I can't help but notice that the Uncle selling Kueh Tu Tu is the same man who has been selling the traditional kueh since i was probably still in my primary school days a decade ago. Surprisingly, given what i can recall of him when i was still a kid, he seems not to have aged very much, unlike most other hawkers who have been pedalling their trade for many years. He could be in his early fifties, though years of standing for long periods of time each day have not made him any less weary or shrunken. Instead, he exhibits a certain kind of resilience and sturdiness - qualities necessary for a job that requires one to stand for long hours and ceaselessly make hot piping kueh out of very basic tools and ingredients. (For the record, kueh tu tu - either a peranakan or indonesian delight, i ain't sure - is a simple kueh made of flour containing either coconut paste or peanuts as its filling. It is steamed and served on a small pandan leaf.)
It is all the more impressive that he alone has been making the kueh all these years. Though of course i don't sit down at the hawker centre and observe him for hours, i wonder if he ever has time for a break when he starts making and selling the kueh from late afternoon to night each day. The small ones are sold at 3 for a dollar and i must say they are very delicious. While you don't see a queue snaking from the front of the store, there are always people buying from him. Usually, people would wait at the empty tables or stand around the stall.
I found myself doing just that yesterday, having decided that the plate of bland nasi goreng i had for my late lunch was inadequate and unsatisfying. Quite ashamed of myself, i have to confess that i have not patronised his stall for as long as i can remember. It has always been my parents or someone else who buy the kueh; all i have to do is to stretch my hands and grab it. Anyhow, i waited quietly around as i tried to figure the system of making orders. Although there is no formal way of queuing and placing your orders, customers are hardly bothered by that. This is probably because such unspoken rules are recognised and acknowledged, and people generally wait for their turn to order. Besides, no one can begrudge the Uncle who alone takes orders, collects money and at the same time makes the kueh and steams them. If there's any complaint, it is ultimately assauged by the appreciation shown this polite and stoic hawker. At any rate, people who buy from him are probably long-time customers who understand too well how the system works.
Like other people who were standing around waiting for their food, i did what most other people appeared to be doing: observe and appreciate how the Uncle manages to run everything by himself. As with other veteran masters of their trades, this Uncle is no different in that his consummate skills and years of experience show in the way he manages every detail of his business. To make the kueh, he would fill a metallic cup with plenty of flour, followed by either peanut or coconut paste as the inner filling before covering it up with more flour. The metallic cup is able to hold just three small kueh. This would then be placed on the steam machine (next to the table which he does all the preparation) to replace another one in which the kueh would by now be cooked. At any one time, the steam machine - designed especially for making kueh tu tu - can hold only two metallic cups - the equivalent of 6 small kueh. And while the kueh are being steamed, the Uncle is either preparing for a new batch of kueh ready to replace them, or he would be packing the cooked ones for the customers and collecting money from them. He also arranges the kueh according to their filling - though it amazes me how he remembers which is which, since the final product all look the same, not to mention that there are surely many things in his mind as he carries out all the said tasks over and again.
-----------------------------------------------
A secondary school teacher once told me that she prefers to eat at hawker centres over food courts and restaruants because she feels that the former offers you food that is more genuine. I have always liked eating at hawker centres, however dingy or uncomfortable some may be, because they offer a gamut of delectable local delights and don't burn a big hole in your pocket. Restaurants are fine only if i can afford the costly meals.
But hawker centres offer much more than just great and cheap food: they give you a slice of local life, of what it means to be earning a humble and, many a time, hard living in a city that is increasingly recognised more for its cosmopolitan and global aspirations. This is the impression and genuine feelings evoked whenever i visit a hawker centre, and they are totally different from the experience i get when eating in restaurants. In addition to the doubtlessly necessary fault-finding with the often terrible and dismal service at many restaurants here in Singapore, eating at restaurants and upmarket eating places, while being able to enjoy a cozy setting, has a somewhat more artificial and detached facet that accompanies the experience.
I recognise the unfairness in my assessment because, indeed, eating at hawker centres and restaurants are supposed to offer vastly different experiences. Food courts offer patrons the comfort of eating in an air-conditioned and generally clean environment, while people who dine at restaurants are willing to part with more money in exchange for good service (which is not always present), famous cuisine - offered only at such places - as well as ambience and other aesthetic qualities and practical concerns (social gatherings, for instance, would be better conducted in restaurants rather than hawker centres).
Yet it is precisely for the above reasons that all but render eating at restaurants and food courts a comparatively less genuine and heartfelt experience. The authentic cuisines and occasional impeccably polite waiter or waitress aside, a food court or restaurant experience simply fails to provide the rich, vibrant and interactive conditions that their humble brethren affords. It is a structural fault, so to speak, because such is the difference between eating at local food centres, tucked away in the midst of the Singapore heartlands, and fine restaurants and ubiquitous food courts.
Eating at the stuffier hawker centre whose air is saturated with smoke and a potent concoction of smells emanating from char kuay teow and fried western food to grilled sambal fish, among others, there are infinitely more sights and sounds and smells that enrich your experience. If you enjoyed the food but regret that your clothes now reek of oil and fried smell, remember the hawkers who stand for hours on end preparing those food. And remember that the food costs much less than what you would expect at other places. Take also a closer look at the hawkers, such as the Kueh Tu Tu Uncle, and appreciate that what you are seeing might well be a dying trade. While some hawkers are rude and some put on an invariably forlorn look, there are also others who are enthusiastically friendly and loquacious, chatting you up and sharing stories more than you are interested to hear from them. The sugarcane drink Auntie spots you from faraway and yells in her clear prominent voice to direct you to empty seats, faster than you could reject her well-rehearsed lines that are repeated tirelessly hundreds of times everyday. Then there are so many of them vying for your attention that you find them loathsome; but what more can one expect from these people who depend on selling as many cups of sugar canes as they can to pay rents and earn a living? You also witness ugly and kind Singaporeans alike in action, from those who jump queues or litter, to those who make space to share the table with you and those who despite not needing another packet of tissue yet are still willing to buy from the old lady who leads a blind man and sells tissue paper from table to table.
Above and over all that, while not many would regard such experiences appealing or relevant to the subject of eating a meal, these occurrences, sightings and experiences at hawker centres are as genuine as the food you get at these places. Food courts and restaurants precisely seek to reduce discomfort and efface many of the unpleasant conditions (like unbearable heat, dirtiness, noise etc) accompanying eating at hawker centres. And in so doing they remove the natural chaos and abundant opportunities for one to appreciate and immerse in a more authentic local setting - because in place of all the conditions present at hawker centres, what one gets while eating in a restaurant or food court is a sense of a somewhat manufactured social setting and interactions that are marred by a certain degree of pretense and enforced social order that lacks human empathy.
The Kueh Tu Tu Uncle could well be putting on a disguise when he dons his apron and churns out delicious kueh after kueh. But i find it hard not to be moved by his dilligence and dedication in a very humble business that, by most measures, makes very modest earnings. And it is perhaps this certain empathy evoked that has me find resonance with the less glamourous aspects in life.
Sunday, July 31, 2005
Thursday, July 28, 2005
NKF saga - Participatory Citizenship?
While the international headlines have been dominated yet again by terrorism due to the repeated London bombings, locally, it is the NKF saga that has gripped Singaporeans' attention. There is not a day since then-CEO of NKF T.T.Durai made some startling relevations in court that the Straits Times (ST) has failed to report on something related to NKF. This is, however, to be expected after all since the NKF issue has taken on national proportions - and the ST, being the national daily, inevitably would be reporting on the unfolding events.
In its editorial, A Firestorm named NKF, on 23rd July, the ST editorialises:
Undeniably, there has certainly been more active participation from the citizenry in bringing about changes to NKF over the past few weeks. Public wrath has been swift and audible not least because the ST has been generous with its reporting on the matter and publishing many a Forum letter that censures NKF's wrongdoing. Also, there's no doubt the government saw it necessary to intervene, by finding an interim chairman, a new board and CEO to replace the outgoing group - something which the public had clamoured for when they learnt of the glaring misinformation that has been fed them by the nation's most successful charity organisation. We have thus witnessed, most certainly, through the media's reporting and coverage of the issue how the NKF saga unfolded and the magnitude and extent of the public's anger.
With that in mind, there should be pause to think about what the editorial piece said of Singaporeans' involvement in the past few weeks in regard to the NKF saga. The editorial observes that 'what the nation has seen exhibited in the past fortnight is empowerment, participatory citizenship'. At first glance, it is all too easy to accept that assertion in its entirety. After all, public participation has indeed been visible and pervasive. Most Singaporeans have donated regularly to the NKF over the years, and almost everyone has something to comment about the issue. They each have their own opinion what kind of actions ought to be carried out when they realised the NKF has not been forthcoming and transparent with how public donation is managed.
Yet one should not forget that however active citizenry participation has been, the ST has been an interested and paramount party in how events played out in the aftermath of its court victory. One appluads the ST for bringing to light the lack of transparency of NKF. Despite it being one of the parties in the lawsuit, it has to fulfill its duty as the national daily by reporting the episode and the ensuing actions taken by NKF. At the same time, because it is one of the involved parties, and the victorious one at that, one should be aware that the ST has every power to influence, however subtly, the public's reactions towards the whole affair. This is not to suggest that there's foul play here but rather, the extent of the reporting, the opinions expressed by its employees (journalists and editors) and even right down to the forum letters chosen to be published - all this have a definite and deliberate impact on the views of the public. When the ST is the only newspaper that is read by most Singaporeans, it becomes that public perception is shaped strongly by the direction of the paper's reporting and stance on various issues.
(Take for instance today's (29 July) ST publication of Dr. Balakrishnan's clarification on the headline of an article ('Shape up, charities told') published yesterday. The minister took issue with the headline because it inacurrately suggested the substance of his comments. For ST readers who read mainly headlines and articles selectively, or even those who had read the said article, they would hardly have disputed the appropriateness of the headline. The impression formed would have been one which reinforces a negative perception of local charities. Had Dr. Balakrishnan not made any clarifications, it is likely that a negative impression of charities would become further entrenched. This case serves to illustrate the important role of the ST and the powers at its disposal to shape and influence the direction of readers' opinions on a public issue.)
The bone of contention here is however not the credibility of ST or any likely wrongdoing on its part. Having laid out the implications of the role of ST in the NKF saga, it is possible now to ask whether it is true if indeed 'empowerment' and 'participatory citizenship' were exhibited in the past few weeks. Such qualities are difficult to determine and measure, and generally speaking, the only way to get a feel of 'participatory citizenship' is through the media's coverage of public reactions. Participatory citizenship suggests a vibrant and active political culture where citizens' participation in public issues is high. This is perhaps evident judging by the amount of letters the ST has received as well as the unanimous public aversion to NKF's misconduct. In the case of empowerment, one can think of how the public voluntarily collected signatures through the internet to push for T.T Durai's resignation. Public disapproval has also been prominent as reported in the papers, and it is precisely the widespread wrath incurred that has had the government sit up and intervene.
So yes, empowerment and participatory citizenship do seem to be the order of the day. Singaporeans have probably not seen such unanimous and widespread public response - met by swift government action - in a very long time. Yet there is a big caveat that is the cause of the discordant note registered in the editorial's comment that 'the nation has seen exhibited in the past fortnight, empowerment (and) particpatory citizenship'. Because the ST is an interested party in the affair, and because it is the nation's only daily (save for Today), it is empowered to influence or manipulate the ebb and flow of public opinions. While it cannot directly determine how many people would respond to and participate in a public issue, by the nature of the media, and especially SPH monopolistic hold on local news reporting here in Singapore, the truth is that the ST can contribute to the scope as well as substance of public debate and citizenry participation. Thus, while the editorial comments that empowerment and participatory citizenship were manifested in the NKF saga, could it be that the ST has a major role to affect that precise outcome; that the ST is the nurturer of a more mature and vibrant political culture in Singapore, in part because it has vested interests and stands on a moral high ground with regard to the NKF debacle? If so, it is perhaps disingenuous for ST to make such an observation.
In its editorial, A Firestorm named NKF, on 23rd July, the ST editorialises:
We should think the political leadership is acutely watchful of an
us-against-them divide forming. Is it an exaggeration to say a generational leap
has taken place in Singapore society and in the nature of a quiscent citizenry?
Maybe it is too soon to say. But what the nation has seen exhibited in the
past fornight is empowerment, participatory citizenship - something the new
breed of government leaders has been urging on the people. The NKF firestorm
unleashed was discomfiting to some, but the popular demand for corrective action
has been a compensating act of morality. It has to be positive for the country's
future.
Undeniably, there has certainly been more active participation from the citizenry in bringing about changes to NKF over the past few weeks. Public wrath has been swift and audible not least because the ST has been generous with its reporting on the matter and publishing many a Forum letter that censures NKF's wrongdoing. Also, there's no doubt the government saw it necessary to intervene, by finding an interim chairman, a new board and CEO to replace the outgoing group - something which the public had clamoured for when they learnt of the glaring misinformation that has been fed them by the nation's most successful charity organisation. We have thus witnessed, most certainly, through the media's reporting and coverage of the issue how the NKF saga unfolded and the magnitude and extent of the public's anger.
With that in mind, there should be pause to think about what the editorial piece said of Singaporeans' involvement in the past few weeks in regard to the NKF saga. The editorial observes that 'what the nation has seen exhibited in the past fortnight is empowerment, participatory citizenship'. At first glance, it is all too easy to accept that assertion in its entirety. After all, public participation has indeed been visible and pervasive. Most Singaporeans have donated regularly to the NKF over the years, and almost everyone has something to comment about the issue. They each have their own opinion what kind of actions ought to be carried out when they realised the NKF has not been forthcoming and transparent with how public donation is managed.
Yet one should not forget that however active citizenry participation has been, the ST has been an interested and paramount party in how events played out in the aftermath of its court victory. One appluads the ST for bringing to light the lack of transparency of NKF. Despite it being one of the parties in the lawsuit, it has to fulfill its duty as the national daily by reporting the episode and the ensuing actions taken by NKF. At the same time, because it is one of the involved parties, and the victorious one at that, one should be aware that the ST has every power to influence, however subtly, the public's reactions towards the whole affair. This is not to suggest that there's foul play here but rather, the extent of the reporting, the opinions expressed by its employees (journalists and editors) and even right down to the forum letters chosen to be published - all this have a definite and deliberate impact on the views of the public. When the ST is the only newspaper that is read by most Singaporeans, it becomes that public perception is shaped strongly by the direction of the paper's reporting and stance on various issues.
(Take for instance today's (29 July) ST publication of Dr. Balakrishnan's clarification on the headline of an article ('Shape up, charities told') published yesterday. The minister took issue with the headline because it inacurrately suggested the substance of his comments. For ST readers who read mainly headlines and articles selectively, or even those who had read the said article, they would hardly have disputed the appropriateness of the headline. The impression formed would have been one which reinforces a negative perception of local charities. Had Dr. Balakrishnan not made any clarifications, it is likely that a negative impression of charities would become further entrenched. This case serves to illustrate the important role of the ST and the powers at its disposal to shape and influence the direction of readers' opinions on a public issue.)
The bone of contention here is however not the credibility of ST or any likely wrongdoing on its part. Having laid out the implications of the role of ST in the NKF saga, it is possible now to ask whether it is true if indeed 'empowerment' and 'participatory citizenship' were exhibited in the past few weeks. Such qualities are difficult to determine and measure, and generally speaking, the only way to get a feel of 'participatory citizenship' is through the media's coverage of public reactions. Participatory citizenship suggests a vibrant and active political culture where citizens' participation in public issues is high. This is perhaps evident judging by the amount of letters the ST has received as well as the unanimous public aversion to NKF's misconduct. In the case of empowerment, one can think of how the public voluntarily collected signatures through the internet to push for T.T Durai's resignation. Public disapproval has also been prominent as reported in the papers, and it is precisely the widespread wrath incurred that has had the government sit up and intervene.
So yes, empowerment and participatory citizenship do seem to be the order of the day. Singaporeans have probably not seen such unanimous and widespread public response - met by swift government action - in a very long time. Yet there is a big caveat that is the cause of the discordant note registered in the editorial's comment that 'the nation has seen exhibited in the past fortnight, empowerment (and) particpatory citizenship'. Because the ST is an interested party in the affair, and because it is the nation's only daily (save for Today), it is empowered to influence or manipulate the ebb and flow of public opinions. While it cannot directly determine how many people would respond to and participate in a public issue, by the nature of the media, and especially SPH monopolistic hold on local news reporting here in Singapore, the truth is that the ST can contribute to the scope as well as substance of public debate and citizenry participation. Thus, while the editorial comments that empowerment and participatory citizenship were manifested in the NKF saga, could it be that the ST has a major role to affect that precise outcome; that the ST is the nurturer of a more mature and vibrant political culture in Singapore, in part because it has vested interests and stands on a moral high ground with regard to the NKF debacle? If so, it is perhaps disingenuous for ST to make such an observation.
Monday, July 25, 2005
Write on
I am facing the swimming pool now, sitting by the cafeteria and enjoying the chilling evening air brought on by the downpour. It was raining constantly but in just a minute, the tempo of the pelting rain accelerated, as if someone above has chosen to unleash its wrath at that precise moment. The rain's quite heavy but there's no lightning, hence there are still the obstinate few who continue to swim, seemingly unaffected by the ferocious rain and, certainly, the cold.
It's been a long time since i last wrote. Anyone who writes (or blogs) has got to ask himself: For what reason am i writing? It was never my intention to write about my insipid life, and i suspect this blog is going to see new entries less regularly, as it already is happening now. But why i started writing (blogging) is this: One, i see writing as an absolutely essential form of self-espression, much like the paramount importance of freedom of speech that every democratic society fiercely protects and/or advocates. To write is to at once exercise self-discipline by collecting my thoughts and expressing them concisely and clearly in words. It is also a liberating experience, because i believe self-expression, which writing entails, is an innately human condition that cannot be suppressed. The second reason is that, wherever possible, by writing regularly and consistently, I seek to hone my writing skills. To write well and to be able to express oneself clearly is certainly an asset, and like all things else, this can only be improved through practice.
Reservist training took up a considerable amount of my personal time, and my first reservist experience has impressed upon me the sacrifice that all male Singaporeans (who have served their madatory 2 1/2 years NS) make in the name of national defence. We often hear laments, complaints and innumerous army jokes and anecdotes. All this should never diminish or overshadow the reality and fact of doing NS reservist in Singapore.
And as i am preoccupied with school activities now, I hope wherever possible, i would be able to make time to post something, to muse about life and detail the transience of everyday's experiences and happenings.
Now's just too busy, however.
It's been a long time since i last wrote. Anyone who writes (or blogs) has got to ask himself: For what reason am i writing? It was never my intention to write about my insipid life, and i suspect this blog is going to see new entries less regularly, as it already is happening now. But why i started writing (blogging) is this: One, i see writing as an absolutely essential form of self-espression, much like the paramount importance of freedom of speech that every democratic society fiercely protects and/or advocates. To write is to at once exercise self-discipline by collecting my thoughts and expressing them concisely and clearly in words. It is also a liberating experience, because i believe self-expression, which writing entails, is an innately human condition that cannot be suppressed. The second reason is that, wherever possible, by writing regularly and consistently, I seek to hone my writing skills. To write well and to be able to express oneself clearly is certainly an asset, and like all things else, this can only be improved through practice.
Reservist training took up a considerable amount of my personal time, and my first reservist experience has impressed upon me the sacrifice that all male Singaporeans (who have served their madatory 2 1/2 years NS) make in the name of national defence. We often hear laments, complaints and innumerous army jokes and anecdotes. All this should never diminish or overshadow the reality and fact of doing NS reservist in Singapore.
And as i am preoccupied with school activities now, I hope wherever possible, i would be able to make time to post something, to muse about life and detail the transience of everyday's experiences and happenings.
Now's just too busy, however.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)