Letter to TODAY: Road to a solution?

Wrote another letter to TODAY's editor. Letter was published on 14 May 2009.


I refer to “7 in 10 killed on roads were jaywalkers” (May 13). I find this baffling.

In less developed countries with relatively few pedestrian crossings and overhead bridges, the act of crossing a road is routinely performed by tens of thousands of people, including school children, with relatively few untoward incidents.

To them, it is a matter of common sense to look left, right and left again, and to cross only when the way is clear.

It would be helpful if the authorities provide details as to who the people getting killed on Singapore’s roads are, and the circumstances surrounding the accidents.

Were they children who were not properly trained in road safety?

Were they young people distracted by conversation with their friends or plugged into their music players, rendering them oblivious to their surroundings?

Were they impatient office workers trying to beat the lights at signalled crossings in order to catch a train?

Were they elderly folk with failing eyesight and hearing?

Or perhaps they were those who failed to come to terms with the fact that they were no longer as agile as they used to be, and dodging traffic was not as easy as when they were younger.

We require a more sophisticated analysis to the problem to find an appropriate solution.

Imposing a fine or a blanket ban on jaywalking is an easy way out, but is unhelpful if the problem is to be solved meaningfully and effectively.

View original here

Classical Music—huh?

Had an interesting chat with my student the other day. He found it difficult to appreciate classical music. I pointed out that actually we all naturally respond to classical music intuitively, even if we don't realise it.

"Huh?"

Just observe yourself the next time you watch a movie like Harry Potter, or Lord of the Rings, or Star Wars. In fact, any movie which uses an orchestra for the soundtrack. Then try watching it with the sound switched off. You will get what I mean.

Movie soundtracks are written in pretty much the same medium, or language, as any standard classical music. The only difference is, for a soundtrack, the emotional context is provided for you visually in the movie. The music reinforces the thoughts and emotions going through your mind and heart as you watch the movie. When the cognition and affection match the music, magic happens.

Appreciation of classical music requires the same process, except for a catch: you have to provide your own cognitive and emotional context. In short, your own "movie". This is where an active participation is demanded of the listener. The listener must assimilate the music which is being played, and then match it to the experiences and the emotional bank of a person. When a match occurs, the listener is 'moved'. When the two 'click' together, it becomes beautiful

The problem is most people cannot perform this matching, which is why classical music is foreign and inaccessible to them. Appreciation of classical music demands quite a bit from the listener as he has to first, "learn up" the music, and then find and match it to his prior knowledge, or schemata. Of course, a regular listener would already have a shortcut to this schemata and can quickly match music with schemata.

And this also accounts for why some people are so quickly turned off by music which does not "appeal" to them. Essentially, what is happening is the new music does not match the existing schemata and will be rejected, unless the listener is willing to reconstruct a new link surrounding the new music. This is the process of what we frequently refer to as "acquiring the taste" for something new.

Social Norm or Market Norm?

I used a recent "letter to the editor" in a lesson last week as I believe in using authentic materials. I thought it a was pretty straightforward issue and did not expect much controversy. However, my eyes were opened when my student skilfully argued against the writer's position, which was initially mine.

The writer had written to complain about a group of students from a well known school who had gone into a MacDonald's restaurant, made a mess, and left without cleaning up after themselves. It appeared obvious to me, initially, that this was bad form, unacceptable and inconsiderate behaviour. But when I showed it to my Korean student from Australia International School, he said he disagreed with the writer because he felt that there are people paid to do the job. He also argued that the bins are not conveniently located and not meant for patrons. He continued to argue that it was unreasonable to expect patrons of MacD to clear up when they are already paying a premium which had factored in the cost of workers clearing up. Underpinning his line of argument was: Would helping them save cost on hiring cleaners bring down the cost of eating in MacD? Or will it only push up their profit margin? In contrast, hawker centres, which charge a lot less, have full time cleaners to clear tables, and no one is expected to clear up after themselves after their meals.

When I showed the same article to another of my students, an English boy from Tanglin Trust, I got a very different answer. He said that he was taught to always clean up after eating. Back in the UK, he added, MacDonalds do not have cleaners to clear up. He felt it was the 'morally correct' thing to do and we should be considerate and think of the people using the facilities after us. And while it is true there are people paid to clean up after us, out of respect for the working class, we should help them along a little by chucking the trash into the bin, so that they only have to wipe the tables.

I finally showed the same article to a third student, a girl from China but grew up in Singapore and now studying in Raffles Girls School. She too said she was taught the 'proper' behaviour was to clear up after yourself, and it was what they had to do in both RGS and her previous neighbourhood school. She emphasised that this is not a view shared by people back in China though, where they will just leave their trash on the table after eating.

I found it fascinating that Dan Ariely's principle of the Social vs Market Norm is actually in play here without me realising it. Those who argued that the students who did not clear up were perfectly in the right actually saw the issue from the market norm point of view. Clearing up or not, is an economic transaction. I am the patron and I paid for services. I am here to enjoy myself, not do cleaning up work for the restaurant and help them make more money (especially since they are already making so much off us as it is).

However, those who argued for people to be considerate, actually see the issue from a social point of view. They viewed the cause and effect to the social balance, where people should show consideration for other patrons in the restaurant, to be considerate to the workers so that they are not unnecessarily burdened with more work, etc.

Which viewpoint is valid? This appears to be the crucial question that we must answer. This is even more crucial for Singapore, since we started off from the Social Norms during Independence, and subsequently turned into a 'materialistic' market driven society. The call for a Civil Society seems to be an attempt to revert back to the social norm. However, if Dan Ariely's conclusions are correct, a situation that has progressed from social norms to market norms cannot easily go back to a social norm.


As Shakespeare, in Macbeth [iii. ii. 12] put it: "Things without all remedy Should be without regard. What's done is done. Ibid. v. i. 65 What's done cannot be undone."

Oops!

Talk Money, Lo$e Relation$hip

I have my buddy, Alwyn, to thank for introducing Dan Ariely's excellent "Predictably Irrational." This must surely be the best read I've had in a long time. I particularly like his experiments which empirically confirms what many of us may have already known since we-don't-know-when.

The experiment which I particularly liked is the one making a distinction between what is Social Norm Driven and Market Norm Driven situation. To us Chinese this is certainly not something new, as most of us have been taught from young that if we Talk Money, we lose Relationships (Kong Chin Sat Kum Cheng!) The Chinese, at least, have long since recognised that in certain situations it is not good to mix money with relationships. And this coming from the only group of people I know with an official God of Money in their religion. Not bad!

The problem arises when we try to make the transition from one norm to the other. I experienced this when I was serving in church. All that a pastor does is lauded as saintly for the self sacrifices he made for practically nothing. The moment he asks for a little bit more, he would be met with greater consternation than Dicken's Oliver Twist when he asked for a second helping. I would not be surprised that if any study is done it would show that the problems faced by many churches with their pastors, at least in Malaysia, occur when they try to navigate that tricky area between the social and market norm.

Conversely, my personal observation here in Singapore is that the situation has swung to the opposite end, and many modern churches are now driven by market norms rather than social norms. Pastors are professionals and demand that appointments are made before you can see them. Visitations are scheduled rigidly, and you would be very lucky, or a VIP (Very Important Parishioner), if the pastor is there with your family if a family member is dying. (He will turn up to conduct the funeral because that can be scheduled, but don't expect him to jump out of his bed to come to the hospital. However, he can recommend a good funeral director to come over.)

The Senior Pastor is the CEO and his tenure with the church is contractual rather than relational, unlike in the past, where the relationship between a church and its pastor had been described by some as "almost like a marriage" [citation needed, as I'd chucked away the books that I read which dealt with this issue.] I guess marriages that comes with pre-nuptials are not very different.

I find a similar phenomenon in what is commonly dubbed "Chinamen's Companies" where employees who show undying loyalty to their bosses, are often the most valued, and yet paid pittance. And sometimes this can happen despite the the employee being thoroughly incompetent. It becomes very Christian because some how "love covers all things." This is the Social Norm in operation. In contrast, an efficient worker who works the hours are deemed a threat because it goes against the social contract that has been laid out.

Get creative, not suggestive?

Here's another of my letters to TODAY newspaper, edited and sanitised.

11:58 AM March 19, 2009
Letter from Chen Khin Wee

I’D LIKE to think I am an open-minded man with a healthy sense of humour for the occasional risque joke. But being bombarded by “pornographic” suggestions while I was sitting on the MRT was less than appetising.

I can stomach one or two risque allusions but not five, as featured in a suggestive advertising campaign by a hamburger restaurant: “Some like it long, but most like it thick”; “Be careful where you shove this thing”; “Get $2 off on a thick oral”; “You may be sitting on something thick”; and “It’s gonna get messy”.

The language seems to have been lifted straight from an erotic novel. At best it is in poor taste, at worse it is plain obscene. How can the authorities let these so-called family-oriented businesses get away with it?

Can the creative minds behind the advertising campaign come up with nothing better? Do they have to resort to such vulgarity to sell?

One Comment from a reader said:
"Rude and outrageous. They think they are being smart.Even on national radio it happens."

http://voices.todayonline.com/letter/EDC090319-0000001/get_creative_not_suggestive.html#Letter

Jaywalking kills! Really?

Banners have been put up around NTU's campus proclaiming that "Jaywalking kills!" My first thought is, "yeah, so do eating too much meat, skydiving, serving national service, cleaning your windows..."
Coming from a land where if you don't jaywalk, you don't go anywhere, it made me think about the irony of this banner in our institution of higher learning.

On campus most of the roads are simple two-way roads with many speed bumps along them. Cars are few and far between and buses and the occasional delivery truck move along them at snail pace. If the university see fit to remind our university student that jaywalking kills, and with the implied message that they should walk an extra 50m - 100m just go cross a zebra crossing when a quick dash across a 10 foot wide road would do nicely - I think there is something seriously wrong with the cognitive ability of our undergrads.

What has happened to the simple skill of looking left and right and left again before crossing which even primary school children possess in less developed countries? Have they lost this ability and are therefore incompetent to perform a simple task of crossing a road safely? How different is the skill demanded of a driver to spot a pedestrian on a zebra crossing and to slow down from the skill required to spot a pedestrian about to cross a road. Likewise, is it rocket science for a pedestrian to check if there are oncoming cars before crossing a road?

The implied message of the banner to pedestrians seems to be "you are not clever enough to look left-right-left before crossing a road safely. Don't do it. Jaywalking kills!" Alternatively, it is saying "Drivers are dumb. They only know how to slow down when they see a flashing yellow globe and black-white stripes. They won't know how to slow down if they see a human on the road." Presumably they will panic, step on the gas and run him over.

Nah...I don't think jaywalking kills. I think it is stupidity that is the culprit. If someone is stupid enough to cross a road with scant regard for the traffic situation and literally walk onto the path of an oncoming vehicle, we should consider it natural selection.

PS Have a look at this

The reply from Press Secretary to Minister for Transport

WHO BEARS THE COST OF CONCESSIONARY FARES?
11:56 AM February 20, 2009
Letter from Soffy Hariyanti Abdul Rahim
Press Secretary to Minister for Transport

WE REFER to the letter by Mr Chen Khin Wee, “There’s an equal need” (Feb 18), on the need for equal concessions for polytechnic and junior college (JC) students.

We would like to clarify the context of Transport Minister Raymond Lim’s remark in Parliament that “some polytechnic students are better off than others”.

It was in response to suggestions that the Government fund concessions.

The minister had sought to clarify that the general approach of the Government has been to provide targeted assistance to those who need the most help, as had been done for GST credits and CCC ComCare Fund.

This approach ensures that those who are really in need of assistance will receive it and also makes the best use of public funds.

However, what Mr Chen, and many others who have written about this issue, is referring to, is the decision by the public transport operators on which groups of commuters to give concessionary travel to and how much more to provide.

If the operators wish to provide more concessions to a large and diverse group such as polytechnic students, they would have to carefully consider the cost implications as inevitably, this means that some other commuter groups will have to cross-subsidise this concessionary travel.

We thank Mr Chen for the opportunity to clarify.

In addition the Press Secretary's reply attracted two comments which I reproduce here:



Kaibin
Yes I agree we should be to the reasons why students from the same age group needs to be classified in such a manner. I guess the main reason we need to know what is the difference between Poly students and JC students? That got US poly students to be pay more than our JC counterparts ?

Huzie Jane
I believe the above do not answer the queries set by the writer, Mr Chen Khin Wee. Maybe the MOT need to be more transparent why there would be a cross-subsidise.

OK, enough excitement for now. Not my nature to stir up the hornet nest like this.