What's baa-d about conforming
-
March 17, 2005
What's baa-d about conforming
By Ong Soh Chin
Senior Writer
THE other day, I read an article about how Hollywood actresses were starting to look like carbon copies of one another.
With the advent of Botox and a phalanx of dedicated stylists, the red carpet at the Academy Awards, for example, has become a boring Walk of Tame - gone are the days of exciting fashion faux pas, like Demi Moore's self-created shorts-cum-gown combo in 1989; or even Bjork's bird-brained number in 2001.
Today, every Hollywood actress looks like an airbrushed and chignoned Stepford star. Everyone looks like they had been pre-approved and stamped by some governing body of sartorial rules and regulations.
Everything's safe but boring.
In Singapore offices, one is also beginning to see the distressing signs of carbon-copyitis. While it was only a few years ago that Casual Fridays were the 'in' thing, now the trend is swinging back to conformity.
The sales and marketing department of a certain big corporation recently received a manual, detailing in excruciating fashion (pardon the pun) what is acceptable office attire and what is not.
While there is definitely a case to be made for appropriate corporate wear, the manual, which comes complete with photo illustrations, seems like an example of the style police taking the bad cop routine a bit too far.
If you have to include a photo of what a black jacket should look like, then either you have very dim employees or a management team that has no sense of humour or tolerance for creativity.
Just as a lot can be done to make us look the same, so can the same be done to make us think the same.
The thought police operates in a similar fashion to the style police. Both take a railroading approach to the task at hand - they thump you over the head by appealing to authority, and logic sometimes plays a secondary role.
It is the truncheon of authority, whether that authority takes the form of church or state or style arbiter Richard Blackwell.
The casino debate is one example that springs immediately to mind.
While I will say straight off the bat that both sides have legitimate concerns which must be heard, an appeal to morality is probably the weakest of all the arguments and causes more problems than it solves.
After all, what is morality? Who decides what the parameters are? God? State? Confucius? Paris Hilton?
One person's morality is another person's handbasket to hell.
The recent tragic deaths of Mr Simon Lee and his family were seen by some as a cautionary tale on the dangers of gambling addiction. Inadvertently, the poor man has become a poster boy for the anti-casino camp.
Yes, there is no doubt that the late Mr Lee had a serious gambling problem which led him to do the terrible things he did.
But while the anti-casino contingent - which relies strongly on the moral argument - sees the incident as bolstering its case, I actually think it proves the opposite, if one looks at it logically.
Mr Lee was a good man who had a loving family and the support and compassion of his church. He had a job. He would seem like a man who had it all. He certainly had all the trademarks of a moral, clean-living lifestyle.
He also lived in a country which had no casino. But all these blessings still could not save him and his family from their tragic fate.
An addict is an addict, and whether or not the source of his addiction is at his doorstep or in Siberia, he will find a way to get to it. Only counselling and a strong will to change can help him.
If not having a casino in Singapore can be proven empirically to cure all gamblers and prevent new ones from developing the habit, then I'll be the first in line to say, ban all casinos on Singapore soil. But there is no such evidence.
To believe in the mistaken premise that removing the source of temptation is the cure for all ills is just as wrong as thinking that you can be an Oscar-winning actress by dressing like one.
It also teeters into the dangerously murky assumption that human beings cannot be trusted to behave responsibly.
If that were so, instead of slapping on taxes and banning smoking from public places, would it not be more effective to ban cigarettes entirely from the country?
And on that same note, surely a ban on all alcohol could reduce the number of alcohol-related deaths, never mind the protests from the wine connoisseurs.
A ban on all cars would also ensure that there are no road rage incidents or accidents. A ban on marriages would ensure there are no divorces. A ban on all births would ensure there are no deaths, ever.
The line between preserving morality and living in a cocoon is a fine one. Banning only means conformity within a circumscribed sphere of influence. There is no guarantee a person will be safe once he or she leaves the no-fly zone.
Perhaps the best solution is a compromise - to allow space for all parties to breathe, but also with safeguards put in place so that none of them will be put out or offended.
Come April 18, a decision on the casino would have been made. But whether or not we agree with it, it would do us all good as a nation to discuss the merits and demerits in a logical fashion - with facts and figures as our guide, not some moral or governmental authority.
Otherwise, we would be no better than a nation of sheep, absolving ourselves of all responsibility and rational thought.
We would be like Stepford citizens. -
well, sheep are easy to control, but they tend to run around in circles...
the thing about sheep is that they're easily fleeced
but seriously, conformity is... a kind of diminished responsibility, isn't it?
those who conform without thinking, seek to give away their personal responsibility and behave as a pack... -
It's time we stop relying on the government to cushion our lives for us. You don't hear the Hong Kongers blaming Macau, the gambler's retreat, for their gambling habits. Neither do you hear the Americans put the blame on Las Vegas for the same.
The thing is, it's all about personal responsibility and self-discipline. The will to resist temptations comes from within. You cannot prevent all manners of temptations to be totally eradicated from your life but you can and you should and you ought to resist and be able to say 'no' to undesirable yet extremely seductive vices.
Don't blame the baker for baking the decadent chocolate cake that makes you put on the pounds ... blame yourself for not being able to resist gorging on the chocolate cake.
-
i'm against the casino for a bunch of different reasons...
it was found in studies that for every $1 the casino brings in to any community, the community ends up spending $2 to clean up the mess..
i don't want my tax money to support programs to clean up vice activities, supporting addicted gamblers and fighting the increase in crime.. -
"Conformist Singaporean" is a tautology. It's funny that this topic should turn up in Club 30 - anyone who qualifies for the club will remember the "sit down, shut up and do what you're told" style of Singaporean teachers. Now they complain that Singaporeans are too conformist? Looks to me like a simple case of the chickens coming home to roost.
Look at the system that has been set up in Singapore, from education, to National Service, to voting. The Singaporean is a creature that has been specifically engineered to conform through a program that runs from cradle to grave. Not that there's anything wrong with that - the ability of the population to follow leaders is exactly what allowed Singapore's economy to grow in that way that it did from the 60's through the 80's. In the same way that the great white shark is master of its domain, Singapore mastered the manufacturing industry. Hell, Singapore hit the pinnacle of manufacturing when it managed to manufacture a society.
There's just one catch to being a creature that's highly evolved to one purpose - such a creature is hardly resistant to changes in the environment. After watching the Japanese for all these years, someone forgot to notice that the economy of a country that is successful at manufacturing will eventually outgrow the manufacturing industry.
So, where does that leave us?
First, we have the very amusing entrepreneur programs. I think someone forgot to tell the powers-that-be that teaching people to be entrepreneurs is an oxymoron of the highest order. After decades of being told to shut up and follow orders, Singapore now demands its citizens to speak up, and (dared we ever dream of it 10 years ago?) participate in government, as if that would happen at the flick of a switch. It's tantamount to asking a wife who's currently being abused to report in as Gloria Steinheim at 8 tomorrow morning.
Well, we've now got articles in the papers saying that conformity is a problem? Oh me, oh my. Whatever shall we do? Make nonconformity the new Singaporean standard? It's all a case of tough tits now. The nonconformists have long been driven off and labelled "quitters" by the government. Now it's time for that same government to suck it up. -
On Ong Soh Chin's article:
Pity that she failed to check her own logic, or the lack thereof, when advancing her arguments, presumably in support of the casino project.
Firstly, she forgot that facts and figures required to make decisions are not always available. So while having 'facts and figures as our guide' sounds nice, it could well be no more than an empty platitude, since all the economic calculations made HAVE TO be based on assumptions which may not necessarily be amenable to testing.
Hence, in the face of imperfect information, the inescapable conclusion is that the final decision will be made with some moral or governmental authority.
Secondly, her statement that 'One person's morality is another person's handbasket to hell', which is a relativist moral stance, can be easily refuted. I offer the following:
Thou shalt not rape
Will she want to say that the above is not an absolute that has to be followed all the time?
Thirdly, raising the point about morality is but to use 'straw man' argument that distracts from the main thrust of the debate. After all, those who oppose the casino have advanced strong points backed by research on the negative social consequences attendant to casinos. If one had paid attention to what the religious groups have said, it is clear that the appeal is based on social impact, not moral arguments. Unless she thinks that highlighting the social costs of gambling addiction is the same as saying that gambling is morally wrong, otherwise her point about morality is irrelevant, and nothing more than another attempt at advancing her own relativistic views.
On Rhonda's post about personal responsibility:
Personal responsbility is indeed important. However, I believe that one important role of government is to create an environment where we can be morally good and where justice prevails (c.f. Plato's Republic).
In Singapore's case, we have an environment where the sphere of government influence intrudes into many areas of our personal lives, thus effectively reducing the scope within which we can freely exercise our personal responsibility and choices.
The government tells me that I can't take care of my retirement savings (hence I have to pay CPF even when I am capable of saving), but tells me that I need to be personally responsible for gambling. How ironic!
siginah -
some damned good points in there. fine post.Originally posted by Gedanken:"Conformist Singaporean" is a tautology. It's funny that this topic should turn up in Club 30 - anyone who qualifies for the club will remember the "sit down, shut up and do what you're told" style of Singaporean teachers. Now they complain that Singaporeans are too conformist? Looks to me like a simple case of the chickens coming home to roost.
Look at the system that has been set up in Singapore, from education, to National Service, to voting. The Singaporean is a creature that has been specifically engineered to conform through a program that runs from cradle to grave. Not that there's anything wrong with that - the ability of the population to follow leaders is exactly what allowed Singapore's economy to grow in that way that it did from the 60's through the 80's. In the same way that the great white shark is master of its domain, Singapore mastered the manufacturing industry. Hell, Singapore hit the pinnacle of manufacturing when it managed to manufacture a society.
There's just one catch to being a creature that's highly evolved to one purpose - such a creature is hardly resistant to changes in the environment. After watching the Japanese for all these years, someone forgot to notice that the economy of a country that is successful at manufacturing will eventually outgrow the manufacturing industry.
So, where does that leave us?
First, we have the very amusing entrepreneur programs. I think someone forgot to tell the powers-that-be that teaching people to be entrepreneurs is an oxymoron of the highest order. After decades of being told to shut up and follow orders, Singapore now demands its citizens to speak up, and (dared we ever dream of it 10 years ago?) participate in government, as if that would happen at the flick of a switch. It's tantamount to asking a wife who's currently being abused to report in as Gloria Steinheim at 8 tomorrow morning.
Well, we've now got articles in the papers saying that conformity is a problem? Oh me, oh my. Whatever shall we do? Make nonconformity the new Singaporean standard? It's all a case of tough tits now. The nonconformists have long been driven off and labelled "quitters" by the government. Now it's time for that same government to suck it up.
in fact, i wont add to it because youve covered everything i wouldve said
-
guys! I'm very hungry. can someone tell me where to queue?
If the Gah-ment sanctions the casino, can I wager my CPF? since I have not reached 35, I have no use for it yet...
i'm still living with mommy and daddy cos the gah-ment say they can't sell (actually it's a lease) me a flat cos they want to promote good family values.
do i really want to marry the girl? but the flat is here liao... better la hor? what do ya think? will the real mr. gah-ment pls stand up?
-
There is no real government, only imposters and wannabes.Originally posted by ilovemyrolex:guys! I'm very hungry. can someone tell me where to queue?
If the Gah-ment sanctions the casino, can I wager my CPF? since I have not reached 35, I have no use for it yet...
i'm still living with mommy and daddy cos the gah-ment say they can't sell (actually it's a lease) me a flat cos they want to promote good family values.
do i really want to marry the girl? but the flat is here liao... better la hor? what do ya think? will the real mr. gah-ment pls stand up?