Is it wrong to do business with Myanmar?
Over the past few weeks, there has been a lot of soul-searching in Singapore. People have suddenly woken up to the fact that we have extensive dealings with the military junta and many of their cronies. We sell them weapons; we build hotels there; we provide telecommunication equipment. Generals get treated in Singapore and their families buy luxury goods here. Rich Burmese businessmen have companies in Singapore. Many suspect that Singapore is where a lot of ill-gotten money is washed: that we are to crooked South-east Asians what the Swiss once were to African despots.
Of course, Singapore isn't the only country in bed with the generals. So are the likes of China, Malaysia, Thailand, and even India--the largest democracy in the world. Shortly after the brutal crackdown, when asked about his country's dealings, a senior Indian diplomat shot back, "We are not the only democracy that works with generals." A nod towards the Americans and their cosy relationship with a certain Mr Musharraf. Or France and Saddam. Or America and Suharto. Or...?
And that's one of the problems with the Western pressure currently being put on Singapore. It smacks of hypocrisy. For a long time, America and most European countries have happily canoodled horrible dictators in order to, amongst other things, win business for their companies. Now, just because they don't have any economic interests in Myanmar, they have gotten back up on their moral high horse, and are barking insults. The cheek.
Of course, not many here believe that sanctions can ever choke the junta. And so, from Singapore's point of view, better to do business because if we don't, somebody else might. And, if we do, at some point, as the Burmese get richer, they will develop, their lives will get better, they will clamour for more openness. Or at least that's the hope.
Of course, there is the feeling that the generals are swindling all the money. But then again, in Singapore there is living proof that the lives of ordinary Burmese are getting better. Lots of Burmese work here--in the service industry, as domestic help, as construction workers. They send money back to their families. Remittances are a growing force in the economy.
The other interesting thing to think about is how a society's collective conscience evolves as it develops economically, politically and socially. So, for instance, 20 years ago, after the last crackdown, far fewer Singaporeans cared about our dealings with the junta than they do today. Of course, technology plays a role here--the shocking images from a few weeks ago were unavailable 20 years ago.
But a large part of it also has to do with Singaporeans getting richer and more socially aware and responsible. Our collective conscience is developing, evolving.
If we compare our collective conscience with that of, say, Europe, we are far less developed. The average Singaporean cares a lot less about the sweatshops behind the Nikes; or the slave labour behind the Mandalay hotels; or the dying Chinese coal-miner; than does the average European.
But the Europeans weren't always that concerned. Not too long ago, the Europeans didn't care too much about child labour, slave labour, and the environment. Not too long ago, a lot of Europe was still very racist (racism, of course, is making a frightening comeback in some parts of Europe...but that's a whole other story). I don't remember too many European complaints when Indonesia roared into East Timor in 1974.
As Europe has developed economically and politically, so has their social consciousness.
And so, in the same way that some argue that developing countries should be allowed to pollute more than developed countries--precisely because they are still developing--can we also make the argument that developing countries should be allowed to maintain lower standards of collective conscience?
i.e. Should a country like Malaysia be let off the hook when it comes to their dealings with the Burmese junta? Simply because they are less developed, and so may have more reason to choose economic necessity over moral niceties? As compared to the rich Americans, who can afford to ignore or piss off this or that 'horrid regime'?
Of course, this assumes that economic wealth goes hand-in-hand with social consciousness. Which is, of course, not always true. There are poor countries who try to be morally infallible. And there are rich countries where social consciousness has not evolved so quickly--Singapore is a fine example.
We have gotten rich well before we have developed politically and socially. But those changes are happening, albeit slowly.
And that's what Singapore thinks will happen in China. And Myanmar.
Half a year ago, a couple of our friends were contemplating working at a restaurant in Yangon. They have now banished the idea. Each of us has a limit to how much we can take. Collectively, Singapore has yet to cross that line.
Is it wrong to do business with Myanmar? At the moment, Singapore still says no.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Friday, October 19, 2007
Why We Should Be Crude To Each Other
The jury is still out on bio-fuels. Depending on who you believe, it is either a panacea for all the ills of our reliance on crude oil--including the adverse effects on the environment--or, it could be like a little known Stallone movie called Cobra.
In that movie, his famous line is “You’re the disease and I am the cure.” Except that the cure in this case may be even worse than the disease. The use of bio-fuels could bring about prosperity to many developing nations, but it could lead to, for example, higher food prices--as farmers in developed countries use consumables as biofuels--and deforestation, and in the end do more damage to the environment than the fossil fuels it is replacing.
It will take a lot of international coordination, in terms of policies and R&D, to get biofuels right. In Sao Paolo, Brazil, almost all cars run on bio-fuel converted mainly from sugarcane. The country has weaned itself off its dependence on crude oil. But it took them 25 years to get there. The bio-fuel revolution in other parts of the world has surged in the last three years.
Take Malaysia and Indonesia. Between them, they control about 90% of the world’s crude palm oil production. This has burgeoned in the last few years.
Malaysia’s palm oil output is expected to reach a record of $RM40 billion this year, a growth of 25% from 2006. The Malaysian government had granted 92 licenses to set up bio-diesel plants by the end of July 2007. But how much of the growth is due to demand--for the manufacture of products such as soap, in places like China and India--and how much is due to speculative activity?
What will this increased demand have on land use? Malaysia-based conservation agency Wild Asia said “the focus on expanding oil palm acreage for bio-diesel will ultimately be unsustainable given the scarcity of land”, as quoted in Forbes. Essentially, they will have to dig deep into forested land to satisfy this demand.
The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has called on governments to cut their subsidies for biofuel and instead encourage research into technologies that would avoid competing for land use with food production.
Surely, this is where there could be some synergy here. As Singapore pours resources into life sciences, perhaps it should consider setting up research and development facilities in bio-fuels. Singapore could certainly attract talent and develop the infrastructure to do so. And there is no land to compete for bio-fuels here.
Given our experience in petroleum refining, surely there is some shared learning that can occur. Especially in the way the fuels are distributed and marketed. Plus, it could be a benchmark for cooperation between the two countries.
Should we be going crude? Or am I just being naïve?
The jury is still out on bio-fuels. Depending on who you believe, it is either a panacea for all the ills of our reliance on crude oil--including the adverse effects on the environment--or, it could be like a little known Stallone movie called Cobra.
In that movie, his famous line is “You’re the disease and I am the cure.” Except that the cure in this case may be even worse than the disease. The use of bio-fuels could bring about prosperity to many developing nations, but it could lead to, for example, higher food prices--as farmers in developed countries use consumables as biofuels--and deforestation, and in the end do more damage to the environment than the fossil fuels it is replacing.
It will take a lot of international coordination, in terms of policies and R&D, to get biofuels right. In Sao Paolo, Brazil, almost all cars run on bio-fuel converted mainly from sugarcane. The country has weaned itself off its dependence on crude oil. But it took them 25 years to get there. The bio-fuel revolution in other parts of the world has surged in the last three years.
Take Malaysia and Indonesia. Between them, they control about 90% of the world’s crude palm oil production. This has burgeoned in the last few years.
Malaysia’s palm oil output is expected to reach a record of $RM40 billion this year, a growth of 25% from 2006. The Malaysian government had granted 92 licenses to set up bio-diesel plants by the end of July 2007. But how much of the growth is due to demand--for the manufacture of products such as soap, in places like China and India--and how much is due to speculative activity?
What will this increased demand have on land use? Malaysia-based conservation agency Wild Asia said “the focus on expanding oil palm acreage for bio-diesel will ultimately be unsustainable given the scarcity of land”, as quoted in Forbes. Essentially, they will have to dig deep into forested land to satisfy this demand.
The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has called on governments to cut their subsidies for biofuel and instead encourage research into technologies that would avoid competing for land use with food production.
Surely, this is where there could be some synergy here. As Singapore pours resources into life sciences, perhaps it should consider setting up research and development facilities in bio-fuels. Singapore could certainly attract talent and develop the infrastructure to do so. And there is no land to compete for bio-fuels here.
Given our experience in petroleum refining, surely there is some shared learning that can occur. Especially in the way the fuels are distributed and marketed. Plus, it could be a benchmark for cooperation between the two countries.
Should we be going crude? Or am I just being naïve?
Friday, October 12, 2007
I don't want to do that work.
Thursday's Straits Times spoke about
11% from
9% from
7% are Indian nationals.
Foreigners are also employed as workers in factories, plantations and construction sites; as waiters in restaurants; as office cleaners; and now even as bus drivers.
In addition, there are an estimated 500,000 illegal workers. In other words, about one out of about every five foreign workers in
During our research in
Malaysians we interviewed had different impressions of foreign labour, often depending on their personal experiences with them. Almost everybody realises their utility. Some Malaysians have invariably become more xenophobic, often following a violent encounter.
But there are also many Malaysians who are sympathetic to the plight of migrants, struggling to eke out a living for themselves. An old Malay man in Mersing, Johor, who spoke like somebody who had seen it all, told us that
“They are just humans, like you and me. What would you do if you and your family were starving, and there were no jobs at home? Wouldn’t you try and sneak into
It is also interesting to think about how foreign workers will affect
Also, will new Indonesian workers be able to integrate into Malaysian society faster and better than very old Chinese and Indian Malaysians, long marginalised by the Malay-dominated society? How will that further strain ethnic tensions?
The arrival of migrants to ‘do the dirty work’, as it were, is a good thing. It signifies how far
Thursday, October 11, 2007
It’s a Steal, It’s a Deal, It’s the Sale of The Century
Something disturbed me today. Went for a coffee at Emerald Hill, at the place right at the bottom of the hill. It is a nice covered restaurant, and if I am not wrong, is part of the same group that owns Rouge and Alley Bar. All are decent places, even if they are more expensive versions of the bars that are just up the road - No. 5, Ice Cold Beer and Que Pasa.
And more expensive for good reason too, since they are better decorated and more recently refurbished than their competitors. The group has a membership called the Black Card, which costs $300 and has its privileges. You get a couple of bottles upon joining and then it's always 15% off. I cannot remember the exact deal.
But the promotional sign I saw outside this little eatery was just shocking. It showed the details of some drink promotion. It was the normal thing, 1 for 1, 3 for $25, half-off- the actual schematics of it is unimportant, it was the run-of-the-mill kind of deal.
Except that it said that expats* would get an additional 15% off. The fine print on that statement was that expats were defined as those with work permits. So it is not overt racism on a technicality, because there are work permit holders from many different countries. Smart legal person, whoever works for the group.
And smart marketing person as well. Trying to create a place that is expat friendly is generally good business in Singapore. The club Attica has used this to great effect. They have a subtle (depending on who you ask) policy of being more friendly to expats. It's small things, like skipping to the front of the line or not paying for entry into the disco. Those small perks are relatively cool ones to have if you have ever tried queuing up to get into an empty club.
I do think it is safe to assume that in Singapore, as in many places in Southeast Asia, expat generally connotes Westerner. The phenomenon of the Indian or Chinese expat is too new to have created that kind of instinctive stereotype.
The Anti-Defamation League defines racism as the hatred of one person by another -- or the belief that another person is less than human -- because of skin color, language, customs, place of birth or any factor that supposedly reveals the basic nature of that person. In light of that kind of broader definition, there is a lot more insidiousness to this little extra discount.
Why are expats given a larger discounts? Are they strapped for cash? Would one really have to get out one’s work permit to qualify for the discount?
Becoming known as an expat hangout has some advantages other than purely monetary ones. Most importantly, it makes it easier for SPGs to more narrowly target their choice of nightspots.
That’s where it ends really. There is just something strange about making a place better for expats. Does it propagate some form of inferiority complex amongst Singaporeans? I wonder whether the restaurant is Singaporean-owned.
Whatever it is, I hope that a bunch of Malaysians on work permits just take over the scene.
Something disturbed me today. Went for a coffee at Emerald Hill, at the place right at the bottom of the hill. It is a nice covered restaurant, and if I am not wrong, is part of the same group that owns Rouge and Alley Bar. All are decent places, even if they are more expensive versions of the bars that are just up the road - No. 5, Ice Cold Beer and Que Pasa.
And more expensive for good reason too, since they are better decorated and more recently refurbished than their competitors. The group has a membership called the Black Card, which costs $300 and has its privileges. You get a couple of bottles upon joining and then it's always 15% off. I cannot remember the exact deal.
But the promotional sign I saw outside this little eatery was just shocking. It showed the details of some drink promotion. It was the normal thing, 1 for 1, 3 for $25, half-off- the actual schematics of it is unimportant, it was the run-of-the-mill kind of deal.
Except that it said that expats* would get an additional 15% off. The fine print on that statement was that expats were defined as those with work permits. So it is not overt racism on a technicality, because there are work permit holders from many different countries. Smart legal person, whoever works for the group.
And smart marketing person as well. Trying to create a place that is expat friendly is generally good business in Singapore. The club Attica has used this to great effect. They have a subtle (depending on who you ask) policy of being more friendly to expats. It's small things, like skipping to the front of the line or not paying for entry into the disco. Those small perks are relatively cool ones to have if you have ever tried queuing up to get into an empty club.
I do think it is safe to assume that in Singapore, as in many places in Southeast Asia, expat generally connotes Westerner. The phenomenon of the Indian or Chinese expat is too new to have created that kind of instinctive stereotype.
The Anti-Defamation League defines racism as the hatred of one person by another -- or the belief that another person is less than human -- because of skin color, language, customs, place of birth or any factor that supposedly reveals the basic nature of that person. In light of that kind of broader definition, there is a lot more insidiousness to this little extra discount.
Why are expats given a larger discounts? Are they strapped for cash? Would one really have to get out one’s work permit to qualify for the discount?
Becoming known as an expat hangout has some advantages other than purely monetary ones. Most importantly, it makes it easier for SPGs to more narrowly target their choice of nightspots.
That’s where it ends really. There is just something strange about making a place better for expats. Does it propagate some form of inferiority complex amongst Singaporeans? I wonder whether the restaurant is Singaporean-owned.
Whatever it is, I hope that a bunch of Malaysians on work permits just take over the scene.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
When Malaysia’s Lawyers Walk, There Is A Problem
Last week in Kuala Lumpur, a group of 800-2000 lawyers--the number varies depending on which paper you read--marched in protest over judicial fixing charges leveled at the government.
How did the video come to light?
Apparently taken in 2002, the video shows a well-connected lawyer on his cellphone to a famous judge, reminding him how he got him to his current post, promising to help him get a senior appointment and mentioning some other high-level appointees and political figures.
The video was sent to former DPM Anwar Ibrahim, and several emails and a YouTube posting later, legal minds were up in arms. So it took half a decade to come out, but no one seems to be questioning that in the media – lets come back to that later.
Just how bad is it? Well, quite bad, if we are to believe Ambiga Sreenevasan, who is President of the Malaysian Bar Council. In an interview with Australian radio, she said that it “shows that the question of judicial appointment is made outside the provisions of the Constitution, that in fact there are people who are involved in the appointment who should not be involved in the appointment.”
The government’s reaction was to set up a panel to test whether the tape was “real”. Truth is, that was a needed first step, but it would have hardly satisfied all these legal minds. The lawyers wanted a Royal Commission (Malaysia has a tendency to set up Royal Commissions to investigate a plethora of matters), and nothing less, and so decided to get up and walk in protests.
And they got plenty of recognition for the matter in the world press, bringing their issue to the top of the agenda. They also presented the Prime Minister’s Office with two memorandums of demands. And the government swiftly reacted by set up a Royal Commission.
Victory in Round One for the Lawyers.
The government also asked the lawyers, and with some polite affection too, not to go ahead with the march. Kudos that the lawyers went ahead with it anyway, and well done for keeping non-violent. (Although the sight of lawyers walking in black suits hardly conjures up the same emotions as the poor protesters in Burma, the act of defiance was poignant in itself – they had the will, if not the style).
So let’s ask some questions? If the video has been around for five years, why just now, and why by Anwar Ibrahim, who obviously did not take the video?
First, it could be that someone has kept it a secret because they were scared. Second, it could be there has been no occasion to release it, but then some grievance came to air, and then smack – YouTube Boomtime Charlie. It just gets my spider sense tingling.
What does it mean for the lawyers? It was certainly a momentous occasion. The law association has only marched three times, and this was their first march in 20 years. A big initial victory, yes, but it remains to be seen whether anything will be done. They joined hands at a time when lawyers were protesting in Pakistan, and monks took to the streets in Burma.
Lawyers in Malaysia have basically operated in a court with limited independence since 1988, when former prime minister Mahattir Mohamad cracked down on the judiciary. After several legal rulings against the government, Dr. M decided to remove the Chief Justice and took several other punitive actions.
Ten years later, the credibility of the judiciary fell to an all time low following the charges levelled against Anwar Ibrahim. The court case then was considered a farce by many, but still it went on.
The evidence offered was simply ridiculous, like a stained mattress. Or the fact that the offences were alleged to have taken place in a certain condominium – at a time before the condominium was built. Several charges were later overturned, but a political figure had been effectively removed from office and the judiciary lost its independence.
When Badawi came into office, he promised to return some of the independence to the judiciary, so if the allegations are proved to be true, it could be another empty electoral promise.
Or it could be a damning indication of systemic corruption in Malaysia. Who knows how this will blow up?
The strength of the protest was that it was not only lawyers, but also opposition members, NGO representatives, trade unionists and some others that joined in. Many feel there is something underneath the surface.
The other thing that is uncanny is that in some convoluted way, it was like another blow on Badawi struck by Mahattir, even as he rests on his hospital bed. The former prime minister actually made the Internet a relatively free place for comment in Malaysia, allowing a burgeoning of websites and blogs, and the promotion of several bloggers to political pundit status, such as Jeff Ooi, who has now entered to political mainstream.
Although not completely free (some bloggers are picked up by the ISA), the overall environment is liberal, its seems more flexible than Singapore. The network of the internet is essential too, with distribution channels that are so wide and fast that they cannot be checked.
The next revolution won’t be televised. But you can watch a recorded version on YouTube just hours later.
Last week in Kuala Lumpur, a group of 800-2000 lawyers--the number varies depending on which paper you read--marched in protest over judicial fixing charges leveled at the government.
How did the video come to light?
Apparently taken in 2002, the video shows a well-connected lawyer on his cellphone to a famous judge, reminding him how he got him to his current post, promising to help him get a senior appointment and mentioning some other high-level appointees and political figures.
The video was sent to former DPM Anwar Ibrahim, and several emails and a YouTube posting later, legal minds were up in arms. So it took half a decade to come out, but no one seems to be questioning that in the media – lets come back to that later.
Just how bad is it? Well, quite bad, if we are to believe Ambiga Sreenevasan, who is President of the Malaysian Bar Council. In an interview with Australian radio, she said that it “shows that the question of judicial appointment is made outside the provisions of the Constitution, that in fact there are people who are involved in the appointment who should not be involved in the appointment.”
The government’s reaction was to set up a panel to test whether the tape was “real”. Truth is, that was a needed first step, but it would have hardly satisfied all these legal minds. The lawyers wanted a Royal Commission (Malaysia has a tendency to set up Royal Commissions to investigate a plethora of matters), and nothing less, and so decided to get up and walk in protests.
And they got plenty of recognition for the matter in the world press, bringing their issue to the top of the agenda. They also presented the Prime Minister’s Office with two memorandums of demands. And the government swiftly reacted by set up a Royal Commission.
Victory in Round One for the Lawyers.
The government also asked the lawyers, and with some polite affection too, not to go ahead with the march. Kudos that the lawyers went ahead with it anyway, and well done for keeping non-violent. (Although the sight of lawyers walking in black suits hardly conjures up the same emotions as the poor protesters in Burma, the act of defiance was poignant in itself – they had the will, if not the style).
So let’s ask some questions? If the video has been around for five years, why just now, and why by Anwar Ibrahim, who obviously did not take the video?
First, it could be that someone has kept it a secret because they were scared. Second, it could be there has been no occasion to release it, but then some grievance came to air, and then smack – YouTube Boomtime Charlie. It just gets my spider sense tingling.
What does it mean for the lawyers? It was certainly a momentous occasion. The law association has only marched three times, and this was their first march in 20 years. A big initial victory, yes, but it remains to be seen whether anything will be done. They joined hands at a time when lawyers were protesting in Pakistan, and monks took to the streets in Burma.
Lawyers in Malaysia have basically operated in a court with limited independence since 1988, when former prime minister Mahattir Mohamad cracked down on the judiciary. After several legal rulings against the government, Dr. M decided to remove the Chief Justice and took several other punitive actions.
Ten years later, the credibility of the judiciary fell to an all time low following the charges levelled against Anwar Ibrahim. The court case then was considered a farce by many, but still it went on.
The evidence offered was simply ridiculous, like a stained mattress. Or the fact that the offences were alleged to have taken place in a certain condominium – at a time before the condominium was built. Several charges were later overturned, but a political figure had been effectively removed from office and the judiciary lost its independence.
When Badawi came into office, he promised to return some of the independence to the judiciary, so if the allegations are proved to be true, it could be another empty electoral promise.
Or it could be a damning indication of systemic corruption in Malaysia. Who knows how this will blow up?
The strength of the protest was that it was not only lawyers, but also opposition members, NGO representatives, trade unionists and some others that joined in. Many feel there is something underneath the surface.
The other thing that is uncanny is that in some convoluted way, it was like another blow on Badawi struck by Mahattir, even as he rests on his hospital bed. The former prime minister actually made the Internet a relatively free place for comment in Malaysia, allowing a burgeoning of websites and blogs, and the promotion of several bloggers to political pundit status, such as Jeff Ooi, who has now entered to political mainstream.
Although not completely free (some bloggers are picked up by the ISA), the overall environment is liberal, its seems more flexible than Singapore. The network of the internet is essential too, with distribution channels that are so wide and fast that they cannot be checked.
The next revolution won’t be televised. But you can watch a recorded version on YouTube just hours later.
Monday, October 01, 2007
Want to leave Singapore? Visit Dempsey Hill
Demspey Hill is an un-Singaporean oasis in Singapore. It is tucked within the verdant Demspey Road Area, amidst old British black-and-white barracks and narrow, windy lanes. A spattering of foreign grocers, restaurants and bars--like Jones the Australian Grocer, La Foketta Italian restaurant, and Angel's Share, a rather devillish bar--have taken root here.
Hooray one might say. After all, in this consumer-crazed country, it's about time we had top foreign F&B joints, to go with all those sassy retail labels. Now I can not only look good, I can eat good too.
As I drove through the carpark, I felt as though I was rolling into an American suburban mall. Everybody was parking their cars head first. The majority of vehicles were giant SUVs. The stores' exteriors look drab, homogeneous white modules plugged into a single-story complex.
Asians are the minority here. I had lunch at Jones, and in that hour, the majority of my interactions were with Whites. There was the white waitress who showed me to my counter-top table. The delightful white child who was stuffing her face, oblivious to the world around. Her sugary orgy convinced me to buy some Persian Fairy Floss--yummy, but pricey. Then the child's mother, and the white cashier, who both agreed that the little girl should be paid to eat at Jones. The only fellow Asian I really chatted with was the eager beaver assistant in Jones' big cheese room.
About a year ago, there was talk that Samy's Curry, the South Indian banana-leaf legend of Dempsey Hill, was going to move out, as more chichi restaurants moved in. Something must have sorted itself out, because Samy's is still around.
Nevertheless, it does appear that many areas of Singapore are being culturally gentrified. As more and more rich foreigners move here, the goods and services offered are changing. If, in aggregate, they have a preference for Jones the Australian Grocer, then Mr Jones will slowly, but surely, supplant Mr. Samy.
However, the picture is very nuanced. This is not some slow drift towards Western culture. There are also plenty of, say, rich Chinese, Indians and Middle Easterns streaming in. Businesses are preparing for them. What's more, many Singaporeans are also lapping up these changes, happy that the world is finally at our doorstep.
Unlike many other developed countries, Singapore does not have a middle and upper class that professes and protects and indulges in our culture...probably because one Singaporean culture does not exist. We are a polyglot, and everything here is borrowed, copied, imported, in one way or another.
There is no simple answer to the question, "What does it mean to be a Singaporean?" Pragmatism, hardwork, obedience, filial piety, political apathy, materialism, consumerism. They all fit the bill, but then again, not quite. One thing that does link all Singaporeans is our love for food.
As Singapore opens itself up to the world, and aims to join the ranks of London, New York, Tokyo as a truly global city, the question is--how many Jones the grocers will come in, and how many Samy's will survive?
In a way, it doesn't really matter. In this age of globalisation and telecommunication, perhaps Singapore's greatest strength is simply the fact that it is not bound to one dominant culture.
Perhaps in 50 years, authentic Singaporean food will be a blend of Chinese, Indian, Malay, and French. And it'll probably taste damn good.
Demspey Hill is an un-Singaporean oasis in Singapore. It is tucked within the verdant Demspey Road Area, amidst old British black-and-white barracks and narrow, windy lanes. A spattering of foreign grocers, restaurants and bars--like Jones the Australian Grocer, La Foketta Italian restaurant, and Angel's Share, a rather devillish bar--have taken root here.
Hooray one might say. After all, in this consumer-crazed country, it's about time we had top foreign F&B joints, to go with all those sassy retail labels. Now I can not only look good, I can eat good too.
As I drove through the carpark, I felt as though I was rolling into an American suburban mall. Everybody was parking their cars head first. The majority of vehicles were giant SUVs. The stores' exteriors look drab, homogeneous white modules plugged into a single-story complex.
Asians are the minority here. I had lunch at Jones, and in that hour, the majority of my interactions were with Whites. There was the white waitress who showed me to my counter-top table. The delightful white child who was stuffing her face, oblivious to the world around. Her sugary orgy convinced me to buy some Persian Fairy Floss--yummy, but pricey. Then the child's mother, and the white cashier, who both agreed that the little girl should be paid to eat at Jones. The only fellow Asian I really chatted with was the eager beaver assistant in Jones' big cheese room.
About a year ago, there was talk that Samy's Curry, the South Indian banana-leaf legend of Dempsey Hill, was going to move out, as more chichi restaurants moved in. Something must have sorted itself out, because Samy's is still around.
Nevertheless, it does appear that many areas of Singapore are being culturally gentrified. As more and more rich foreigners move here, the goods and services offered are changing. If, in aggregate, they have a preference for Jones the Australian Grocer, then Mr Jones will slowly, but surely, supplant Mr. Samy.
However, the picture is very nuanced. This is not some slow drift towards Western culture. There are also plenty of, say, rich Chinese, Indians and Middle Easterns streaming in. Businesses are preparing for them. What's more, many Singaporeans are also lapping up these changes, happy that the world is finally at our doorstep.
Unlike many other developed countries, Singapore does not have a middle and upper class that professes and protects and indulges in our culture...probably because one Singaporean culture does not exist. We are a polyglot, and everything here is borrowed, copied, imported, in one way or another.
There is no simple answer to the question, "What does it mean to be a Singaporean?" Pragmatism, hardwork, obedience, filial piety, political apathy, materialism, consumerism. They all fit the bill, but then again, not quite. One thing that does link all Singaporeans is our love for food.
As Singapore opens itself up to the world, and aims to join the ranks of London, New York, Tokyo as a truly global city, the question is--how many Jones the grocers will come in, and how many Samy's will survive?
In a way, it doesn't really matter. In this age of globalisation and telecommunication, perhaps Singapore's greatest strength is simply the fact that it is not bound to one dominant culture.
Perhaps in 50 years, authentic Singaporean food will be a blend of Chinese, Indian, Malay, and French. And it'll probably taste damn good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
