The Intrinsic Value of Ideals

There's a new home owner moving in to the flat directly above mine, so there has been lots of construction and renovation work going on, which means endless drilling, hammering, and sweeping for stretches of days on end.

Some time last week, the ceiling of my parents' bedroom leaked; cement and grime-mixed water started forming ominous damp patches before it began dripping onto the bed and all over the place. To top it off, because it has been raining very heavily these few days, dirty water washes off from the balcony upstairs onto ours, and when it dries the whole balcony is caked in some kind of sandy, muddy residue. Suffice to say it was a rather unpleasant experience.

So, my dad kicked up a heroic fuss, and somehow managed to get the contractor for the works upstairs to:
(1) provide sealant and paint patching servicing for the patches on the ceiling;
(2) provide workers to clean up the balcony;
(3) use their own water ("But sir, I don't have a hose that long which can connect from upstairs to downstairs." "Go and get one!")
(4) replace my parents' bed mattress (seriously!).

This morning, a Singaporean worker came in to help with the ceiling. He assessed the situation, and then said in half-dialect and half-chinese: "I can paint your entire bedroom ceiling and two other room ceilings for $30 if you like."

So, obviously this $30 offer was an under the table offer; his boss would have no idea what's going on here. My mum took it up - $30 is virtually nothing to us in this context, considering how much effort we would have to put in acquiring the paints and brushes, and then panting and huffing (toxic smells, no less) while fighting against the concrete sky ourselves.

His offer really struck me. Firstly, it is very reasonable, or cheap, to put it bluntly. He probably meant it as a good offer, in fact. This is the effect of how the wide availability of similar services and the perceived low prestige level of the job can reduce the value or price of a person's work. Secondly, and related to the first, this man's work should be no less important than the other officey work that I'm more attuned to, having a degree in hand that grants me access into corporate jobs. In fact, without the bedrock of a hard labour industry that frees the rest of us from dirtying our hands and using our brains more, there wouldn't be any tertiary industries to speak of. Yet, this man has been inhaling toxic paints probably all his working life (and I'm already slightly giddy from the leakage of the smell despite him closing the door, enclosing himself in the room with the fumes trapped in there, so that we wouldn't have to endure the smells) - god knows what kind of effect that has on his health - and earning a meagre wage that, because of the advancement of the rest of the economy and our country's emphasis on high status, creative, innovative, entrepreneurial, and corporate work, can barely keep up with inflation or support a dignified way of living (I know the dignity of life is a subjective point, but I firmly believe it has a lot to do with how one fares in relation to others).

Countless conversations with people on the economic issues of minimum wages, welfare, taxation, and more generally, liberty, often reach some kind of extrinsic or utilitarian conclusion that we owe a lot to how the economy in Singapore is structured (by a particularly omniscient man, no doubt); it suits us (something about pragmatism), it has helped us survive over the decades, it has helped us compete globally.

But it is just as important to think of how the structure of this economy marginalizes some groups of people. Let's not even talk about foreign workers; here was a Singaporean man who probably has no access to other "better" work opportunities, very likely because of structural factors (I'm making some educated speculations - born into poor family, no money for further education, no qualifications, no access to knowledge that can enhance his productivity beyond labour, etc.). And more importantly, it is important to note that sometimes the economy, whether deliberately or not, is structured in a way that makes it okay to marginalize people. That's when it gets dangerous, because now we have some sort of "legitimate" reason to keep people down, or compromise on their dignity of life, or justify why their life value should be less than others. That $30 offer made me sad and ashamed. Sad for the obvious reasons stated above on the state of affairs, and ashamed because I know this happens, but I don't think so much about it until it's in my face.

This raises a question, both interesting and important, about the value of fundamental rights or ideals. I'm not particularly outspoken about rights because part of my sad reality is that I think morality is generally subjective at a human level (although I do - some will accuse me of contradiction here - lean towards the idea that there are objective truths). What is right or wrong can be defined by those in power. But this is why subjects should be given constitutional rights to check the powers that be, because power has the capacity to mute resistance against it when it no longer serves the greater good. And this is also why, I think, it is important to have and believe in some fundamental ideals - for some it is the right to life, for others it is the right to a livelihood, yet for others perhaps freedom - because powerful leaders are capable of instituting structures that prevent people from engaging in progressive resistance.

British MP Rory Stewart brought up a fantastic point on the importance of recognizing and touting intrinsic value in rights and ideals (as opposed to focusing on their extrinsic and instrumental worth) when arguing or pushing for them. He talked of the fundamental importance of democracy, but his idea can be applied to anything that's worthwhile to defend. On democracy, he said that for too long, people have tried to fight for it on the extrinsic, instrumental grounds that perhaps it improves the economy, or it creates jobs for people, or that it prevents war, etc.; such arguments for democracy will be undermined once another less desirable system is capable of offering the same good outcomes stated above. Very often, arguments switch from intrinsic ones to instrumental ones in order to please the masses, corporations that provide funds, etc. Perhaps pushing on ideals on intrinsic grounds is also too idealistic - the realist view will only consider costs and benefits, and interests. But each time we shift away from an idealistic stance to a realistic stance, we give up on something intrinsically sacred to the things that matter.

(Once again, I'm generally skeptical about the promise of democracy because it requires too many boundary conditions to work, but this doesn't mean that a well-functioning democracy isn't a worthwhile ideal since it encourages participation and an informed citizenry that cares about society, which are fundamental good-to-haves.)

So, on that note, I suggest that it is important to think of what matters for our society. There is admittedly no such thing as perfect equality in a society, but if we are willing to forgo a fight for equality then we can expect to see many low status people marginalized by the system, and that will be okay, legitimate, and justifiable on economic grounds. If we are willing to forgo a fight for welfare, health aid, better recognition for social workers, etc., then we can expect to see that society will still very much chug along with an acute rubric for the value of life, which is how much you are able to earn. This in turn has ramifications for which jobs are respectable and which jobs aren't. In my mind, a measure of a good society is one where most jobs, if not all jobs, can garner some form of equal dignity and respect, and that every worker can be considered to be of value to the society they reside in. These are conversations that on matters of fundamental importance that, while definitely not easy to reach consensus, should be carried out. Just because a system has seemed to work doesn't mean it should be the only game in town. More importantly, we need to think about important things that should be valued but aren't that the current system prevents us from achieving, or worse, from caring about.

Here's the TED Talk presented by Rory Stewart on his take on democracy and, to me, on the intrinsic value of ideals. A highly recommended viewing.

.

An Encounter with Xiao Li

I met a Chinese national, presumably a foreign worker because of his adornments, today at my bus stop while I was headed to SMU. He approached me to ask if the buses were going to the Serangoon MRT station. I replied in the affirmative, and as my bus arrived I told him that I was headed to Serangoon MRT too so we could head down together. I might be getting ahead of myself here, but I thought I caught a glimpse of surprise in his eyes as he enthusiastically said, "好(great)!" and we got up the bus and took a seat together.

As we traveled along by bus and then later by train, I learnt that his name is Xiao Li and he had lost his way while trying to get supplies from Serangoon Gardens. Having just moved here from Henan six months ago and living at Yishun now, much of Singapore is still alien to him and he knows not a word of English. My mandarin is terrible, but we got along well enough. Sometimes, the great thing about such encounters that involve language barriers is that you end up trying to transcend the limits imposed by things like language, ethnicity, nationality or creed, and as a result connect more as fellow humans. As trivial as it was knowing that he had recently bought a computer from Little India and that the heat in Singapore takes some getting used to (Henan is predominantly cold), it was good company, and I felt happy knowing that he's getting by with some friends he made while on the job. It must not be easy traveling thousands of kilometres away from home to work in a country that is quite obviously xenophobic and elitist against such individuals.

In one TV programme that interviewed foreign workers in Singapore, one Bangladeshi worker was asked what he thought about Singapore. He said, as his voice cracked, that Singapore is a beautiful country, but when it comes to Singaporean people, sometimes he feels that Singaporeans respect and care for dogs and cats more than people like him. We virtually dehumanise these people and relegate them to a level lower than animals.

That sentiment really hits me hard. It is compounded by the fact that right now, in order to facilitate a study that my professor is trying to run, I need to recruit people who work low social status jobs as participants. However, more specifically, we need low social status workers who fit this demographic: Singaporean Chinese males aged 20-24, and Singaporean Chinese females aged 17-21. After two weeks, recruitment has yielded almost nothing, and I've come to realize that, insofar as a job can be considered "low social status" in Singapore, Singaporean Chinese aged 17-24 are very unlikely to be found there. As a Singaporean Chinese man myself, it is quite clear that we are the privileged lot in society.

I think more tribute should be paid to the people working the jobs we do not want to do. We may not like the policies that lead to such a crazy influx of foreign immigrants (I personally think these policies are problematic and do not solve more deeply-rooted economic problems), but we do not have to blame and shame the people who have arrived on our shores as a result of bad policy. When we utilize the things that constitute our high standard of living, such as clean public toilets and beautifully architectured buildings, a less privileged person dirtied his hands so that we are able to. A less privileged person took up that "low social status" job so that we didn't even have to entertain the possibility that such jobs are on the market for us to consider. I know that for most of my educated Singaporean Chinese counterparts, it is highly discomforting to imagine taking up one of these "low social status" jobs; I've been there. I've worked as a temp labourer to shift things before, but I'll bet I did so only because I know that few people know about this (it's different to say that I used to be a shifter - that can even be something to brag about - compared to if I am now and telling people about it). When I helped out at the SMU gown collection as an usher, ushering my fellow school mates who were from my year to the gown collection point, there were many instances where I had to endure questions that revolved around the idea of: "Why are you doing this kind of job?" Regardless of your own self-confidence, such questions still test your resolve. Jobs are low social status not ultimately because of how much they pay (although that is often partly the case), but simply because there is a stigma associated with them (just imagine comparing between working as a McDonald's waiter versus working at a yoghurt stall - both may pay the same and both involve the same job scope, but many people will find working at the yoghurt stall more trendy and palatable).

As a people, we can be more gracious, and sometimes by just taking that one step to put aside our prejudices, we can be a lot happier too. It's a choice and one that, I believe, many Singaporeans are capable of making.