375A + 2A

The full-pages of reports on 375A+2A in the newspapers yesterday were a breath of fresh air. It was not just because of the subject matter in question (which I don't have an official position on), but the impression that I got that some 'real debate' actually happened in Parliament. PM Lee summed up the proceedings...

[PM Lee] said: 'Singapore is basically a conservative society.'

The social norm: 'heterosexual, stable family'.

'It's what we teach in schools, it's what parents want to see, want their children to see...to set their expectations and encourage them to develop in this direction... And I think the vast majority of Singaporeans want to keep it this way...and so does the Government.'

But Mr Lee took pains to reassure the gays that they are part of, and contributing members, of society here.

'They are our kith and kin,' he added, while citing 'growing scientific evidence' that sexual orientation is largely inborn. 'We shouldn't make it harder than it already is for them to grow up and live in a society where they are different from most Singaporeans.'

Placing the status of the the gay community in context, Mr Lee noted Singapore's gradual progress towards a balance of the various interests. Today, gays work in all sectors. Gay films, clubs, websites are available. Section 375A+2A is not proactively enforced.

'I don't think we will ever get the perfect balance, but I think that we have a better arrangement now than was the case 10 or 20 years ago.'

Repealing 375A+2A, he said, would not give gay activists what they want - full acceptance and more space. So 'it's better to accept the legal untidiness and the ambiguity... I should therefore say that as a matter of reality, the more gay activists push this agenda, the stronger will be the push-back from conservative forces in our society. So it's better to let the situation evolve gradually...'

While the outcome will disappoint some, the seemingly fascinating 'between the lines' judgment may give them the impression of 'a legal defeat but a moral victory', which is in itself quite ironic because it seems to blur the perceptions of the players in question: who seems to be the more moral/ethical party now?!

What's interesting is the need to balance who is right (the person's personal opinion), to what others want to see as right (from a societal point of view). I cannot imagine so much due consideration given to more 'established' crimes . We do live in interesting times... :) More at the SG Daily.

Read More of This Content...

American Generosity: Borders Bookstore / Starbucks Coffee

Of the many bookstores in Singapore, perhaps only one has a significant number of chairs and sofas for folks to sit and read. This would be Borders bookstore, the subject of today's somewhat exaggerated theme: American generosity.



Borders was something of an anomaly when it opened its first and only store in Singapore some years ago. Sofas and chairs were provided so that people could sit and read for an extended period of time. Management refused to shrink wrap books, despite the risk to the bottom line if folks chose not to buy books and just come in a couple of times to finish them, which was exactly what I regularly did. I believe this was an extraordinary development in the idea of a business affecting the cultural landscape of a place, It was also a very nice demonstration of the stereotypical generosity of an American chain, particularly with what happened next. At first, Singaporeans and others did not know how to respond. Actually, they responded quite poorly. People mistreated the books; they didn't know how to react to the possibility of browsing books for free. At the end of the day (it still closes at midnight on some days), the place looked like a war zone, especially in the kids' section. Generosity prevailed; management probably just wrote off the badly damaged books, tidied up the place and opened the doors the next day. Things have probably improved a little nowadays, fortunately. It often still looks more like a library than a bookstore, which I think is a very good thing. I've sent nights reading books that I'd otherwise had to spend hundreds of dollars on.



I read a book on Starbucks, which is the second subject in my theme on generosity. Starbucks Coffee is an interesting place to study. It's associated with American hegemony and a usual target for WTO protesters. However, from personal experience, it's also one of the few places that I really like to visit. I realised intuitively that coffee, or the Frappuccinos, while excellent in their own right, didn't represent what Starbucks was all about. What intrigued me, after my first visit to Singapore's first Starbucks at Liat Tower with a Mocha Frappuccino, was that things were done differently here that did not make sense at first.



For example, consider the large sofas at each location. For a long time, I didn't understand the rationale for this. To have big chairs presents at least two problems. 1) It takes up space that might be better utilised if smaller chairs are provided instead. 2) It encourages people to hang around, thus reducing 'turnaround' and reducing revenue.



The book talks about the reasons for this. Starbucks aims to be 'the third place' (after the 'home' and 'place of work'). It's where people would be welcomed, and that means allowing them to sit and relax and 'form communities'. The book also mentions that in Starbucks, people do not get 'chased away' when they have finished their drinks. Even if one 'has only a drop of coffee' in the mug, they can stay for as long as they like. This resembles my own experience; staff never, ever, mention, even remotely, that a customer should vacate the premises when the drinks have been consumed. This generosity has to be considered in light of new customers being turned away when the place is crowed; this is pretty common at some popular locations. Sometimes the service gets extraordinary. Another time at a crowded branch, I managed to find a seat, and put my bag on the floor. A staff came by and offered me another chair, not for my legs, but for my bag! Again, this makes no economic sense. An extra seat could have brought in another customer instead. Things are done differently here. A customer in the book said that the Starbucks concept would still work even if they stopped selling coffee and just charged people some money for them to come into the stores and relax. (I know I would pay.) This is pretty remarkable; again, it's the sense of community, and a place to relax, and not the coffee, per se.



Borders and Starbucks thus share one thing that I particularly like. The staff tend to treat people nicely, and without too much fuss, even if the business decisions they make have the possible effect of lowering sales. The service culture is also quite different; at Starbucks, it is not unusual for folks to have a decent chat while ordering (the barista would discuss the options), or while waiting for the drink. I'm not sure how much training is involved to achieve this, as it's quite difficult to train folks to be 'human' I think. It might just be that the interview process is skewed to hiring people who consistently are able to connect with customers.



I'm typing this entry at Starbucks, and observing the counter staff. Tonight's staff provide consistently good service; they smile at customers, and look into their eyes for a longer than usual time. Essentially, they seem to be genuinely interested in the customer. Since every counter staff is a pleasant female, I also have no problems conducting my field study. In almost every transaction, there is extended conversation and communication, and none of it seemed forced, nor a chore to them. Maybe it's just because they are really enjoying their work. Or it could just be another factor at work: American generosity.

Read More of This Content...

This is MADNESS!

"IN THE climactic scene of the movie, 300, Persian emperor Xerxes was laying siege on the Spartans. He offered the Spartan king Leonidas a deal to save his people from almost certain death. In return for his subservience, Xerxes offered to make him ruler of all Greece, and shower him with loads of money and glory. Leonidas rejected the deal and was killed.

After the movie, I asked a friend what she thought I would do if I were in the same situation as Leonidas. She said: 'You will take the deal. You are not Spartan, you are Singaporean.'

It was hard to disagree with her. Money, power and glory versus death, albeit in honour? It's almost a no-brainer. I am Singaporean and staying alive with all the trappings of a good life is the practical, if not the most distinguished, choice. I don't think I am any different from my peers. Singaporeans, especially the post-65ers, have by and large bought into the pragmatic ideology of the People's Action Party Government, with a strong emphasis on economic development - in both the public and private spheres. Or as Professor Simon Tay wrote in these pages last week, this is a society that puts 'rational calculation' first... As a people, we have subscribed, celebrated and enjoyed an ethos of pragmatism, often marked by vulgar consumerism.

After all, most of us buy into the Singapore Dream that is a naked pursuit of the Five Cs of cash, credit card, car, condominium and country club....So if we Singaporeans define success by money, we must also accept the idea that good work should be rewarded with good money... If Singaporeans are unhappy with the increase in ministerial pay, they would do little good to lament and complain. Truth is, this issue of ministerial pay will never go away as long as we are a nation where practicality overwhelms passion. The more important question to ask is: Is it time to rethink how we define our meaning of life? Otherwise, as Cassius said in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar: 'The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.'"
~Peh Shing Huei, 'Why Old Guard ideals no longer apply', in the column Insight: The Post-65ers, Straits Times

So naturally, the newspaper has churned out more interesting stories today, but this one for me is especially worrisome. Peh seems to be taking the general ideas of 'rationality', 'must get high pay before people would serve', 'pragmatic ideology of the Action Party' and extrapolate it to excuse acts of treason. No-brainer, it seems. I can imagine military commanders reading this piece shaking their heads, and wondering, 'is it really so easy to buy over this group of 'post 65ers' whom Peh claims share his sentiments?'

I think there are a few things that are not quite right with this article. There are too many stereotyping and sweeping statements about our value system, for a start. Also, in the movie, the offer to surrender is offered to Leonidas (the angry guy depicted in the picture above) near the beginning of the story. Of course he refuses due to admirable sentiments, and thereafter his 300 professional soldiers manage to slaughter at least 100,000 invading Persians soldiers according to the historian Herodotus and modern scholars. If we were to say that we would surrender then for 'rational' reasons (i.e., for money) before the battle even starts, then it'll be no different from what the everyday traitor does.

The point is that this analogy about surrendering in the most awful of circumstances doesn't really have much to do with the debate of salaries in Parliament. Sure, I'd agree with Peh that I probably would break under torture. But 'practicality' in more peaceful times (when the offer of surrender is presented) is very different from the sort of 'do or die' scenario depicted in the movie's last scene. The latter should be treated separately and not to be tied to our analysis.

In Leonidas' case, money and power has long been offered to him even before this last scene. It actually happens in the 'madness' scene which starts the movie off, described below. To say that it is 'rational' to betray Sparta for Persian money is, in my opinion, high treason. This is what happened to the other government official in the movie who actually receives money from the Persians (even though he seems to have no pockets to hold the coins) to facilitate capitulation, and is discovered later. The Spartans call him a traitor, and rightly so. Let us not so flippantly excuse traitorous behaviour with 'practicality overwhelming passion', 'meaning of life is 5Cs' etc. (Anyway, aren't the 5Cs supposed to be outdated already?) I may be wrong about what Peh is trying to say, though. It just seems to me that he's saying this thing called 'practicality' is so strong that it can 'buy over' things very easily. I really don't think that's the case at all. Because if this were true, in matters of national security, we'd all be in quite a bit of trouble... And to that sort of thinking and behaviour, Leonidas would probably have said, 'This is MADNESS!!' :p

_____________________________________
Context of original 'madness' quote [Source]:
Persian messenger: All the God-King Xerxes requires is this: a simple offering of earth and water. A token of Sparta's submission to the will of Xerxes.
Leonidas: Submission...Well that's a bit of a problem. See rumor has it that the ATHENIANS have already turned you down. And if those philosophers and boy-lovers have that kind of nerve...
Theron: We must be diplomatic.
Leonidas: And of course Spartans...have their reputation to consider.
Persian messenger: Choose your next words carefully, Leonidas. They may be your last as king.
[Leonidas draws his sword and points it towards the Persian messenger, whose back is to a large, deep well]
Persian messenger: Madman! You're a madman!
Leonidas: Earth and water...you'll find plenty of both down there.
Persian messenger: No man -- Persian or Greek -- no man threatens a messenger!
Leonidas: You bring the crowns and heads of conquered kings to my city's steps. You insult my queen. You threaten my people with slavery and death! Oh, I've chosen my words carefully, Persian. Perhaps you should have done the same!
Persian messenger: This is blasphemy! This is madness!
Leonidas: [He looks at Gorgo, who nods to him] Madness? THIS IS SPARTA!!. [kicks the messenger down the well]

[Source]

Read More of This Content...

On Naivety

Princeton Uni professor Harry Frankfurt has come out with a new book called On Truth after his On Bullsh*t became an unexpected hit. I haven't seen the Truth book yet, but Stephen Colbert's On Truthiness might just as as informative. Today, we shall look at a new pamphlet called On Naivety, something that speaks the truth to a lot of us, I reckon. From the ST:

Opposition MPs 'naive' to expect upgrading funds
OFFERS of upgrading in opposition wards were part of a slew of policies proposed by People's Action Party candidates during the General Election, National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan said yesterday.

But as voters rejected the PAP's candidates, it was 'naive' of Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir) and Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang) to now expect the Government to give them the funds for upgrading, he added...

Yesterday, Minister of State (National Development) Grace Fu... made the point - reiterated by Mr Mah - that the PAP's upgrading offer was part of a larger package of policies which the ruling party offered to voters.

'The electorate in Potong Pasir has obviously not supported that and therefore they should not stand to benefit from any surpluses that are generated from that suite of policies,' she said.

On Naivety deals with what we think we know, and what actually happens in real life. It has to do with the disconnect between our ideals, and how the world actually works. It delineates the idea that even though everyone matters, some matter less than others, especially those who live in certain districts. It reminds us that despite a call for inclusiveness and that everyone pays taxes, some won't have access to the benefits accorded by those same tax monies.

On Naivety forces us to self-reflect; that even though we have come so far, we need to do so much more. Anyway, On Bullsh*t might be appropriate reading at this juncture.

Update (!): An 'anonymous coward' has tomorrowed this entry.

Read More of This Content...

Truth In Advertising: Real Reason For GRC

As I was flipping my paper version of The Straits Times a few hours ago, I thought their editorial office had been hacked by The Onion or something. Something got published that just wasn't supposed to be revealed to the populace. But it's one of those things that makes this country just absolutely fascinating for someone like me who likes to read National Education pronouncements and somehow try to make them relevant to my daily life. I've always thought that pigs would fly before something like this happened. It now seems that either the editorial office got hacked, or pigs really do fly!

GRCs make it easier to find top talent: SM
Without good chance of winning at polls, they might not be willing to risk careers for politics
By Li Xueying

SENIOR Minister Goh Chok Tong yesterday gave a new take on the role of Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) in Singapore politics.

Their role is not just to ensure minorities are adequately represented in Parliament, he said. They also contribute to Singapore's political stability, by 'helping us to recruit younger and capable candidates with the potential to become ministers'.

'Without some assurance of a good chance of winning at least their first election, many able and successful young Singaporeans may not risk their careers to join politics,' Mr Goh said at an event marking the appointment of members to the South East Community Development Council (CDC).

'Why should they when they are on the way up in the civil service, the SAF, and in the professions or the corporate world?'

But he was quick to add that GRCs themselves do not guarantee victory...

For the full version, please subscribe to the online version of the newspaper. This article alone is worth the entire year's subscription!

What really happened that induced an 'admission' of this sort? I don't know, but developments in the next few days would be very interesting indeed! :)

Read More of This Content...