First World : A good article

and some thoughts on social control

Bernard wrote in an excellent article entitled: Further than Closer to a First World Nation

The immediate solution that any law-abiding Singaporean would do is to call the police and find out who did it, and possibly charge the person who did it with a sedition law. Yes, the law is able to handle this efficiently, but it does not solve the underlying problem that we cannot correct the attitudes of a few closed-minded individuals other than by fear. The solution should be a combined effort of the law and community pressure.

The community pressure is the missing part of the solution that we cannot identify individuals who are close minded. The lack of faith in community to resolve problems is reminiscent of the current "light touch" approach to the internet and new media. A lot of times, the establishment came in to resolve the problem with the heavy legal hand instead of letting the community put social pressure on people (who are clearly making offensive remarks) to back off or take them down. "

Such an analysis appeal to the liberal for it speaks little of the role of punishment and celebrates man's ability to change for the better; appeal to the community because it places great faith in the ability of communal groups and social institutions to affect change without the use of the law. It also suggest that given the right conditions, we can come to a conclusion of what is right and what is wrong. The heavy legal hand, all pervasive in Singapore, it seems, should have a rightful slap on its wrist.

Yet, and here is where I depart from Bernard, I think the 'lack of faith' in the community comes not from the state, but from the community itself. After all, the legal hand, as much as one of political power, is also one which social groups and individuals exercise their powers on other social groups and other individuals. Take Bernard's standard case:

"Let me put forward a standard situation, suppose you see a graffiti on public property that totally represents racial hatred, what's your first reaction? The immediate solution that any law-abiding Singaporean would do is to call the police and find out who did it, and possibly charge the person who did it with a sedition law."

Let us say Mr. Tan sees the graffiti and gets very angry. What happens next? The police gets his call, sends someone down. They interview Mr Tan. In the usual case there is little evidence *unless CCTV* there is little chance of apprehending the vandal , there is nothing much to be done. Perhaps HDB or the management council will be notified and a process taken to remove the graffiti is set in motion.

But let us say the Vandal got caught. Lets say he was sorry and said that it was done out of sheer angst of a moment. Vandalism is already a very serious crime and considering racial hatred, the investigation officer might decide to press serious charges to give this vandal a real lesson. The charges reaches the Attorney General chambers and say a young recently graduated legal officer looks at the charges. He personally thinks that this incident is minor. Also he does not wish to attract public attention as a sedition charge might. His superior might concur. So the vandal is charged with vandalism instead of sedition.

I described the above hypothetical process in massive detail but one must realize that in relation to crimes and anti-social behavior in general - shop theft, molest, voluntarily causing hurt - the process takes place over and over again for each incident. We have all heard reports about how this power is exercised by daughter against mother, mother against son, son against father, father against son, husband against wife, brother against brother. Our most intimate relations appear governed precariously and implicitly by the call to the police. The police are at best an instrument of control in this regard. Besides, individuals working this system are usually less intent on social control than those who made the call in the first place.

In other words, this strong legal handedness represents people intent on the control of others more than the state heavy handedness per se. This is very much the norm in our country - this picking up of the phone. And because we use it so often, it is no wonder the police and the laws are in a position of great power. When the police send 4 anti-riot vans to the Odex protest, and filmed everyone during the signing of the petition against the evil military junta at St. Martin Drive; it merely represents I believe the same thing - a desire for some people to control other people. Even before the 4 anti-riot vans and the filming of everyone, there were already those in the respective communities urging others NOT to join the protest or the petition. Social control on one level had already begun before social control on an another.

Why do we want to control others so much? That we sanction the use of legal powers over others? What if that vandal was not willing to stop being a "racist" but willing to stop vandalising? What's wrong with that? Why do anti-gay people want sex between males to be a crime? Look at Stomp and the constant display of that vulgar desire to control others through public "expose" and shaming. If there were anti-social or moralistic legislation, our crime rate will skyrocket and I imagine people calling the police for every other act. We live in a country where social control is believed possible (and good)- and regularly effected. In schools, workplace, families, online and even on stomp. The state is one big social control giant. And the people - they are giants in their own way in that regard with their desired effect magnified by the efficiency of state appartus. We are not a first world country. How is that even possible? There are people among us who appeal to authority so quickly that one questions whether they appreciate the possibility of a civilizing discourse. Bernard is right. But not only do we have to have an avenue to think for ourselves what is right and what is wrong, we should also think that when faced with what we think is wrong, what should the appropriate response be. But there will always be those whose first reaction is to call the police.

Woman and Progress

a history of unhappiness

One of my favorite books is "The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why some are so Rich and Why some are so Poor" by David Landes. He has described how early-Japanese industrial revolution (in textiles, silk, and cotton) was largely built on a workforce made up of woman. And that role was very important. In his words, "factory enterprise had the best of both worlds: labour cheap and yet industrious, committed to task, to group, to family."In some sense, that was true. It also meant that the worse conditions of the industrial revolution was suffered by Woman rather than man. Women did far worse than men during both the European and Japanese industrial revolution. They got the brunt of the abuse but less of the reward.

Ironically, compared to the previous norm of family-exploitation, one can even describe it as progress.

The movement of the textile industry from cottage (family) to factory was a shift from exploitation within the family to one which was external. Landes recounted a rather popular story about a woman who was a weaver at home, and what happened to her at pages 384-388. (Source: Hane, Peasants, Rebels and Outcastes: The Underside of Modern Japan (New York: Pantheon Books, 1982). The story is heart wrenching, but for sheer length, the rendition here will be rather impossible. But this was Landes' version of the conclusion:

"No one came her to see her in prison. She sat there huddled against the cold and the wind and comforted herself with songs about rhubarb shoots pushing through the snow - the same shoots she once picked for her own mother when she was a little child and her mother in her illness got comfort from them. Her son Mii wrote her only once: a family that brutalizes its women does not make men of virtue and gratitude. It was a prison mate, Yamashiro, who heard her out and preserved her story. The orphan mother and wife was then fifty years old." (at 388)

Even till today, what we cannot pay others to do, we will enslave/force/compel/influence others to do [FN1]. Slavery was condemned partly because it became increasingly inefficient for the exploiters considering the alternative (very very cheap but obedient labour). Appeal to kinship, nationhood, manhood, womanhood, family, and society itself have fared better. As Landes described, "Those who wonder at the resistance opposed by Japanese armed forces in the closing months of World War II and ascribe it to fanaticism or suicidal impulse are missing the point. This is a society whose sense of duty and collective obligation, in all realms, sets it apart from the individualism cultivated in the West." Back to woman.

In a recent NYTimes article (also featured in the Straits Times), it was reported:

"Two new research papers, using very different methods, have both come to this conclusion. Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, economists at the University of Pennsylvania (and a couple), have looked at the traditional happiness data, in which people are simply asked how satisfied they are with their overall lives. In the early 1970s, women reported being slightly happier than men. Today, the two have switched places."

In other words, man report being happier while woman report being unhappier. What is happening is not that "woman are working more" but "that they are doing different kinds of work". I am not surprised. I believe Singapore is following the way of United States. And unlike the individualism US is associated with, Singapore's communalist tendencies will definitely place greater pressures on womanfolk.

Larger expectations invariably leads to the potential for greater unhappiness. As a result, unlike the proverbial advice, one should aim steadily higher and not the moon at once. Or at least not the moon, the sun, and all the planets at once. Woman also seems to be doing better at school and the workplace. Purely on observation, there seems to be more girls in poly, more girls in JC, more girls in Uni. In Singapore, very unAsean, we have a larger number of woman in the legislative/executive wing of the ruling party. Woman also have equal political rights, and have participated in a larger say in the country in the US. Yet, unhappiness is greater.

"A big reason that women reported being happier three decades ago — despite far more discrimination — is probably that they had narrower ambitions, Ms. Stevenson says. Many compared themselves only to other women, rather than to men as well. This doesn’t mean they were better off back then."

Although I grew up with the impression that my father worked very hard, while my mother worked less hard (but made up in ways that cannot be quantifiable) I increasingly realize that this was probably not going to be the rule in my generation. Increasingly, woman are required to build the 'GDP' of both country and home. Yet, the role of child bearer can only be undertaken by woman. At the same time, the role of home maker is primarily on the shoulders of the woman. The ideal woman the state has can be observed from one of those Mediacorp dramas. Ambitious, good of character, successful, wants to have a family and puts family before career. And then there are Western lifestyle pressures. Consumerism for the sake of happiness is getting really popular.

I can imagine (but not have sympathy) with the pressure. Woman are supposed to compete within the traditional male idea of "career" and "independence", play the traditional/Confucian/Asian role of dutiful daughter to the family, live the "exciting" life of a Western free "liberal" "individual", become the Mediacorp infused role of wife and home-marker, keep up with the fashion and dress sense of the fashionable and cool "woman, ad infinitum.

For man, if you don't want to drink beer, appreciate fine wine, enjoy soccer, be a ladies man, a womanizer, rich, drive a sports car, a family man, a dutiful husband, provide for children, family and yourself, somewhat angry, succeed in your career, be the envy of your peers and your own father, be able to fix electronic appliances and have a six-pack all at the same time - it seems okay - there is somewhat less pressure.

What happened perhaps was the realisation that people should not be forced to live similar lives and pursue similar objects. Perhaps it was the ability of man to succeed in achieving the above 'ideals' which revealed that those were not as good as they might seem. Perhaps its a matter of time that girls realise that the the ambitious career woman who looks very happy, pretty and young, smart and intelligent in that MediaCorp drama, with her three children in tow - still looking cool - is a myth, a path that she need not follow.

"What has changed — and what seems to be the most likely explanation for the happiness trends — is that women now have a much longer to-do list than they once did (including helping their aging parents). They can’t possibly get it all done, and many end up feeling as if they are somehow falling short."

I suppose its about cutting ourselves and others some slack.


[FN1]: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1408233

[FN2] The NYTimes Article I quoted extensively from.
[FN3] Another interesting NYTimes article about Amazing Girls who feel inadequate

Our Social Identity

Who the state tells us we are

A warning - this post is written largely tentatively. It does not suggest anything constructive or desires to. This post considers how the State through its institutions - namely the school - manages the 'truth'. I was feeling rather troubled after reading what happened to Otto Fong. I thought, why does a school care whether a teacher is gay? To me, if the purpose of a school is "education" , whether a teacher is gay or not, is insignificant.

It should be insignificant for colleagues, for parents, for the Christian right, and for the conservative majority. 1 + 1 does not make a difference if the teacher is gay. Nor will evolution become less plausible than intelligent design (Considering the number of creationists today, this should be a might). But, of course, there are those who have problems with gay teachers. There are those who might say that by Otto Fong coming out, he was trying to spread homosexual values. And some say that is really bad for an educator because he is in the position of authority.

If it was indeed possible to have and transmit "homosexual" values, who constructs these values? The argument that one's identity (especially sexual identities) can be associated with certain values have to be critically examined. Yet, more importantly, who says what values "homosexuals" have? Who controls what make up those values? Who determines what identities represent what values (I am a Buddhist and therefore I am good?)? What kind of values do heterosexual males have? Will it be better if the teacher was a gay Christian? Who determines them? It is bad science to think that "homosexual" lifestyles can be "transmitted", but more than that, to suggests "homosexuals" values are somewhat contrary to education, I think, is insulting.

In Singapore, while we have an overarching quasi-secular constitution, the idea that certain identities have certain "values" are taught in our schools. The MOE has deemed that "homosexuality does not offer a complete, natural life experience, because the human physique is not designed for homosexual intercourse. Moreover a person cannot conceive through homosexual intercourse." (Sex Education Package, See Alex Au's article for a full critique). There have been also various suggestions in the media by rather important people that somehow "homosexual" values are not good for schools. In other words, there are two implicit assertions here. First : that there is such a thing as "homosexual "values, and second: that those 'values' are not 'good'. The Ministry judges its teachers, and have the ability to punish, reward, evaluate and classify. Like a teacher who has a power to send a child out of his classroom by his position of power and his ability to enforce what are reasonable explanations, MOE can set the standards and apply them. In other words, the relationship here is not one of superior logic or reason, but of power. The power to punish, reward, evaluate and classify 'homosexuality'. A gay man, however, cannot. He cannot speak of his own values in schools. No. The MOE can. In other words, the standard bearer of truth is power. The attempts to argue "reasonableness" with the MOE is very idealistic.

Instrumental reasons have also been given why it was not unreasonable for MOE to ask/pressurise Otto Fong to take down the letter. From this perspective, Otto Fong coming out has upset too many people, there has been too much attention and this thing is probably not good for the kids etc. It has caused too much controversy, some whisper. From this perspective, when an individual joins an institution like a school and becomes part of a group, control becomes possible. As an individual, Otto Fong can be gay, can say he is gay. From that kind of logic, as a teacher, he cannot. At least not under present circumstances. He now serves other purposes. Institutional purposes. It may be that many teachers are willing to serve and sacrifice for those institutional purposes. And Otto Fong might so have chosen. A survivalist-pragmatic mindset advocate in like vein might argue that our social cohesion is so threatened that if there is so much controversy - it will split society apart, and that is why gays who are within institutions should not be allowed to tell others who they are. While one might argue that calls to violence and racism should be prohibited for such survivalist reasons, this argument can simply be flipped around to say that Singapore must learn how to tolerate gays because to survive - we must learn how to be tolerant - when there is no harm done and we must encourage 'creativity'. I have sympathy for survivalist arguments but I cannot believe it applies to gays. To label gays as "dangerous" individuals requires bad science. And if one accepts the science that gays are born that way, and grow up that way, boys growing gay already confused by being different should require support. Especially from institutions. But what is education?

If education, and that is a big IF, is about the "Truth" as scientifically/liberally determined, then it can be seen as unreasonable to ask Otto Fong to bring down the letter. It can be seen as censorship. It can be seen as false. It depends where you come from. But what kind of truth should education be concerned about? That is a question that has yet to be answered. What kind of truth was MOE concerned about? In other words, even from the argument that individuals can be seen as means to an ends, the ability to choose what determines which standard to judge the ambit of an individual's rights is a matter of power.