SINGAPORE: We can tell a lot about what people regard as right or wrong by their responses to transgressions. In the case of the Amy Cheong incident, it is interesting to note that the primary focus has been on her racial prejudices - while almost nothing has been said about her presumptions about class.
Her presumption that one's right to marry depends on the amount of money one has is as troubling - if not more so - than her narrow presumptions and negative feelings toward Malays.
The relative silence
about the relationship she draws between money and marriage reveals our
deeper common sense: One where wealth, worth and deservedness are
tightly tethered.
In The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of
Capitalism, Max Weber argues that people born into modern capitalism are
trapped in an "iron cage" - unable to decide their paths, and compelled
to work hard, be frugal and accumulate wealth for its own sake rather
than as a means to larger goals.
He perhaps underestimated the
degree to which the pursuit and accumulation of wealth can take on
tremendous meaning and normative value, with disturbing consequences for
human beings' sense of themselves and their regard for each other.
THE VALUE OF BEING RICH
In
Singapore, the recent debates over social spending, education and
meritocracy, and population and immigration have brought to the fore the
need to narrow the gaps between the rich and the poor and to ensure
social mobility.
This seems to be the consensus, even if there is disagreement as to how these goals are to be achieved.
What
is less explicit, and where there might be lower degrees of consensus,
pertains to how the state and society perceive the value of being
wealthy. That discussion has not found a big place at the table of
national conversations.
We seem to have accepted too easily that
what people can and cannot do in life - including when they can marry
or how many children they can have - depends on whether they can afford
it.
It is apt for society to place this worldview under scrutiny. Two recent pieces of news add to the urgency of this.
First,
in the Wealth Report 2012, Singapore sits prettily at the top with the
highest gross domestic product per capita - a situation that is expected
to remain until 2050.
Second, the Prime Minister revealed in his
National Day Rally Speech that, by 2020, 40 per cent of every
Singaporean cohort will comprise of graduates, a significant increase
from the 27 per cent today.
These achievements and targets come
at a time when the government acknowledges that we are experiencing a
widening income gap. This intensifies the unequal starting point among
the haves and the have-nots, harming the meritocratic ideals of our
system.
DANGEROUSLY NARROW BAR
With
increasing affluence and educational attainment among a significant
proportion of society, what is traditionally considered status goods,
such as the often talked about 5Cs in Singapore, is constantly being
redefined.
The bar for "success" is increasingly high and, yet,
also dangerously narrow. We seem to have a situation where certain
sections of society feel a sense of entitlement to various status goods.
Significantly, their practices and values shape social norms
that presume certain acts - whether spending on weddings or luxury goods
- mark people as superior and of higher (human) worth (it is telling
and problematic that rich people are now referred to as "high net worth
individuals").
Ms Amy Cheong's remarks should be read as being as
much class snobbery as racial prejudice. Class snobbery concerns are
not unique to Singapore: England's Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg
recently warned that "class snobbery is holding Britain back by creating
a society divided between those born with a sense of entitlement to
succeed and others who are 'permanently excluded'."
It is
heartening to witness Singaporeans being comfortable enough to air
difficult issues on race, but it would be unfortunate if important
observations on social class divisions take a backseat.
The Amy
Cheong episode presents Singaporeans with an opportunity to openly
debate the ethics of living in a generally affluent society that has
widening inequality.
How should we value wealth? How do we make
sure citizens' rights to fulfilling and meaningful lives are not heavily
dependent on their abilities to generate wealth? Given that no
individual can become rich independent of what society provides, what
are the social responsibilities of the haves towards the have-nots?
In
a quote attributed to Karl Marx, he mentioned that in examining social
inequality, "the least advantaged are the eyes that matter when it comes
to looking at justice". A truly national conversation will have to
examine the category of "least advantaged" through multifarious lenses -
whether race, age, gender or social class.
It is time to talk about whether the positions and worldviews of the privileged should be a standard for the rest.
Teo
You Yenn and Kamaludeen Mohamed Nasir are both assistant professors in
the Division of Sociology at the Nanyang Technological University.
- TODAY
how should we value wealth? well, ministers and leaders of coctry should led as an example. they draw millions dsalry, so set an example ther every sgreans also seeks to go after, they can we also must do it, then cum the greedy foreg cheap less than 1k labor, they can do it, so we must also doit. our open arse policy is so gaping wide that cheap trash think its norm for them to just walk in here and earn.
one recent thread about gf cannot gain entry to sg is just one of the very good exmaple, and many others here who cum in work, schorship, study or fuck walever shit to be posted on blogs, also take our laws and immigration policies for granted!