'Peanuts'

I like this term now. Peanuts. It so exemplifies how grossly distorted significant social problems become, and how heavy-handed tactics are utilized against what becomes 'legitimized' as a social problem.

Recently, an announcement has been made about assisting lower-income (or lower-skilled) workers. This includes "two possible ways: grants to their Central Provident Fund (CPF) accounts for home purchases and through Medifund, which helps the needy pay big medical bills." Along with this, it has been stressed that this is simply a following pattern of globalization and that "[f]or the lower-skilled, whose incomes are not increasing like the highly-skilled, the Government can top-up their assets" as well as "[giving] equal education opportunities for their children." Now of course, I wouldn't ignore the other uptopian-like ideals of "changing the educational system to increase critical thinking", "encouraging the growth of new small and medium enterprises", and "conducting a network of free trade agreements" and etc.

To the uncritical eye, this might seem like a bright and optimistic proposal, but this is truly a "peanut"-approach to a systematic and global problem. The global widening gap between the rich and the poor is not solved by supplying them with the means to make an easier home purchase nor to bill them with less costly medical bills, but requires an inquiry and, nonethless, an examination of economic, employment and labour policies. Equal education does not promote equal opportunity (i.e. what kind of education are we speaking? What trade skill? And for which industry? Viable in which country?), in fact, it is likely that they will be re-educated to take in jobs that are favourable to the "competitive" employment environment, none of which might lead to their desired goals, or either a natural consequence of their qualifications. Wasn't it not too long ago that a national report stated that undergraduates were among the most "unemployed" representative?

Free-trade agreements don't solve poverty problems (or at least gaps between the rich and the poor), and surely perpetrated it instead in other Third World Countries. If the educational system truly encouraged critical thinking, we would bear witness to see local issues being scrutinized, debated and criticised. The NKF fiasco was quickly swept under the carpet, again law and order came with white wings to close the case. No inquiry, no recommendation, no commission was made to address the genesis of the issue, and neither would an independent, a truly independent power that was free from the tangles of co-opted political, economic and judicial interests, inquiry be initiated. No, critical thinking is simply the reproduction of herd mentality, to improve economic growth (that may not necessarily translate to an easier standard of living), and probably wonder in confusion where that so-called economic benefits is supposed to flow to.

Instead, let us contrast this blinkered approach to helping lower-working class people with the powerful and excessive approach to a peaceful protest of 4 people. Let us ignore the legality of the act (though we should be reminded that they did not commit an illegal act) , and perhaps the truthfulness of the event (i.e. that someone had called the protest a nuisance act). Let's apply some critical thinking here, shall we? If I were to see a group of gangsters fighting with each other, and lets put the figure to 8, which is easily twice as much for this protest, should I expect to see 80 members of riot police in gear? And surely, a protest, even if it had turned to, at its most extreme violent name-calling, would it be any less harmful than deviants wielding knives and broken bottles? Also, how are concerns related from a member of the public usually handled? Certainly, unless that said person specifically mentioned a chaotic and catastrophic riot or protest, should we expect to see the deployment of 40 riot police. So one must imagine that the kind of drama and fear this special "member of the public" must have concocted to alert our friendly neighbourhood guardians of social order.

In time, both of these events will fade in memory. The lower-income class may receive some benefits, as I am no doubt they are used to the usual benefits that arrive to their help at every economic predicament, regardless if it is growth, decline or recession. The riot police may not surface again, and probably not at these numbers for sometime to come. Instead, the message from both these events remain fixated in the minds of the citizens: The leaders of this country will always remain the absolute judges of the magnitude of social problems, and in determining their response to it. Disobedience, and challenge to their fundamental rule will not be tolerated.

That's the 'peanuts' moral story of the day.