Perspective

I thought it was interesting that David Martin, a U.K. citizen who moved to Singapore a few years ago, described Singapore as a Lexus in an article in Time magazine. Martin was quoted to have said,

“Lexus could be the most well-made car out there, but it will never be as attractive as a Mercedes or BMW.”

This certainly is very thought-provoking. Singapore is going all out to transform itself to become the next New York, Paris or London. The integrated resorts drive, and more recently, the wooing of Formula One to hold its first race in Singapore is completely different from the image of Singapore in the minds of most people. Singapore is more likely to conjure images of a clean city, highly efficient government (to the point of appearing cold) and draconian laws rather than that of a fun city.

I concur that Singapore is like a Lexus. By many measures, the Singapore system towers above many other countries and large cities. Education, healthcare, public transport, governance and security are amongst the best in the world, although one will have to quietly surrender certain personal rights to enjoy these benefits. Why then do people not aspire to come to Singapore, or for Singaporeans, why do they not aspire to remain in Singapore? Why are countries like the United States, Britain, Switzerland etc so much more attractive, even though logically, Singapore is as good in most areas?

I guess the Singapore government can do its best to make sure that everything works in Singapore, but it cannot change the image of Singapore in the minds of many people. It is going to be difficult to shake off the notion that Singapore is boring. Sure, things work, but its boring. It just like a Lexus. Sure, it looks nice and seldom breaks down, but hey, it’s just made by Toyota, who makes cars for the average man. There’s no “status” in owning a car by a manufacturer that makes cars that any Tom, Dick or Harry can buy.

However, Toyota is one of the most profitable automobile companies in the world. Who cares whether people think that Toyota is “boring” or have little “status”? The company is laughing its way to the bank, and I’m quite sure the Toyota executives are thinking, “You [other automobile companies] can keep your image, we prefer to keep our profits.” I suppose this is what the Singapore government is betting on. Sure, Singapore might not conjure the most glamorous image in the minds of people, but if people are willing to park their money here, who cares?

And, the strategy appears to have been working. Billions of dollars are entering the Singapore banking and finance sectors. Immigration rates are rising. And the global rich have snapped up luxurious private properties in Singapore. Perhaps the strategy of aspiring to own a Mercedes or BMW but making do with a Lexus works.

I was just thinking yesterday that in Singapore, women have it somewhat better than men. They have the Women’s Charter, while we men get no Men’s Charter. They have the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) to go to for assistance, while we men have no male equivalent. And perhaps the best thing about being a woman in Singapore is that one doesn’t have to go through conscription.

Just a caveat though. I am not an MCP (means Male Chauvinist Pig, a derogatory term for males with do not respect female rights). In fact, I classify myself as a male feminist (more about that in another entry). It’s just that I feel that relative to women, men in Singapore seem to get the short end of the stick in some areas. Therefore, I set out to see if there is the male equivalent of feminism, and boy I was surprised to find that there’s indeed such a thing, and it’s called masculism!

According to Wikipedia,

Masculism (also referred to as masculinism) is an ideology associated with the men’s movement. It consists of social theories, political movements, and moral philosophies primarily based on the experiences of men. Although masculism provides a general critique of social relations, many of its proponents also seek to analyze gender inequality and promote men’s rights, interests, and issues. Masculism is viewed by its proponents as having an egalitarian view of gender issues, even though it focuses on men’s experience.

Ok, the last line sounded really MCP. That aside, the idea of masculism is really interesting. While I bet to my last dollar that there are some MCPs masquerading as a masculist as a response to soothe the ego that has been bruised by feminists, nonetheless, with changing gender roles in society, the issue of male rights should be seriously considered.

I know that some extreme feminists are going to cry foul at such a suggestion, but I prefer to think that such a move is not mutually exclusive. Fighting for more rights for men does not mean less rights for females. It’s more about a holistic approach where gender roles in modern society are carefully examined and if necessary, certain rights that has historically been accorded to one gender should be accorded to the other as well.

For example, the Women’s Charter allows the courts to order maintenance for the wife, but what about the reverse? It’s not unreasonable in today’s context to have women who are out bringing in the bread for the family while the man becomes the homemaker. And of course, there is always some inherent assumption somewhere that women can be raped by men and not vice-versa. I just think that modern society has caused gender roles to change drastically and we should seriously be looking at how best to accord each gender respective rights that would be more egalitarian to both genders.

Therefore, the feminist and masculist have much in common. In fact, I don’t see much of a difference since both are working towards a more level playing field. Perhaps the ideas of feminism and masculism should be dropped altogether. It just doesn’t make sense to have two separate labels for two groups that are doing the same things. Of course, in reality, the labels will remain because hawks never know how to stop (think Bush).

According to dictionary.com, the term whine is defined as “to snivel or complain in a peevish, self-pitying way“. It would seem that Singaporeans in general like to whine. Just hop on a taxi and chat with the taxi uncle. Chances are, he will regale you with a ton of complaints/whines about the “gahmen”. Sit at coffeeshops for a day and you are sure to hear some negative remarks about the “cheng hu”. Read Singaporean blogs and you are almost definitely going to read plenty of writings slamming the government.

For some Singaporeans, such “whines” are viewed with disdain. They think that their fellow Singaporens have a “crutch” mentality, and that these people are better off looking into a mirror to see what is wrong with them instead of blaming the government all the time. There is this typical arrogant attitude with such people, who I think typically are well-educated and well-to-do people. The fundamental assumption of such people is that people who “whine” are lazy, unmotivated and just wants the government to babysit them.

This brings into mind the case of the boy who died serving NS because the doctors at the hospital who were attending to him (mind you, they are very senior doctors) accused the boy of malingering (which means pretending to be sick) in order to escape his NS duties. Eventually, the boy died of acute baterial infection, which is something that is likely to have been easily treatable in the early stage with proper administration of antibiotics. I remember reading an article in Time magazine in which a US colonel was quoted to have said, “Assumption is the mother of all f*ckups”.

My point here is that we should not put a blanket label of “whiner” when people complain. Sure, there are some people who like to complain for the sake of complaining. However, does this mean that we thus assume that everyone who complains is like that? When we do that, we conveniently cast aside those who might genuinely be calling for help. In some cases, the assumption that someone is whining won’t kill him. In other cases, such as the case of the NS boy, it killed him. And, as some people like to say, to assume is to make an ASS out of U and ME.

Besides, for those who like to casually dismiss the complaints of others as “whining”, the act itself speaks volumes about the character of the person. To not want to empathise and start accusing others of whining smacks of arrogance. By empathising, it does not mean that a “crutch” mentality will be engendered as a result. That happens when one sympathise, not empathise. To empathise is to understand the situation and work out a feasible solution with them for them to undertake while to sympathise is to solve the problem for them, which is the thing that causes the so-called “crutch” mentality. The inability to differentiate between empathy and sympathy is perhaps the greatest problem with whiners about other whiners.

I bet those whiners about other whiners are going to read this and start saying that I’m a whiner. Their actions are just so predictable. It doesn’t affect me though. I just find it amusing that these people go around so readily pointing their fingers at others and conveniently forget that they too are guilty of the same sin. In anycase, what’s so bad about whining? People need to let off steam sometimes. I think I pretty much let off quite abit of steam with this entry.

Edmund Ng’s blog entry on Lawrence Leow, a NSF who suffered permanent disability during the course of serving his duty to the nation has drawn quite a few responses on blogosphere. Many commenters feel that the compensation that Lawerence is receiving ($500 allowance and a CSC card) is inadequate. I only found one dissenting view which the author eventually shut down, which I presume is because he couldn’t take the heat of people dissing him for his views.

In monetary terms, it is quite a hefty sum of money that the state is spending on Lawerence. He gets free medical services at government hospitals and polyclinics, and depending on how long Lawrence lives, the total amount paid out to him in allowance can be a significant sum. The state is spending a fair bit of money on Lawrence, and according to the dissenting view I found, Lawrence has no cause for complaint.

To deny more assistance to Lawrence on the basis that the state is already spending a relative big sum of money on him is morally reprehensible to me. This bright young man took up arms to serve his duty to his country as required by law. Now that he is almost completely paralysed as a result of serving his dues to the country, the country should pay its dues to Lawrence. To be fair, the state is compensating Lawrence. However, the question is, is the state compensating Lawrence reasonably?

Looking at his condition, it is clear that he is no longer capable of looking after himself. It is obvious that he needs at least one person to take care of him for his remaining lifespan. Maybe his parents can do the job now, but what happens when they age and pass on? Do we realistically expect Lawrence to be able to take care of himself on $500 a month? It is enough for basic subsistence, but his condition does not permit him to even carry out the basic activities of subsistence (such as buying food for himself unassisted). How then do we expect him to even be able to spend the $500 to sustain himself without a caregiver?

I don’t think the state should be counting the pennies in compensating a person who suffered physically in the line of duty. It’s not about the money. It’s about being responsible. Lawrence clearly needs a caregiver, and $500 per month is simply insufficient. If one so wish to argue that $500 per month over say 40 years is a huge sum of money, let me put things in perspective. Had Lawrence been well, he would have likely gone to university. If we compensate Lawrence based on the loss of his potential income, how much would that be? And, how much should the state compensate him for the mental anguish that he suffered? How much should the state’s compensation for the anguish that his parents suffered be? What is the monetary value of the loss in quality of life for his remaining lifespan (such as being a husband and a father)?

Whatever happened to Lawrence has happened. We cannot turn back the clock. What can be done is to make sure that he receives a reasonable quality of life. In Lawrence’s case, I think the state should give him a caregiver’s allowance in addition to the $500 for basic subsistence. It is only right to do so. Had Lawrence not survived the ordeal, I am less inclined to argue against a $500 monthly allowance for his family. However, as it stands now, Lawrence is unable to care for himself for the rest of his life and it is only right that the state provides a caregiver allowance for the rest of his life in addition to the allowance for subsistence.

If Singapore cannot even reasonably take care of its people who have suffered in the name of duty, this is not a place where I would like to call home. This is why I chose to title this entry with the last sentence of the chorus of Kit Chan’s National Day song, “Home”. As the song now replays in my head, I wonder if Singapore is indeed the beautiful home that the song sings of.

When talking about Karl Marx, most people have the idea that he is the ‘founder’ of communism, and since communism has so often been demonised, it is perhaps not surprising that some people have a rather mistaken view of Marx. It is true that Marx is a proponent of the idea of communism, but the communist ideological developments that succeeded Marx were rather different from what Marx envisioned, particularly the development of communism in China.

Communism aside, what is more important about Marx is what underlies the concept of communism, i.e. the issue of class divide. According to Marx, human history is nothing but that of class struggles. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx famously wrote:

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

In medivial days, it was a struggle between the master and the slave. Then it became a struggle of the lord against the serf. Then, we have the bourgeoisie against the proletariat (aristocrat versus worker). According to Marx, if we examine every period in history, we are bound to see the same dialectic occur over and over again. The form may be different, but the substance is the same: a struggle between those who own the means of production and those who don’t.

It seems to me that no matter what kinds of social and political systems human beings come up with, we never manage to escape from the clutches of class struggle. The practice of capitalism makes class inevitable. Even in Singapore, despite the practice of what is called meritocracy, the issue of class struggle is still present. It’s just in a different form. In Singapore’s case, it’s the meritocratic elite versus the meritocratic non-elite.

It is true that in Singapore, one is unlikely to be denied basic life opportunities. Quality education is available for everyone, and there are many jobs to go around, especially in the recent years where the economy is doing well. However, if we examine the Singaporean society a little more carefully, the picture isn’t as rosy as it seems. We have on one end rich government officials and business owners, and on the other end, we have everyone else who are dependent on the government officials and business owners for their livelihood.

Do not be mistaken. I am not saying that it is a bad thing to have rich government officials or business owners. If they earned their riches honestly, it’s their due reward. What I’m trying to say is that at the end of the day, we see what Marx observed operating again. There’s a small group of people controlling most of the means of production. For those who claim that Singapore has a capitalist head and a socialist heart, they might want to seriously rethink their claim. Singapore is not in the least socialist. The class divide is clearly present.

The question now really is whether the class divide will lead to class conflict. Marx thinks so, and he believes that the “oppressed” will rise up in a revolution. Certainly, revolutions have occurred in Russia, China and some other countries. Will Singapore see a revolution? I suppose it all depends on how much longer the ruling party can maintain what Friedrich Engels called “false consciousness”. As long as Singaporeans are willing to continue buying into the ideology that has been perpetuated, all will be well. If not, the predictions of Marx might very well come true once again.