Yourself? : hello~

Thursday, November 24, 2005

A Christmas Carol

Just went for this amazing ACJC Drama performance that set me thinking. Wrote a really long blogger post, but blogger ate it up in my hurry to post more photos.

My point is, in very summarized form, was that I felt a little disturbed that Scrooge was "persecuted", for his financial prudence, and reflecting the emotions of that time. A Christmas Carol was written in a time of abject poverty, where there were too many mouths to feed. Scrooge, being a money lender, could not jeopardize his own livelihood, unlike Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird. As we see from Cinderella Man, most of the "relatively prosperous" in that time, had their own troubles, and only kept up appearances. Are we then prosecuting Scrooge because he "refused to have fun" during a difficult time? Or because he didn't give alms to the poor? Remember, this was a man that did not even give money to himself. Is being rich a crime? If one does not flaunt it around, does it matter how many zeroes he has in his bank book?

Scrooge is a moneylender, that's why to him, time = money. Time is in his "interest". When times are hard, is it inappropriate to suggest to his workers to work harder for their families? Perhaps it's better to just get a raise from your boss without working any harder. Is he exploiting his workers? Yes! Because he is exploiting the market forces of that time, which provides him with cheap labour. But isn't that how China is making themselves richer? By use of cheap labour? Isn't that how Singaporeans are managing to make themselves richer, by having dual income families, and hiring a maid, and paying them a low wage? How far have we come from the time of Scrooge? How has he sinned by being a shrewd business man, and how is he different from us?

The play draws a contrast between Scrooge and Bob Cric-something. The one with a sick son. Who is the better person here? The man that provides employment for Bob to feed his son, or Bob, who squanders his pay on a Christmas Dinner, when his son is Tiny, and dying of malnutrition. Does deluding the whole family, and squandering precious resources the "spirit" of Christmas? Is Christmas a meal ticket, where the rich should give money and presents to the poor, so they can squander it on a great meal, while the company collapses and becomes unable to provide them with any job at all.

Singapore is the "Scrooge" in the region. We live amongst developing and third-world countries. Do you see us giving them the fruits of our labour? How about giving half of our savings to the failed democracies, or welfare states around us? How long do you think the money will last? Subsidizing fuel prices so farmers can run their antiquated tractors, padding the pockets of ministers' sons in charge of the distribution of that wealth. It is like that beautiful ending. Scrooge giving money to the people around him, especially, the alms collectors from the Church. Joining the madness, so that in the end, we can all share in the same delusion.

Let us all be generous and spend freely, like the United States is doing, and leave the debts and the problems to Tiny Tim, our children and the future. After all, another fool like Scrooge will come along someday..

2 Comments:

At 12:56 am, Geraldine said...: Sorry Kenneth. But your post made me more disturbed than the musical.

Scrooge, being a money lender, could not jeopardize his own livelihood

Uh… he would not have jeopardized his own livelihood by paying his workers the wages they deserve instead of minimal wages. By the laws of demand and supply, there would have been enough profit to ensure his workers get what they deserve. Also, Scrooge lived alone with nobody else to support but himself, how much money does one man need?

Are we then prosecuting Scrooge because he "refused to have fun" during a difficult time? Or because he didn't give alms to the poor?

Hello? But WHERE did they prosecute him?! His nephew INVITED him to dinner many many times and everyone was willing to make a friend of him in the end.

Remember, this was a man that did not even give money to himself. Is being rich a crime? If one does not flaunt it around, does it matter how many zeroes he has in his bank book?

Being rich isn’t a crime. It doesn’t matter how many zeroes he has in his bank book, but I think it mattered TO HIM, deep down inside, that’s why he was troubled by the ghosts. The ghosts aren’t literally just ghosts, it’s parts of him that reminded him what life was about… it’s what we call a conscience dear.

is it inappropriate to suggest to his workers to work harder for their families?

No it isn’t inappropriate…but it’s inappropriate when he doesn’t pay them enough.

But isn't that how China is making themselves richer? By use of cheap labour?

Yup it is! But that doesn’t mean it’s necessarily right! How cheap can you go? There has to be a limit. If cost of living is low, then by all means, pay them tuppence and they’ll still survive! But if costs of living are rising, then wages should rise too.

How has he sinned by being a shrewd business man, and how is he different from us?

Dickens didn’t write this story to say that being a shrewd business man is sinful, it’s the oppression of the rich over the poor just to make themselves richer that is sinful. Scrooge didn’t stop being a business man at the end of the day, he just grew to be a kinder one. It’s not being shrewd that is the sin, but the harm that one causes to others in order to advance oneself that is sinful… Once Scrooge learnt how to share, he wasn’t that sinful anymore!

Who is the better person here? The man that provides employment for Bob to feed his son, or Bob, who squanders his pay on a Christmas Dinner, when his son is Tiny, and dying of malnutrition.

Scrooge was good to provide employment, but that doesn’t mean Bob was bad for giving his family a Christmas Dinner! He didn’t squander his pay, he didn’t have enough to give them a proper dinner, they shared bite sized pieces of pudding remember?! And if your son is dying of malnutrition, wouldn’t it have been the good thing to do to feed him with as much as possible??? So by your logic, he SHOULD have squandered his pay to feed his son on Christmas day!

Does deluding the whole family, and squandering precious resources the "spirit" of Christmas?

People need to have hope in their lives… some people need a little bit of delusion in order to survive in a cruel world. For just one day in a year. Maybe you don’t need it, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong for others who do.

Is Christmas a meal ticket, where the rich should give money and presents to the poor, so they can squander it on a great meal, while the company collapses and becomes unable to provide them with any job at all.

The company isn’t going to COLLAPSE just because Scrooge bought ONE GIANT TURKEY! Christmas is a time and season to remind people to share the blessings they have with others… Christ-mas  the day when Christ was born  the day the saviour was born  the day when God shared with us his son  shouldn’t we too share our joy and blessings?
Because Scrooge was rich, his blessings was his monetary wealth, so he could share by buying meals for others. His nephew was poor, but he could share by providing Scrooge with the warmth of a family and the love he never received. So no, Christmas isn’t just a meal ticket! It’s a matter of what do you have to share with others.

Singapore is the "Scrooge" in the region. We live amongst developing and third-world countries. Do you see us giving them the fruits of our labour? How about giving half of our savings to the failed democracies, or welfare states around us?

Would you call Malaysia a third-world country?... not really. Would you want to imply that the reasons why our neighbours are poor is not because Singapore is a scrooge, but perhaps because there are scrooges running the government in other countries? Look at our population and resources, look at their population and resources! Who is the “wealthier”? Probably them, if they start sowing and harvesting and the harvest starts going to those who actually toiled. Singapore does try to help in little ways, like how we send helicopters of NS men to help certain nations when some natural disaster strikes… as for giving half or savings to the failed democracies…:P who knows where the money in the secret reserves go to? Just because we don’t hear about it, doesn’t mean that people don’t give…

Let us all be generous and spend freely, like the United States is doing, and leave the debts and the problems to Tiny Tim, our children and the future.

Is this meant to be sarcastic? Well, at least if I spend it’ll contribute to GDP which will in turn prevent recessions… which will mean more jobs, which will mean Tiny Tim wouldn’t have that much problems in the future for he’ll be able to find a job…

And last but not least...I think
Dickens meant this story to be for children...as a moral fable. Thus the simplicity of it all... He wanted to reflect the public issues such as how the new and rising middle-classes/new upper-class were exploiting their workers too much...yes...but more importantly I think he meant this as a moral fable, to teach children that the true spirit of Christmas was not in the having but the giving.
At 1:03 am, Geraldine said...: Oh yes...and by the way,
I LOVE the photos you took of the stage... snowflakes upon blue look heavenly =) You're a wonderful photographer...you never fail to see physical beauty.

Yourself?

wishing you happiness

Other sites

Thursday, November 24, 2005

A Christmas Carol

2 Comments: