Mum.
Wanted to post this yesterday, but I was too tired by the time I finished my final paper...Anyway, quite a few of the posts here and my articles to Zaobao are inspired by mum one way or another. This is one example.
We started discussing about whether it is reasonable to charge for plastic bag usage when I called back yesterday. Despite being very supportive of environmental protection and recycling efforts, mum does not like the idea at all. She feels that a better system would be to give small rebates to customers who bring their own shopping bags, as the punitive measure is apparently unfair to those who have limited access to information via the mass media, and these are the people who would be the most affected because they tend to belong to the lower social classes.
Then she went on to tell me about commodity prices. She pointed out differences in perception on changes in the costs of living between different social classes. The upper-middle class (people like us) does not feel it: imported vegetables from China, live fishes (i.e. those that are still swimming in tanks when they're in NTUC), junk food (like cookies, chocolate and ice-cream), decent dim sum (like Crystal Jade), etc. are getting ubiquitous because of an increased supply and demand, and this resulted in relatively stable prices for these commodities which are considered more expensive. The most extreme case she pointed out is the cost for a plate of chicken rice in Chatterbox: it has dropped from $28 to $22! For people who eats chicken rice at Chatterbox only, their costs of living actually decreased in this respect.
But to the lower classes, well, as the cost of a cup of coffee increased from 60cents to 80cents, they experienced a 33.3% increase. Even if a plate of chicken rice in the hawker centre opposite my house remained at $2 since 1994, we observed that the plate is getting smaller and smaller. This kind of intangible increase can be worse than those observable ones.
Singapore has an obsession with numbers. Whereas anthropology tells me that numbers are only one of the many lenses which tells us about society, numbers is everything in Singapore. When you make a subjective argument, you are asked to support it with numbers. When you make a complaint, the government digs into the records and shows you a bunch of numbers which basically tells you that your complaint might not be valid after all.
(Just a sidenote: who says that subjective and emotional arguments should be dismissed, especially in national issues that affect everybody?)
In an anthropological sense, this is not acceptable. That is why a graduate student we spoke to told us that there is a lot of tension between public health and anthropology: because, when we make policies, we have to rely on data. It is impossible to make a separate policy for everyone.
Then my mum brought in the issue regarding the ministers' pay hike. Although I agree that there is a reasonable rationale behind the hike, I contend that all Singaporeans have the right to and must make noise about it. So far, from all sources, I have gathered the following problems:
1. Conflict of interest. Using everyone's money to raise your own salary is a conflict of interest, whatever the nature of your job. Even CEOs of listed companies cannot do that, and leaders of organizations who do that get charged in court. This is the impression I get; people who have insider information convince me that this is not the case.
2. Lack of moral high ground. By benchmarking the ministers' salaries against the private sector, the government is demolishing its own moral high ground despite its claims. The message is clear: working for the government is a competitive career choice! When competitiveness comes into the picture, the morality and nobility disappears. No one needs to sacrifice anything to work for the government. This might be good in attracting talents into the government, but oh well, we don't really care about how we attract them anymore. Now, the civil service is not any different from the private sector, no matter what the government says.
3a. Extremely poor PR. The government, even in sensitive issues such as this, is still conveying the message to the people like a father preaching his son. The message got to the people: the people understood that it must be done, but they cannot accept it. The government makes no effort in helping the people swallow the bitter reality. That's why we have Mr. Brown making the satirical Bak Chor Mee Man 2, and quoting from Grace's MSN nick, 'wait your mother sister all have to become maid'. How telling is that?!
3b. Inherent assumption that all Singaporeans are able to understand the rationale perfectly. Well, the fact is, only people like us are capable of dissecting the budget to pieces, discussing it over dinner, putting it against the realities Singapore is facing, and come to the conclusion that 'what more can you expect the government to do'. What about the uncle who wears a singlet and shorts to the coffee shop opposite his house to drink kopi everyday? How can you expect him to know how competitive it is outside Singapore when he is not IT literate and all he reads is Xin Ming?
3c. Assumption that these people, argh, are not important: an official statement is all that the government needs to issue. However, these people make up most of the population. Even the Chinese government, obviously authoritarian, is making a conscious effort to reach out to the people, listen to their problems and address their problems in official policy statements. Whatever the actual result, these efforts are welcomed by the population. They have the impression that their leader cares, and they can find solace in that. That is what a government should do!
Hmms this is my two-cents' worth. I know it is very hard to swallow if you have been a believer of the government. Just to reiterate: I am not anti-government, but I want it to always improve itself. If you agree with me, good for you. If you do not, I look forward to your opinion! :)
Labels: Policy and Politics
