~by: Ghui~
Catchphrases are often used in advertising campaigns. These are designed to be short and gripping with the intention that the tagline delivers the message the advertisement is trying to promote. Bearing this is mind, I wonder if the recent spate of MCYS advertisements serve their desired purpose?
Upon a closer inspection of the posters, it is evident that MCYS is on a recruitment drive for social workers and is trying to showcase the rewarding nature of the job (http://www.ncss.gov.sg/Career/socialworker.asp). There is nothing wrong with that intention per se and every recruitment advertisement would try to publicise the positive side of the job to attract applicants. However, do these advertisements hit the nail on the head?
Social workers play a very meaningful role in society and I am in no way downplaying their significant contributions but I wonder if the posters could have used more appropriate taglines?
In any given scenario whereby a particular individual is “helped” back into society, both the “helper” and the “helpee” play a role. While the social worker lends his or her much needed assistance, the assisted also strives to better himself or herself. It is a two way street and as the saying goes “it takes two hands to clap”. These posters seem to suggest that it is all down to the efforts of the social worker and negates the efforts made by the “aided” individual. Surely his or her efforts deserve some credit too?
Secondly, the posters seem to imply that if one is handicapped, in gangs, sick and elderly or abused, his or her life is hopeless, destroyed or ruined. Instead of making the handicapped or individuals who have fallen through the cracks feel more a part of society, this would only serve to make them feel even more apart.
I am aware that this is not the intention of the posters and that they are merely trying to highlight the fulfilling aspects of the job. But words such as “Hopeless” “Destroyed”, “Abandoned” or “Ruined” which are loudly splashed across the posters actually detract from the message they are trying to send. Instead of portraying the enriching experience of a social worker, it highlights the predicament of the handicapped or infirm. One might argue that these achieve the same ends but do the ends always justify the means? Besides, is there a need to focus on the wretchedness of one in order to promote the pros of another?
Might “Bringing Hope” not be a better phrase to “Hopeless”? While “Hopeless” sensationalises disability, “Bringing Hope” connotes the worthwhile nature of the job without riding roughshod over the “helped” person’s own efforts. It also does not assume that a person’s life is devoid of hope and meaning just because he or she is handicapped.
Phrases like “Building a Future” or “Building a community” are also more effective than “Life Ruined”, “Abandoned” or “Future Destroyed”. Not only do they accurately describe the positive role played by social workers but they also highlight the partnership between the social worker and the individual that is “aided”. After all, you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.
While MCYS may not have intended it, these posters serve to fuel society’s prejudice towards the handicapped or people who have fallen through the cracks. Instead of positive encouragement, it has reinforced the idea that the handicapped or infirm are somewhat lacking and ought to be pitied. I am not at all suggesting that these individuals do not need help but our assistance should stem from a communal desire of mutual assistance rather than a need to help “objects of pity”.
Many disabled people or individuals on the fringes of society have managed to rebuild their lives and lead very meaningful existences. These posters negate the strength and resilience of those who have overcome adversity by portraying them as victims needing of society’s handouts.
Perhaps MCYS might use a more empowering choice of words next time.
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
I simply glossed over the point because I was more keen to defend the article and I am using my recent experience as a volunteer with the spd as an example. Certainly no intention to confuse the 2 and I am clear of the differences too. but in any case, thanks for raising it. The more knowledge is out there, the better:)
Yes I take that point about it being misleading possibly. i have just reread my comment. I have to confess that I responded very quickly in the heat of the moment. but my criticism of MCYS still stands. I am a lay person without the benefit of an entire ministry behind me. I made a mistake but I still think that MCYS with all their funding, expertise etc, should have known better. What are your thoughts? As a student who is keen to join this profession, what are your thoughts on the poster? I would be glad to hear your views.
MCYS has no right to advertise using ugly words all of us born equal and 1 day we will all die regardless of elite or uneducated
Apologies for being Pendantic but is what Glady's said wrong? I can see that it is potentially misleading and I can understand why a poster saw the need to correct it. But a volunteer can do some aspects of social work. A volunteer is not a professional social worker but he or she can do some social work so to say that a volunteer has done social work is not wrong if one really thinks about it. :)
Apologies but is what Glady's said wrong? I can see that it is potentially misleading and I can understand why a poster saw the need to correct it. But a volunteer can do some aspects of social work. A volunteer is not a professional social worker but he or she can do some social work so to say that a volunteer has done social work is not wrong if one really thinks about it. Thanks.
A volunteer can do some social work. He is not a professional social worker . to say that a volunteer does some social work is not wrong. It would only be wrong if they are equated with each other. Dont think the comments above did that. Let's not trivailise the very valid article over semantics. Thanks!
a volunteer can so some social work what. he is not a professional social worker and may not have the same skills but to say that a volunteer can do some social work is not wrong. Only if u say that a volunteer is a social worker then its wrong ma
A volunteer is not a social worker but can perform some aspects of social work.
WP score own goal: it's called help also know how to help wisely, not stupidly. not that someone stupid like you would understand the concept.
Insensitive social organizations like the MCYS is a menace to the less fortunate who happen to fall within their grip. The mind of the MCYS is a microcosm of the mind of the Rulers of the State. Bad luck if ever we fall into its clutches as when we need social services. I have had once the misfortunate to seek the services of the MCYS and I am astounded as to how such a group of people gravitate towards of all places, the key social body in Singapore, the MCYS. Look at how MCYS dealt with the stateless boy Mohamed, the supposedly stateless Malay woman and you will know what I mean.All these cases are covered with arrogant silence. The illustrative pictures depict a sadistic mind, compassionateless, bureaucratic insensitivity at its worse.
Adverts must draw your attention and make you ponder,or they fail.This is what MCYS had in mind when it crafted them this way.One has to read all the words,not just single words.
If MCYS came up with dull posters,will we then say that they are dumb and ineffective,and waste taxpayers' dollars?
What's key is the message that it tries drill into us,that there are people who have compassion and will stand up to render help to others.
Not Biased,
there is a line between getting attention for the right reasons & getting others to react in disgust. even standing up to help others, one should not do so with a demeaning attitude.
the posters with those words in bold adds an unwelcomed stigma to the disadvantaged or downtroddened. the images may play up stereotypes that may invite discrimination, prejudice & radicule. while discriminations & prejudices are easier to weed out, radicule isn't. its an attitude thingy.
The posters seems intending to promote the status of the social workers at the expense of the disabled.
remember… "investing" is these kind of people is a hugh nigarian scam!
that's why they are "hopeless", "ruined", "destroyed" and "abondoned"…
But question, if they didn't use such bold words, would TOC even being writing a commentary on this and would most of us be even talking about it?
Oh and why do we automatically jump to the definition of Hopeless as a negative and mean word? Isn't hopeless also an emotion we all go through?
Oh and just read this article online (someone shared it on my FB). in it, it says that some welfare grps feel that hopeless was accurate. "This is because the disabled whom they work with often feel hopeless about their plight, they said."
Come on, with so many things to critise on the gahmen. You want to pick on MCYS. For my thinking it is one of the best ministries that is actually made up of people that care. Gahmen got so many screw ups, you all go attack their screw up when they trying to help. Come on so many other ministries to pick on that actually deserve it.
Some more, these are social workers here. They give their lives to do the work that others do not want to do. If Singaporeans all so good, then why we need social workers. The fact that SG always lack social workers says alot of our society. Then now want to whack MCYS while they try to promote social workers and their work with the disabled. This attack. Makes no logical.
These ads are disturbing to many social workers and counsellors because they come from MCYS/NCSS who are supposed to provide leadership and spearhead the helping professions.
I completely appreciate their intention to promote the work we do, but unfortunately I feel totally misrepresented.
1. In SW and Counselling, Course 101 reiterates and drills into us the DIGNITY of all people. It is so important that in order to work with any population, we must RESPECT the dignity of the person/s.
2. These ads reflect that MCYS does not understand the core principle of the kind of work the helping profession does. Our work involves unearthing in our clients their buried, forgotten, neglected, ignored, denied treasure of RESOURCEFULNESS, STRENGTH, and RESILIENCE, and persistently, endlessly, repeatedly, creatively, supportively remind them of these so that whatever little glimmer of HOPE that is in them is rediscovered, and allowed to grow into a roaring flame.
3. These ads show a fundamental top-down attitude. This is not the kind of attitude in "social work" that should be propagated. Unfortunately, the message that it sends is: "You who need help, are such sad souls who are RUINED, DESTROYED and HOPELESS, so here we, the saviours, the nice and kind and sacrificial people and heroes will come and save you." I am afraid I react to such humiliating messages of the people I work with – and I feel that is what is fundamentally wrong, it has got nothing to do with the work I do. They are certainly not hopeless, ruined nor destroyed.
4. These kinds of ads propagate a disturbingly patronising attitude.
In our work, much training is done to get people who start off with a desire to help (which is commendable) to become aware of this superior attitude within ourselves. Normally through many different exercises we begin to realise what harm this attitude does to people we purportedly want to help. For those who have stayed and stay the course we will eventually realise that we are the ones who need to change and, are changed. We discover that we are the ones who have to dig deep and discover our own strengths, limitations, and weaknesses. Unless we are able to do so we will in time be disappointed and disillusioned and end up blaming the people whom we started off wanting to help.
5. That is why social work is hard, very hard work; counselling too, is very hard – it is hard because it is not the people out there we are transforming, it is hard because to be effective, it is we who need to learn and transform first.
RESILIENCE, STRENGTH, COURAGE, RESPECT, HOPE are the mantras for those of us in the industry. To be of use to others as a social worker or counsellor or any change agent, we have to focus on these qualities in the people we work with and remind ourselves of the fundamental principles of the change process.