Most pundits focus on ministerial statements and official press releases for insights into national directions, but I find the letter pages of newspapers a rather more heterogeneous and forthright source of how people think about the things that affect them. The near-2 pages of space allotted to readers' voices in Australian and Thai dailies speaks much for the thinking (or lack of) that goes in the heads of citizens who actually bother to the fulfil their civic responsibility of scrutinising the acts of state and antics of statesmen.
Local papers (despite the much reduced area given to letter writers of late in Singapore's leading broadsheet) are no different, and it is certainly revealing to find that many fellow pigeon-holers share the impeccable logic that drive the minds of the so-called men-in-white, so much so that the latter's very own credo is used to counter a sacred cow that is facing decimation at the altar to Mammon.
I can well understand the insecurities and fears that many have expressed over the reality of a Vegas or Macau-style casino right in the heart of Singapore's family resort island, a 20 minute drive from the business district. Beyond voicing concern and contempt for Lady Luck, it seems Singaporeans have also learnt the rhetoric of extrapolation. As one letter writer opined (ST, 20 Nov 2004):
"Dr Vivian Balakrishnan [the unfortunate ex-social critic-now-mainstream-minister fronting the casino issue] contends that Singaporeans should be trusted to be mature enough to be responsible for their own decisions, that we would be 'in a very, very sorry state in the future' if the Government had to keep protecting us from ourselves."
"His arguments sound sensible but I believe that in many cases we (not just Singaporeans, but humans in general) are simply too fallible and weak to justify such faith... we are not just talking about a simple one-time choice that we can easily turn away from. Gambling, like cigarettes and drugs, can be a powerful addiction. I so wish we could just ban smoking altogether. The power of addictions can overcome even the strongest of wills and the most rational of minds."
"Yes, we should trust ourselves to make responsible choices, as far as possible. But for some bad choices, the consequences can be so unforgiving that it is better not to even offer a choice."
Why stop at smoking? I am addicted to coffee (my throbbing head tells me so on caffeine-free days); some people stay up nights, even days, to play virtual shoot-outs; nutritionists tell us sugar and fat are addictive substances that trigger overeating and obesity (a tremendous burden on healthcare costs, say some); and dare I say many here are addicted to work, at the expense of their families, friends (if any) and future
Besides, how significant will the roulette and baccarat tables be in causing the downfall of Singapore order and family values is, when Singaporeans already spend an estimated $4 billion a year (according to our most penetrative journalist, Diana Ser) on betting in horse races, football, Toto, 4D, cruise ships as well as illegal jackpots and lotteries based in seedy attics and makeshift jungle clearings. Might not a crusade be better justified against this outflow of hard-earned income that could otherwise be spent on worthier diversions like education, books, elegant cornices, 24-inch plasma TVs, LV bags, Renault Cleos and pei-du mamas? Surely all these are part of the time-honored Singapore dream, aren't they (just ask any estimable senior citizen enjoying his kopi-O in your local S-11)? And what would citizens have to unleash their precious hours of leisure if not these paltry indulgences?
Anyway, still on the same subject, this other letter writer achieves the no mean feat of confusing budak with the following soliquoqy:
"It is a question of the people taking responsibility for their lives and if the people feel that a casino is a no-go because they believe that their lives will be adversely affected by its presence, then their views should be respected. I am sure Singaporeans are mature enough to make this decision for themselves, and if money is not an issue with the Government, there is really no need to push for a casino."
I happily endorse his idea of taking responsibility for one's life and making decisions for oneself, but wonder how the rest of us are going to exercise that freedom, if as he implies, what HE feels is 'no-go' should be utterly dismissed altogether as a choice for those who think otherwise. I do think I am mature enough (maybe?), so why not let me test my strength against the one-armed bandit. If you feel otherwise, who's forcing you to wager an unequal match?
On a lighter note, the status and desirability of Singlish and other local patois crops up periodically as an issue of sheer life-and-death for the welfare of citizens. In response to a tongue-in-cheek letter on the coining of new words, one linguistic guardian was led to decry "opportunistic wordsmiths who create just for the sole purpose of creating". The term "Singlish" and particles such as "lah" are kosher because they are listed in the Oxford English Dictionary, he intones, while Chinese words like "kowtow" and "typhoon" are "not 'unclassy'", because they enjoy "influential or international coverage", unlike the vast bulk of Singlish lingo. "We certainly do not need to construct artificial words just to garner inclusion in the English language," he says.
Budak only wonders why such fury should erupt at attempts to enlarge the expression of tongues, even if a fair number of coinages (especially those born in the bland vat of business consultancies) will fall by the wayside, as speakers come to find them unhelpful or simply meaningless. I hasten to add as well that if his accusations were directed at the degeneracy that is SMS short forms, it would gain more credence, since the use of @lpha-num3ric creations outside the miniscule (but now growing) screens of mobile phones is merely a sign of lazy-mindedness and inconsideration rather than a genuine lack of spelling lessons.
Comments