musings – Page 12

Rethinking Richard III

Sun, 16 Sep 2012

5 min read

If you haven’t already heard the news, it seems that a set of human remains found in what is now a car park could’ve belonged to King Richard III.

In the wake of this news comes an article that discusses the portrayal of King Richard III.

So I thought I’d share my – possibly inaccurate – two cents on the matter.

I’ve always thought King Richard III was a very relevant text for Singapore and Singaporean audiences.

As a big fan of Singapore (I love Singapore!) and Singaporean history in all its forms, reading the text brings to mind visions of:

Lim Chin Siong and Barisan Sosialis; and
Operation Coldstore and the Internal Security Act.

Nevertheless, as someone who is also very much aware of how media, language and representation can be used to manipulate the minds of the many, I don’t doubt that Richard III could’ve been misrepresented.

To break it down simply (and again, I stress that this might be an oversimplification of the matter):

Theatre in Shakespeare’s time was a form of media/entertainment then;
Shakespeare wrote during the reign of Elizabeth I who was from the House of Tudor;
The House of Tudor was founded by Henry VII; and
Henry VII was the same dude who defeated Richard III at The Battle of Bosworth Field and wrested the reign of the throne from him.

In light of this, let’s consider these three truisms:

Any politician worth her/his salt will go out of her/his way to remove any possible threat to her/his throne/seat.

It’s a measure as old as Jesus (perhaps even older) and has been used in contemporary Singapore’s history as well (c.f. what I mentioned earlier about Lim Chin Siong and the Internal Security Act).

History can be whitewashed/history is written by the victors.

‘Nuff said. Alternatively, a lie repeated often enough will become the truth.

Any artist concerned about bringing home the bacon will not want to offend her/his patrons/governing institutions lest her/his funding dries up.

Very contemporary case in point: Square Moon (“I saw you standing alone…”)

So it could’ve been possible – again, I don’t proclaim to speak the truth; I’m just pointing out possibilities – that:

Shakespeare purposefully portrayed Richard III in the manner he did because he had no choice/he was forced to do so; and
King Richard III wasn’t just for entertainment; it could’ve been used as a tool for public propaganda to shape the views and opinions of the masses in order to provide moral and political legitimacy to the existence of the Tudor dynasty.

Which brings us to our present-day beliefs and also provides us with a very nice reflection on the state of politics in Singapore.

“But Laremy,” you might (or might not, depending on whether I’ve managed to keep your attention up to this point) ask. “Is there any evidence in the text that could possibly support this view?”

“Possibly,” I will reply, and possibly, dinosaur bite you concurrently (or consecutively, depending on how well I can multi-task).

I’ve always thought of the character of The Scrivener as a metatheatrical device which represents Shakespeare’s voice in the matter.

First, the Scrivener’s speech is actually a sonnet, in that it has 14 lines.

Although it doesn’t follow the rhyme scheme of the sonnets that Shakespeare used to write, form in literature – more often than not – always has a function.

So the use of the sonnet is meant to reflect the status of The Scrivener as a learned man; a man of letters – much like Shakespeare.

Second, the speech is right smack in the middle of the play – and it’s a 14-line scene on its own.

Why was it so important as a scene that it had to be left on its own? Why couldn’t it have been excised?

Shakespeare already had enough material in the play to show the purported misdeeds of Richard, along with the purported views of the citizens.

Why does this scene even have to exist?

Last but not least, if I may take the liberty of paraphrasing The Scrivener’s speech slightly, look at what we have (mentions of time shouldn’t be interpreted literally):

This is the indictment of the good [King Richard III];
Which in a set hand fairly is engross’d,
That it may be this day read over…
And mark how well the sequel hangs together:
Eleven hours I spent to write it over,
For yesternight…was it brought me;
The precedent was full as long a-doing:
And yet within these five hours lived [King Richard III],
Untainted, unexamined, free, at liberty
Here’s a good world the while! Why who’s so gross,
That seeth not this palpable device?
Yet who’s so blind, but says he sees it not?
Bad is the world; and all will come to nought,
When such bad dealings must be seen in thought.

Convinced? Or am I also using media and language to manipulate your mind?

Artsy Stuff

Tragedy, comedy and societal ethics – How I Met Your Mother (S01E19)

Tue, 8 May 2012

1 min read

Add Comment

Season 1, Episode 19 of How I Met Your Mother (HIMYM) is great for teaching (or learning) the concepts of:

Tragedy and comedy (and the relationship between the two); and
Societal ethics, especially with regard to recent news that has been making headlines in Singapore.

I’d like to do an extended post on this that explains how and why the above-mentioned concepts can be taught/learnt.

Unfortunately, I don’t have the time and I don’t think I’ll ever get back to doing this.

Nevertheless, I’m placing this post as a marker of my own thoughts and also if anyone else might be interested in this.

Thoughts from Indonesia: employment and productivity.

Sat, 14 Apr 2012

5 min read

1 Comment

I went to Jakarta in March for a short break.

While waiting for my sister to finish her shopping, I jotted down some notes on my phone using Evernote.

It would’ve remained in Evernote were it not for this article which echoed what I wrote.

This is an expanded version of my thoughts.

***

Why are there more salespeople/sellers than shoppers?

For every one shopper around, there are five salespeople standing around not doing anything.

And this isn’t an isolated incident – I’ve seen it happening in almost every shopping mall I’ve gone to (and I’ve gone to quite a number, no thanks to sister dearest).

It’s the same for the roadside hawkers, the bazaar stall-holders and the security guards, to name a few professions that have a multitude of workers.

I’m no economist, so my analysis may have some flaws.

But I think there are a number of factors for the scenario I’ve outlined above, namely: the Indonesian population size, employment rates, the lack of a minimum wage and a lack of training.

For one, there are so many people in Indonesia (imagine MRT crowds during rush hour – but for the whole day) that they’re employed to do the most menial of labour.

For example, the security guards at the apartment of my sister’s friend (whom we stayed with) doubled up as gate-openers and barrier-lifters.

And the bus conductors (on the one harrowing bus ride we took) doubled up as safety- and security-ensurers, door-openers and stop-announcers.

But aren’t these jobs that can be done easily with technology and maybe one person, at most, to operate the technology?

Now I’m not exactly advocating that human beings be replaced by machines, but if you think about it logically, a shift toward technological replacements is one of the solutions to a decreasing population.

But back to my point: why are the Indonesians not making use of technology to do this work so that their people can be more productive and/or utilised more effectively?

Perhaps it’s political – that is, to make sure that everyone is employed, or unemployment rates are low, people are employed en masse to do these jobs.

The corollary of this: three to five people are paid on one person’s wage. This depresses wages and reduces their collective standard of living.

And if this practice of frivolous employment is allowed to go on unchecked, there is little incentive for companies to invest in technology to increase productivity.

***

At the same time, there are so many people concentrated in just a few occupations – the roadside hawkers are the most obvious, because they are EVERYWHERE.

You might argue: hey, demand and supply, man. The market will decide whether or not these phatties stay in business.

Ok sure. But if the roadside hawker goes out of business, what other options does he have? Be a bus conductor, a security guard or sell clothes at bazaars?

Which means that if the Indonesian government doesn’t do these three things:

Institute a minimum wage so that employers are forced to employ lesser people and utilise more productive methods instead,
Invest in technology to increase productivity, and
Conduct proper training so that workers can be employed in a multitude of jobs,

the poor Indonesians are never going to escape from this vicious cycle of low wages and a low quality of life.

***

Sadly, this issue of employment, low wages and productivity is happening in Singapore too.

It’s most obvious in the construction and services industry in Singapore; Alex Au has written a post about this before.

What’s worse is that people are actually brought in from overseas to work as construction labourers and service staff.

“But Singaporeans don’t want to do these jobs!” – that’s the oft-quoted argument that Singaporeans themselves have unwittingly bought into because it’s been repeated so many times.

If you’re one of these Singaporeans, let me tell you a story.

Back in university, when we’d spend our time sleeping all day and staying up all night, one of the truth or dare games we’d play while drinking was “How much would you have to be paid to do x?”

Where x, of course, is something that the people at the table would be most disinclined to do.

One of the most hotly-discussed Xs was “butt sex with a guy”; all the guys at the table then were/are heterosexual, so our preferences have never been to have butt sex with men (but we have no prejudice against anyone who is open to this idea).

As the question went around the table, and the answers ran the gamut from $1000 to “You pay me how much also I will never do it!”, one of the guys weighed in with his expert opinion on the subject.

“$100,” he intoned in a low voice.

There was a brief silence before we all broke out into laughter.

“Very low lei!” someone else said. “Are you sure you’d be doing this unwillingly or not?”

My point of the story is this: anyone can be bought for a price.

If you pay someone enough to do something – where “enough” is enough from her or his perspective – she or he will do it.

So the amount you pay to someone to get her or him to work for you will translate into the numbers of and the quality of people you get.

But isn’t that what we’ve known all along, especially in the case of political salaries in Singapore?

Tag - musings