|
|
Sunday, January 25, 2009
| |
0 comments
Post a Comment
|
|
I quote the [budget special] article "GST Credits: Enough to help out?" from The Straits Times (Singapore)25th Jan 2009 Page 3:
" Audit Associate Darrell Chia is happy that he will be getting about $400 worth of GST Credits from the Government this year, double what he received last year.
'Any amount of money would be good since I'm earning so little. It can help to pay for my holiday trips to Phuket or Bintan due to the stressful nature of my job,' said Mr. Chia, 26."
I assume that the writer of this article was trying to quote an example of people positive about extra GST credits ( who isn't? [GST credits: cash handouts meant to buffer the effects of the rising Goods and Service tax in SG]) and consequently, arguing for one side of the "exceptional" budget this year before proceeding to name its constraints. I'm totally cool with that. It is a good budget as far as myopic me is concerned. But I must say i was glad to read a few good, reflective articles by editors / in the forum that weren't blindly heaping praises for our government. They actually identified certain issues that might have been overlooked. and i don't mean the usual 鸡蛋里挑骨头 by the opposition party (refer to Friday 23rd Jan 09 papers).
But what i DON'T get is Mr. Chia (if he isn't fictional). I was looking at the above paragraphs and wondering:
"Mr Chia. Why you earn so little and you still want to go Bintan / Phuket for holiday?"
And his reason : "job is very stressful".
I'm not saying Mr. Chia's job isn't "stressful", nor am i saying that he doesn't "earn so little". I can give him the benefit of the doubt. But how am I supposed to reconcile "holiday trips" and the predicament suggested by "earn so little" ? Unless of course, the writer thought that Mr Chia's holidaying at specifically Bintan/Phuket was actually synonymous to "earning so little" and his/her point in quoting Mr. Chia's example was as valid as intended to be. That would only be more, if not equally, worrying.
I was just talking to LH that day: I really don't think most SG people (esp. the below 30s) know what "poor" is. It seems that basic living standards has been confused with the measure of affluence - "Need" and "Want" inventory list is jumbled up. The recession just means this year's holiday destination is gonna be much nearer (and no SQ!) for some of us. The not-having a PSP for a 10 year old today translates into a primary school student going to school without shoes 30 years ago, subjectable to ridicule. Yes, times have changed and we are, even in this climate of a "sharpest, longest" recession, on a lucky point in history. But are we sure we don't need thrift for a "rainy day"? Personally i think it is more important than reserves - this ability to survive with "less" when times are bad and how to save a little when we have "more". I think we are a little complacent. There is also the materialism which I find most prominent in our generations and after, is another repercussion. Dog-chasing branded labels and obsession over material goods - seemingly harmless besides being a little silly, but do they breed superficiality, mercenariness? There is also a problem of blatant wastage. At home, my mom simply pours away a bowl of lunch porridge because she thinks it isn't fresh enough for dinner. We're living like there's no tomorrow. Sure "limited resources limited resources" - its like a page from our secondary school geography textbook. Now, is it time to look at these issues in the eye? Especially in the dawn of a forecasted crisis and recent climate trouble in nearby Thailand?
All this problems with our people, in my opinion, has another side to it : the failure to empathise. I can still never understand how millions of dollars are poured into advertisements and movies when there are people dying of hunger. I know i am naive. The industry probably feeds millions today (or Sarkozy wouldn't be giving out free papers). But to me, when i consider the fundamentals, these aren't exactly industries we'll die without. This issue is far too complex, yes, but is it so complex that its legitamacy cannot be challenged? What i'm saying is : How much fun and joy and wealth are we entitled to when there are people so much much more deprived? Sure the ideology of communism died. But don't let empathy and charity die along with it.
Sure, there is always the argument of "context". We can't help it, we were born in Singapore, we were that lucky. We wouldn't eat and spend like that if we were born in a village of malnourished babies (naturally). This i understand. We don't want guilt when we're having our weekly pilgramage drinking at Clarke Quay. But what i'm asking is more contentment and more sharing: Always put your life into perspective and i believe that being born in SG , really means that we can be a little more glad; Give a little more too. There are so many people among us that we could spare that little time and money for.
For the saddest sod is one who has so much but has no idea how much he has and wants only more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
