act highly nuanced. Rather than jumping to judgments, I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt.
But, as more and more of human behaviour becomes co-opted into a performance for online audiences, we need to peel back the layers to discuss the possible interpretations.
WHY DO WE PRAISE PEOPLE FOR BEING KIND?
Firstly, this would be stating the obvious – but acts of kindness are and should be praised.
The Singapore Kindness Movement, the National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre and the Singapore Silent Heroes give out awards to recognise and celebrate individuals who exemplify service before self, often at elaborate gala dinners held at fancy venues and graced by significant political office holders.
These are often intentionally publicised, reported in mainline and vernacular newspapers, as well as shared on social media.
It’s a relatively common-sense approach: The organisers seek to draw public attention towards issues that are important to nation-building, such as community volunteerism and philanthropic causes. The objective is to inspire others to strive to be a better version of themselves.
Related:
When citizens are made aware that many people in society are doing good for others, it can also contribute towards normalising charitable attitudes and actions. More people can be spurred to proactively do good, rather than remain passive bystanders.
But when it comes to doing good, there is a risk of exploiting the plight of beneficiaries.
When we turn human vulnerabilities and struggles into “content” for public consumption, there is a danger of repeating what showman Sam Torr did in the late 19th century to John Merrick – better known as the Elephant Man - whose physical deformity was put on display to shock and entertain audiences for Torr’s profit.
In the same way, when the act of helping people in need is carried out with the aim of increasing one’s wealth or influence by garnering more views or followers, the act is no longer charitable or philanthropic.
It degenerates into the performative – a showcase not to bring attention to real causes in need of aid and attention, but to the one who wishes to be seen to be the benefactor to those grappling with these issues.
WHO REALLY BENEFITS?
Can an act of kindness ever be truly altruistic when the benefactor is the one benefiting more than the beneficiary?
For the less fortunate recipient of such acts, their vulnerabilities and struggles are now treated as the means to someone else’s end. Such a self-serving slant can reduce the act to nothing more than a marketing activity, to boost the benefactor’s own status.
There is also a privacy question of whether the beneficiary is allowed or even able to give consent to be so used in such content. Had it been thoroughly explained to Mr Pang what the content was all about and what it was meant to achieve so that he could give informed consent? Does he adequately understand what social media is – or, more specifically, TikTok?
In the videos, Mr Pang did not always appear to be fully aware of the situations and environments he was being placed into. It often seemed like he had to be coached to act in a way that would help make the footage more engaging.
Of course, when offered the opportunity of a lifetime to enjoy an all-expenses paid vacation, it’s not hard to understand why anyone would be happy to accept. But did Mr Pang fully understand what he was being asked to do in return?
Related:
Again, there’s nothing wrong with a homeless man enjoying his first plane ride and two wonderful days in Singapore. But, more critically, was anything done to address his homelessness?
Was any effort made to help raise money for Mr Pang, or rent him a place to stay, or find him a job (if he’s able to work)? Regular follow-ups would be useful to update Mr Pang’s well-wishers on how he’s progressing.
Whether the act of kindness is true depends on the intention and motivation, which only the executor knows. But they can also be inferred from the way the act is executed and subsequently portrayed for others. When it is curated as an “event” or “show”, it is not difficult for the public to perceive it negatively.
If beneficiaries like Mr Pang are merely roped in as “actors” directed to pose and react accordingly at different points in the shoot, that can be a damaging compromise of their autonomy and dignity.
That said, we need to celebrate the possibilities and potential of every human to do good. Our intentions and motivations are mostly mixed – kind and selfish impulses, pride and prejudices, humilities and vanities, the good, the bad and the ugly all swirling together in the human heart.
But being kind is not about being a saint – it’s simply about choosing to do things that benefit others, even if we’re getting nothing in return.
Dr William Wan is managing director at Fervent Chambers. He is also senior research fellow at NUS Yeo Boon Khim Mind Science Centre, as well as senior fellow at The School of Positive Psychology.
Continue reading...