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