I’ve been watching this new wave of “extreme activism” hunger strikes, public self-denial, moral ultimatums and I can’t help but wonder what any of it really achieves. Somewhere along the way, compassion turned into a performance of suffering.
A hunger strike is supposed to awaken conscience, but in a pragmatic country like Singapore, it comes across more like emotional blackmail: “If you don’t do what I want, I’ll hurt myself until you feel guilty.” That isn’t moral courage it’s manipulation wrapped in moral language. True humanitarianism doesn’t need to starve itself to make a point.
It feeds others. It heals. It builds. When people choose to waste away to force a reaction, it says more about their desperation than their cause. Singapore’s model of rational humanitarianism shows a better way aid sent lawfully, compassion shown with discipline, results achieved quietly. No theatrics, no martyrdom, just steady service.
So yes, I understand the frustration behind a hunger strike. But I also believe the energy could be better spent feeding the hungry instead of becoming hungry to prove a point.
Norhiayah Mahmood
