Khairul Talks

I can’t believe I activated my Facebook account, just to watch a stupid video, of me stupidly singing, two stupid songs.

For some unknown reason, my GP class had to do discussions on materialism and show how Singapore’s society is perpetuated with the wants and desires that comes from materialism. Before even our group managed to come up with events symptomatic of materialism, trouble was already looming. How do you define materialism?

Merriam Webster offers the following definition of “materialism” as ‘ a preoccupation with or stress upon material rather than intellectual or spiritual things’. Reasonable enough.

But many confuse materialism with other things. Yes, materialism does manifest itself in many ways of Singaporeans. But to categorise wealthy spending, extravagant lifestyles and the desire for brand and luxury goods as “materialistic” is wrong. Instead, more often that not materialism is confused for the desire for more comfort, or the inclination towards quality and better products.

Take for example, you being presented with two phones, a fake imitation China brand iPhone as opposed to a genuine Apple iPhone with a year’s warranty. Now most people, if not all would choose the original over the fake iPhone. Why? A handful would say they prefer the branding of Apple. A vast majority however, would state the quality of Apple’s iPhone as a major factor in choosing that phone. Now is that considered materialism?

In the same way, when many people buy branded goods, they’re not looking for the branding in particular. In most instances they seek for a guarantee of their product quality and an assurance that what they pay is what they get. The same reason why people would be hesitant to buy fake laptops, handphones, cars, even shoes. Materialism? I think not.

The definition of materialism is getting increasingly blurrier with the meaning of fashion. Jewellery, as viewed by many as superficial, has been put forth and claimed to be a sign of increasing materialism in today’s society. But just because materialism is superficial, and jewellery is superficial, does not mean jewellery equates to materialism.

Fashion, jewellery, designer watches, rings, shades, whatever. They are just mediums to make ourselves look good, even though they are undeniably superficial. But one cannot classify this as materialism, because people do want to make the effort to look good and present themselves nicely. Luxury goods they might be, but in a nutshell just an attempt to be presentable, nothing materialistic there. If we do subscribe to this logic, then technically our jeans, shirts, even our uniforms are materialistic, because they are mere fashion tools to look neat.

Honestly now, did you really think the world started off wearing jeans? Jeans were once luxury fashion items, and just because everyone wears them now doesn’t mean they aren’t fashion items. If fashion is a sign of materialism, then we should all start walking around in boxers and white tees from now on.

Lastly, just because one wishes to increases his level of comfort, does not mean he is materialistic. From residents moving from HDB to condo, to middle aged men signing up for country club membership, or in any case scenario involving the 5Cs, this does not necessarily have to mean materialism in our society.

Let’s take it from another point of view. Imagine a poor family living in the slums of Mumbai, aka Slumdog Millionaire if you will. If let’s say they had enough money to buy a decent apartment and decide to upgrade, would that be considered materialistic? Impossible you might say. We all know that that Mumbai family simply wants a better life and a higher degree of comfort. Then what about the HDB family? Why can’t they have a better life and better comfort?

These are the main things I was griping about in GP class. Materialism should not be classified and grouped together carelessly and that easily.

Just in case you’re blind.

Just watched Law Abiding Citizen. By saying just, I mean about two or three weeks ago. It was pretty interesting really, the storyline boils down to this guy who got pretty angry because justice wasn’t meted out after the murder of his wife and daughter. Then, in Prison Break style, that is almost reminiscent of The Shawshank Redemption, he walks down, no he saunters down the path of murderous rampage agaisnt his previous lawyer, the judge, the murderers, and ultimately the whole judicial system.

While the movie was dangerously verging to the realm of revenge themed movies like Man on Fire or the classic Kill Bill, somehow Law Abiding Citizen gives its fair share of food for thought that might overwhelm one equally as effective as a couple of explosions could. This movie explores the theme of justice, and its differences with law. Is law equal to justice? If we dish out justice under the name of law, is it really based on justice? On a side note, although the movie didn’t have anything to do with this, under what circumstances can mercy be included in justice? Are they both compatible? While this 109 mins long movie does a decent attempt at exploring these issues, I felt it could have been elaborated a lot further, instead of a tirade on a judge on how much the judicial system sucks.

On a less serious note, LIGNUM walk in rocked! With a big BOOMZ! Yang Sheng and Ilias, please please please I beg you, please send me the pictures of Lignum walk in people. Firstly I think we did an awesome job so much so that Mr Teo said, “Lignum is back!” Wooot you can’t believe how every Lignumite felt at that point, not just the councillors, not just the HAT, every person who has worn a Lignum shirt probably understood how much that simple comment meant. It wasn’t just a praise. It was an acknowledgement. Lignum is back.

Quality sucks 'cause I stole from YS. Hope you don't mind.