Work and Trade: The Enforced Normality

"A positive attitude towards training and re-training is the best insurance against job-loss and unemployment".
Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong.




In Singapore, Gods from various religions demand homage from 4 billion souls. Yet these poor souls all yield their future to a small handful of elites whose power and influence tunnel deep and spread far. Faceless collectors of coke cans together with the omnipresence of a group of men dressed in white hides under the vestige of a cosmopolitan global city where no one is left behind.

The PAP has long since become the government, not only is a cow a mammal, the mammal is also the cow.
Our government has “chosen” for us a way to be “insured” of our jobs and employment. That is re-training, skills upgrading, skill renewal and the like. We all were assured that if everyone is willing to at least “upgrade”, a slot would be safe for us.

But upgrading means very different things. How many instances did a person “upgrade” within the safety of employment as compared to those who paid for their “upgrading” out of bank accounts which no longer expected wages? A family might upgrade from a 3 room to a 4 room HDB, but how many senior blue collar workers like shipyard weiders ( actual case study done by me in a market food court ) upgraded to bus captains and beverage crews at food courts? Under the plethora of new job titles like sanitary engineer, landscape specialist and outdoor visual distributors, the government has lifted perfectly from the New Division of Labor’s uber-specialization to create so many “new” jobs for an “upgraded” Singaporean.
Many can attest to the many wonders that government initiated programs have spurred. Testimonials from upgraded workers splash all over government controlled media educate us of the many benefits of upgrading. Becoming more valuable to one’s employer, picking up a new trade or even simply a new skill are just some of the many benefits. I wonder how many got pay raises? Or even gained immunity from the unmarried, young, non-CPF liable Indian national willing to do double the work for half the pay. Why don’t retrenched individual jump for joy such an opportunity for a vast improvement in life?
Under the guided wisdom of the government and spurred on by labor law, companies establish bimonthly reviews, company level ranking for all departments and “interview” with “under achievers”. All in a bid to sharpen the competitive edge for them and in turn boost Singapore economy in their own small way.

Singapore is indeed a fine country, a garden city. A garden tended to by a large army of gardeners and a small team of 60 year old landscape engineers. How wonderful that we live in a country of every convenience. Well trained and well equipped 70year old uncles watch over the tables of our coffee shops diligently and more “fresh blooded” taxi drivers ply our clean streets. Balance has been achieved, no need to “upgrade” any labor law or foreign labor policies. Our workers are safe and sound as long as they keep more relevant then the next incoming foreign “talent”.

Class and Inequality : Flu or Cancer?

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." ~ Confucius






Can we believe that inequality can be abolished?

Enlightened philosophers have long ago believed that the nature of society itself creates inequality. Let us first ask ourselves, what does it mean to be equal? Do not make the mistake of equating equal opportunities and equality to be the same. We are all born different, special unique and weird from one another. Does it even make sense to try to attain a society where we are all the same?

I personally feel that inequality stems from the face that we are "individuals" and different "talents". Our starting points in life are different(social class). Our issued equipments are different(economic status). Even what you where taught in school to believe are different(cultural socialization). Ask yourself again, does it still make "sense" for us to try to abolish inequality? Let us talk about our society. Today's society is bureaucratic and capitalist in nature. Karl Marx calls the capitalist class the "ruling" class. A capitalist society needs bosses; a bureaucratic society needs leaders and its CEOs.

Inequality is present the moment an individual gain leverage over another, when one society conquers another. When one farmer becomes more successful then another, he acquires capital, purchases land and thereafter hires workers to work his land so he won't have to farm. Just follow that train of thought and you will arrive at a capitalist society. A large mass of labor needs a leader. Follow that train of thought and you will arrive at a bureaucratic society. These societies have the "best" forms of "governance" that we have today. How do i dare pass such a statement? The fact that I am typing this on a laptop in an air-conditioned room in a high-rise building is testament enough. Other forms of governance like fascism, communism and socialism have not been as successful. Therefore we must first agree that these systems are here to stay, before anyone can start to "tackle" the problem of Inequality and other social ills which sprout from it.

Next we need to come to an appreciation that inequality is a byproduct of these systems. Think of it as a pair of newlyweds whose first child is mentally handicapped( let us assume that these newlyweds follow Confucian ideals and not Nazi sentiments, and they are not allowed to give up the child, and will then have to raise the child ). Obviously if they neglect this child, he will become a severe problem for them. This child although mentally challenged, when given the proper environment, proper guidance and proper patient teachers, he would in time be able to perform his social acting to some mild degree and care for himself sufficiently. We must take a similar approach towards inequality in our society. It have became a necessary evil, and therefore must be necessarily treated. But how do we treat inequality? Are we to treat it like a "flu" or like a terminal "cancer"?

The attitude one have when treating something as "part of life" or "part of growing up" is different from the attitude one have from treating a terminal illness. I think we must take the "flu" approach. Properly treated it can be improved; left alone it can be terminal. How Singapore does it it by trying to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor. It taxes the rich heavily for the many subsidies the government have created for the poor. It tries at all levels to provide "equal" opportunities. In school or the work place, a student or a interviewee wont feel that his social class at birth will affect his entry or promotion. Ask yourselves, when was the last time you heard someone say "Argh damn, my father drives a lorry and so I cant apply for that banker job!".

In conclusion, I believe that inequality is necessary in some twisted fashion, if everyone was truly equal in society then I believe that everyone will equally do nothing. Inequality is a byproduct of an "imperfect" system which have survived the Darwinian challenges in the geopolitical world. Therefore, constant vigilance must be paid to this mentally challenged child with a flu lest it tears us apart from within.

What is your problem !?

What is social problem? What is problem? Instead of telling you what would actually constitute as a problem, let me give you my own definition of a one. To me, a problem is an issue that which affect the procurement outcome.

Humans have a distinct ability that is lacking in animals, and that is to "expect" on an almost spontaneous manner. If I were to arrange to meet “John” at the KFC on Basement 1 of Plaza Singapura at 1pm, and I turn up on the dot at 1pm, only to find the absence of John. I have expected him, and therefore a vacuum is realized. Animals do not have this level of spontaneous expectations, which I must add is angularly different from the expectation exemplified by Pavlov’s Dogs. There for I personally find it safe to say that due to this lack of perception, animals do not have any problems! What, then happens when the word "problem" is prefixed by “social”? That as most of us is able to surmise, merely elevates the problem onto a platform involving many people. And as a utilitarian would put it, it would decrease the overall happiness of the people as a whole.

I personally do NOT deem chewing gun as a social problem. Rather, the problem lies in the disposal of the non-biodegradable confectionery. The seemingly harmless chewable rubber has been around is our dear lion city since a long time ago. It is still around today, in fact I am chewing a stick right now as I am typing this. My favourite oral pass time was banned in The Garden City sometime during 1992. The demographic cultural cross section of the middle class which constitutes the bulk of the nations’ “...hardy, resilient and stout-hearted people” (National Day Rally Speech, August 8, 1972) did not fully share the government’s view on the proper disposable of their elastic candy.

As such unsightly pink spots did not sit nicely in the government's grand landscaping scheme, they decided to nip the weed at the bud.
What was the problem? Where is a bud? The problem here was the “avoidable” time, effort and money being spent in the removal of the problematic pink spots around the nook and crannies of the nation. From MRT doors, pavements, bus stops and underneath all manner of seats and tables the adhesive rubber and it accompanying stain has to be meticulously removed.

As “Gum” was not addictive or a social lubricant like alcohol, therefore denying the government a plausible reason to heavily tax its import and sale to cover the rising cost generated by inconsiderate citizens and/or educating/cultivating them into considerate ones. The government did the next best thing. They BANNED it!

From what I can infer from the government’s actions, the social problem in this context which is the poor, inconsiderate disposal of chewed gum stems not from the education, socialization, indoctrination or cultivation of its flock but simply is the availability of the culprit. The reason why I singled out the factor of availability is because it is not allowed to IMPORT, BUY or SELL gum, but is it not a crime to CHEW it. If you doubt this, go into a police post while chewing a Wrigley’s and see what happens.