Street-Shopping vs Air-conditioned hypermalls

Catching up on lost time – jalan jalan and taking in the metamorphosis of city sights in Singapore

For every humongous, air-conditioned Ngee Ann City that we have, there is now the revamped and expanded Bugis Street in Singapore.

Touted to be “The Largest Street-Shopping Location in Singapore” by Singapore Tourism Board, the Bugis Street is a ‘made-over’ Chatuchak meet Dongdaemun, its space now spills over to three levels of open-air (ground level) and air-conditioned (level two and three) shopping area.

Selection wise, I reckon the fashion retail concept in Bugis Street is not much diff from the mix of street fashion in Far East Plaza (figure a retail venue for ‘young piple’ fashion as Mr Brown, godfather of Singapore blogosphere has coined FEP).

It’s no wonder then how tourists seem to congregate around open-air marketplace on ground level while Japanese inspired local ‘young punks’ tend to spill over to Level 2 and 3.

I took special note of the ‘legalised Graffiti’ on the colonial influenced windows overlooking the open-air marketplace.

The ambience in Bugis Street is marked by its distinct difference from the similarly colonial-influenced though vastly more organised, spacious and controlled shopping environment of Parco Bugis Junction, separated by the main thoroughfare, North Bridge Road. All in all, this is a welcoming breath of fresh air (semi-recycled on the higher levels) in an air-conditioned nation-state that seems to be flooded with increasingly standardised through architecturally differentiated hyper malls.

Oh yeah, and I do so long for a Singapore version of bohemian Fitzroy on my fave red dot.

From ‘Have you eaten?’ to ‘Jiak Ba Buay?’

It’s amazing how an everyday life situation that I’ve taken for granted throughout my formative years, now appears paradoxical perhaps owing to my short hiatus from Singapore.

I’ve noticed for instance, how my new acquaintances – amongst Chinese Singaporeans – often strike conversations with me in English rather than our mother tongue, Mandarin, especially in official settings.

Fellow Chinese Singaporeans will probably recognise similar scenarios in everyday life – we often get to converse in Mandarin with these new acquaintances only when we get to know them better (in person(s)).

And of course who can forget the controversially ‘popular’ Singlish or the de facto lingua for army boys, Hokkien. Methinks these ‘street lingo’ are often engaged when Singaporeans wish to forge a further bonding with one another.

This may be far from a universal truth but I so wonder if language use in an everyday conversation may be an index of familiarity between two Singaporeans.

That being the case, it will certainly be heartening when your fellow colleague starts greeting you with ‘Jiak Ba Buay*?’ rather than ‘Have you eaten?’

*Jiak Ba Buay? – Have you eaten? in Hokkien.

Busking – Singapore ‘Auntie and Uncle’ style

Oh yeah, this is where Auntie and Uncle take centrestage in street performance – an outdoor pathway off Bugis Junction Singapore. Busking in limelight with their daily renditions of their fave oldies.

Unfortunately, there’s ‘competition’ today … road repairs taking place next to regular buskers.

Nonetheless, this is what I will call ‘retirement in style’ :).

Trading mother nature (and human rights)

A couple of days ago, there was a rehash on BBC news of debate on carbon trade which has been rolled out in the EU nations as a promising measure to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

The para below from BBC carbon emission faq captures the gist of the carbon trading scheme:

“The key idea behind carbon trading is that, from the planet’s point of view, where carbon dioxide comes from is far less important than total amounts.

So, rather than rigidly forcing the reduction of emissions country-by-country, (or company-by-company), the market creates a choice: either spend the money to cover the costs of cutting pollution (emissions), or else continue polluting (emitting), and pay someone else to cut their pollution.

In theory this enables emissions to be cut with the minimum price tag.”

According to the World Bank, the market for carbon trading is estimated around $10 billion.

For some of the environmental organisations such as Greenpeace, carbon trading ‘condones the idea of “business as usual”‘ and works to pass on the cost of environmental protection to the end consumers.

Indeed, it is worrying to consider how such an utilitarian approach may work to justify any wrongdoing on part of individuals and organisation through capitalising basic rights of use to the world’s resources and responsibilities to our environment.

Coming back to Singapore context, this is strangely reminiscent of how the government seeks to ease the traffic congestion (and profit from the demand for four wheelers) by creating a market to trade the Certificate of Entitlement (COE) to own a car.

Methinks all these initiatives are working on the assumption that moral education (in a capitalistic society) has to be implemented through a system that commodifies human rights. At an individual level, I consider the COE system as an (in)effective tool that can be circumvented with wades of cash and hence does not stop me from eventually owing a car. The carbon trading scheme on the other hand, is an indirect imposition to my basic rights to breathe – I hope I will not live to see the day when I had to pay for and ration my every single intake of O2.

GGs and LVs the ‘must-have letters’ in town

Objective: To determine the no. of Louis Vuitton and Gucci (GG) bags dangled on the arms, wrists or shoulders of Singapore women

Time: Tuesday 15 August 2006, around 845am.

Location: Dhoby Ghaut MRT, the 500 m (?) walk from North-South line to North-East line

Total count: 5 GGs 1 LV

Time: Thursday 17 August 2006, around 6pm

Location: In transit from Aljunied to Pasir Ris MRT station

Total count: At least 6 GGs

Observation: Two years away from my favourite red dot, (read brand conscious) Singapore women seems to have graduated from the ranks of Braun Buffel and Renoma (and even LV) to pricier designer labels (read: Gucci).

Time: early August, 9ish

Location: Starbucks at Millennia Walk

Subject: Brand conscious Singaporeans

Participants: 2 ‘lower middle management’, ‘white-collar’ Singaporeans and 1 in-between (read: jobless) overseas graduate (read: kantang)

Gossip: Young Singaporeans slaving in Call Centres or just starting out their careers, earning S$2000 a month are buying Raoul shirts (S$100?/piece) and GG bags (S$800 – S$8000?/piece). ‘Lower middle management’ buying ‘counterfeit’ GG and remain stuck with Braun Buffel.

Location: Traffic Junction at Raffles City

Subject: Branded bags in Singapore

Participants: 2 ‘lower middle management’, ‘white-collar’ Singaporeans and 1 in-between (read: jobless) overseas graduate (read: kantang)

Contradiction: Project Shop Blood Brothers (psbb, read: made in Singapore ‘designer brand’) is considered expensive to a ‘lower middle management’, ‘white-collar’ Singaporean; LV handbag (parallel import from France and hence ‘cheaper’ than Singapore) is considered ‘good buy’. Price differential between psbb and LV – at least S$500?

Am getting confused with the warped logic of consumer utility in Singapore. Why, oh why, are Singaporeans paying so much to model the monograms on behalf of these designer brands?

Addendum: Just learnt from a co-worker that LV is in fact more pricey than GG – goes to show how much I understand these ‘designer labels’ ;).

What it takes to be a business iCon

Warning: Opinionated piece with hyperboles in operation. Views should be taken with a pinch of salt and not to be considered as claims of universal truths.

This is what I take from Steve Jobs unofficial (and ‘banned’!) biography:

1. Reaffirmation – you need to be a bastard – but of course, a strategically placed and minded one – to succeed in business. Oh well, make it politics as well.

2. Enlightening – Contradiction is a constant between laymen and women and their iconic peers. If the authors have it correct, the contradictions would be even more jarring in these iCons than we normal men and women. The only difference is, in these iCons, you term these ‘idiosyncracies’.

My take on point 1 and 2 – now where does this leave all business ethics we’ve learnt in school. Are these iCons entitled by virtue of their success, to be the exceptions of the rule? And what say the devout Buddhists of Steve’s interpretation of Zen and Karma? Apparently, the polysemic meaning of Zen has to be interpreted in favour of these tycoons.

3. Finally, within this elite group, there is a fine line between the cool and copycat. Apple is cool, Microsoft is copycat. Now that being the logic, it does appear, in the cut throat business world, copycat rises with far more ease and grace than the cool original. Is this why the copycat tends to supersede the cool as the iconic inspiration amongst the younger generation – especially the pragmatic Asians?

MidEast Conflict – med(west) crisis?

Jon Stewart on US media coverage of MidEast conflict. Makes us think twice about the value of news items we are consuming each day. Original text link here.

Social strata of commuters in Singapore and Melbourne

It’s amazing how commuting on the road says so much of the city dwellers – their aspirations and grievances, their social behaviour and value judgements.

I’m struck by how far the (use of) public transport system and infrastructure reflect the social strata in Singaopore and Melbourne. 

In a talk show on road bullies on Channel U last week, participants in the panel allude to the ‘size syndrome’ on the roads in Singapore – how bigger cars tend to edge out the smaller ones and how two wheelers are marginalised on the road.  

The only possible exception to this ‘norm’ is perhaps in Pasir Ris – the so-called ‘Little China’ – where the dominant presence of a cyclist population resulted in a ‘re-engineering’ of the pedestrian pavements (into two separate lanes for the pedestrians and the cyclists) to reduce any probablity of accidents.  But again, it’s interesting to note how the two wheeled bicycle is considered a road hazard rather than an environmentally friendly form of (tran)sport to be encouraged amongst the population. 

Now, I’ve been biking for more than a year in Melbourne.  And I must say the experience is vastly different than that in Singapore.  In Melbourne, there are designated lanes – not on the pedestrian pavements but on most of the main roads – for cyclists.  There is a vast difference in this respect, as to how the cyclists are considered vis-a-vis the other road users in Melbourne and Singapore.  It’s interesting to note how cyclists are perhaps considered on par with the pedestrians rather than the other motorists in Singapore.  

This difference is magnified if we consider how the two-wheelers are considered (by other road users) in Melbourne and Singapore.

In the same talk show on Channel U for instance, there were comments passed on how two-wheelers often caused road hazards in Singapore when they chose to ride along the far left or right rather than centre of the lanes.  If we take into consideration the difference in the infrastructure between Singapore and Melbourne, ain’t it clear how this issue would have been resolved if there’s room catered for the two-wheelers on the road? 

Why then is there a lack of consideration for the two-wheelers on the road, be it among the authorities or the civil society?  Perhaps a worthwhile comment in the same talk show will shed some light on the plight of the two-wheelers.  Indeed, in a society where people are judged by their external trappings – in this case, their car they drive – is it any wonder how larger car owners tend to behave as what one of the participant mentioned, as if they ‘own’ the road?

And therein lies a fundamental difference between Melbourne and Singapore.  If Melbourne is considered to be a city that sympathizes with the underdogs, Singapore is a city(-state) that celebrates high fliers.  

On the same note, some may argue the syndrome in Singapore is far from unique.  I’ve certainly heard of similar encounters in Sydney.  So, I wonder how the drive for economic progress or material wants may indeed come at the expense of a revaulation of humanity.