Cross-Cultural Blog

Hi guys! Greetings from a fellow Singaporean @ Stanford.

Hi Natasha

Your paper sounds really interesting. I am looking forward to see how you are going to relate messages from The Truman Show and Singapore Dreaming to your argument. I agree that one's love for a nation, to a certain extent, is based on planned spaces that create the national identity. In Singapore, planned spaces may seem to be the fundamental reason that gives rise to our national identity of many high rises buildings, expensive land, costly car maintenance, etc. But I think there are more aspects than just planned spaces such as food or people or language that instills sense of belonging in all of us. Looking forward to know your progress in your paper!

Hi, this is a peer review for Natasha! :) This review is based on this blog post as well as what Natasha has informed me about her essay outline.
I think you have posed a very intriguing question - the motive is genuine and puzzling, and I would be interested to read your essay!

I do have a suggestion though, which is to write a small paragraph after the introduction on how unplanned spaces can actually create a sense of love for the country (as opposed to how planning cannot) and give an example from one of your sources. This is to give evidence that the unplanned create love for a country and so makes your motive stronger in explaining the contradiction since Singapore is largely unplanned.

I think your thesis is clear, and clarifies the contradiction you identified.

The idea of using "Singapore Dreaming" sounds exciting. In your essay outline, you say that the characters in the movie are unable to conceive a sense of love because they are relegated to the planned constraints of Singapore. However, I do not immediately see the connection between the planned constraints of Singapore and the limitations of how their ambitions can be achieved. How exactly does urban planning lead to them not being able to achieve their dreams? For e.g. is this because their creativity is somehow stifled or something?

Perhaps you can explore how Sinagporeans are reacting to this absence of love for the country. Are they even aware that there is no love? Are they okay with that? Or are they showing resistance?

Other than those small issues, I think your paper is going to be really good! :)

I do hope my comment has helped!

Hello Bernice (:

I’m just going to base my comments on what we talked about during our meetings. (:

The motive of your essay seems strong so that’s great! But I think you need to make it clear how an insurance policy carries connotations of both planned (protection and a safety net in times of trouble) and unplanned (familiarity and comfort in times of instability). Because your essay tries to reconcile this, I think the paradox has to be more clearly explained, in terms of – what is a hedge, an insurance policy and revolutionary change. You also mentioned that you wanted to focus on burial sites in Singapore, so I think it would be good to explain your key terms with reference to that.

Overall your motive and thesis seem to be quite interesting! However, I think you need to make your argument more explicit because it doesn’t seem very clear. Does your essay just serve to explain the paradox? Or will you be arguing for/against the validity of Tay’s statement?

It also seems rather ironic that while the unplanned is a place of familiarity and tradition that people can retreat to in times of instability, this space is taken away. Hence in the genuine moment of instability (the uprooting of traditions and the grave to the columbarium), they essentially don’t have safe haven to retreat to anymore. It is also ironic that the unplanned spaces don’t necessarily help people to be resilient to setbacks, because when the State implements sudden change like the exhumation of graves, the family has a hard time dealing with it. Maybe you can touch on that fact as well. Just a suggestion (:

Hope this helps! If you need to clarify anything I’ve said feel free to ask me about it! (:

Natasha, Bernice, and Maiyah:

Your topics sound really interesting. But I do wonder about the initial statement: "unplanned spaces that are associated with tradition and meaning are stamped out as they are seen as a liability to urban growth and development." Is this necessarily true? What about counter-examples? What about such spaces that have been conserved? I am thinking of traditional spaces such as shophouses in Chinatown and elsewhere: these arguably do not constitute "optimal" use of space, yet they have hardly all been "stamped out." Instead, many have been conserved, perhaps for reasons of tourism and arguably since the authorities see them as an important aspect of Singapore's heritage. Could you qualify the statement a little?

Maiyah: I am unsure about the idea, in your comment on Natasha's ideas, that "Singapore is largely unplanned." Is the point not that it is in fact a highly planned city? And here's a brief comment on your ideas for your own paper: I think you're absolutely right that there is a degree difference between the responses of the two films to urban change, but can you think of evidence in support of the idea that in Moving House "memories and tradition" are permanently destroyed? What do the various family members say about tradition? It might be worth checking. Is the suggestion in the film not that in fact, while some traditions might end, new traditions could be invented?

Natasha: I think your ideas are very promising, esp. in juxtaposing the emotional aspect of belonging (though I don't know that I would call this "natural") and the rational, calculated character of Singapore's planned urban spaces. My question would be how you are going to be using your sources: if Tay is your primary source, is that because he suggests a puzzle / problem to you? Could you indicate this more specifically as you draft? And: how would the two films function as secondary sources? How do they offer concepts for you to apply critically? I guess it's just not really clear to me how you're going to be relating the sources both to one another and to the argument.

Bernice: I like the fact that you have seized on a metaphor that Simon Tay uses - unplanned spaces=insurance policies - and think the paradox/puzzle that you have identified is fascinating. So is your sense that we can use Bauman's ideas to understand Tay better? Could you elaborate a little on how this might be the case?

Good luck as you develop these fascinating ideas!

Johan

Oh, thanks Dr. Johan for pointing out what i said for Natasha's comment! Because I meant that Singapore is highly planned. It's a typo, I'm sorry!

Hey thank you Dr Johan for your comments on my post :)

I found it thought-provoking because it never really hit me that new traditions could be invented. this is becase in "Moving House", one of the Chew brothers said that "Without the cemetary, I think the atmosphere and tradition will die off" as he feels that in the planned space of the columbarium will not have the same meaning. Another brother then shares how the family can no longer partake in their family tradition of having gatherings and sharing their home-cooked food as well.

So, I don't really see how traditions can be invented, because it seems that the traditions will gradually fade away, especially since they can no longer be passed down to the next generation. And if there is an invention of tradtions it could, how is this positive?

Is the simple fact that families visit and pray at the crematoriums (instead of at graves) a new tradition that has been invented? And because of this, I am wrong in saying that traditions are not technically "destroyed". Or is there something more to it which I am missing?

I hope someone can help me clarify this! :)

* sorry I meant:
I am wrong in saying that traditions are technically "destroyed".

Hi Maiyah!

Perhaps you could clarify your motive of your essay? As far as I understand, your motive is why people protest against urban spaces being taken away? I agree with your thesis that there is a difference to the extent in which it is protested. Perhaps it has to do with the nature of the space itself, since the bus top is a public place open to all, whereas the cemetary has more of a private nature, since only relatives would go there.

You might also want to consider what happens to the space after the land has been acquired, which might account for the difference in the protests. In shelter, the space essentially remains unchanged, and 'upgrading' is a positive term that connotes improvement, which might be why people would be more accepting of the decision to upgrade. Moving House however differs in that the land would be used for a golf course, which caters only to a select group in society, and this would probably not include the family who has to move their parents' graves. Since it does not benefit them, they would thus put up more vehement protests.

Hope this helps!

Hi Maiyah,

Your selection of secondary sources seems really intriguing. They seem to be able to provide interesting perspectives on your paper about long lasting memories versus short term temporary memories. Try to keep in mind the larger concerns about the extremely confined space we have in Singapore versus other countries and how that relates back inevitable decisions that has to be made. You may want to bring out the arguments about the case of rebuilding and relocation of National Library – the concerns then and the impact of the new library today, few years after completion. I think is timely to draw some perspectives and conclusion using the library as a case study. Some questions that you may want to ask: “Do people still talk about the old National Library?” “If the old national library remain there, what differences will there be?” “Can the old national library still serve it purpose in today’s growing intellectual and information exchange?” I believe the library will hit some nerve on your argument, and from such a case study of a few years ago, you may want to bring in the recent case about the National Stadium. I am not suggesting inclusion of any of these examples, but just highlighting some things that may inspire you and allow you to think in a broader picture. I think it is crucial that your research highlight the larger implications of planned spaces to society.

Cheers,
Ming @ Stanford

Hi Bernice,

I agree with Natasha that you need to be more specific about what you mean. I think it is an extremely interesting new perspective that you have found. I think when structuring your argument and paper, always keep the readers in mind, whether they will see from where you are seeing from. As a reader, I am not sure how well your paper can convince me about your argument, so I suggest you keep that in mind. It will be interesting if you can draw larger conclusions such as seeing the removal of burial sites a parallel to people getting less resilient to setbacks? Looking forward in seeing your progress!

Cheers,
Ming @ Stanford

Hi Maiyah,

You're right -- that's what the one brother says. I suppose what I meant was that offering evidence would be important, and this is exactly the kind of evidence I meant. As for the invention / adaptation of traditions, don't we see this enacted when the family gather at the niches? Yes, they complain about the lack of space for putting out tables and the various objects that they need for performing rites, but they adapt. But perhaps 'invention' was too strong a term in this context.

Good luck with your work!

Hello Mya

I’m not a hundred percent sure about this but perhaps it would be better if you could include how your various lens sources might explain your motive, in your thesis? It might make it clearer to the reader if you explain the relationship between all the source right from the start..

It is true that the issue in Shelter is not so much a removal of culture and tradition as in Moving house. But how does this link to your motive of contested spaces? Because first of all, the bus stop wasn’t removed in place of something else. It was merely upgraded. So maybe you should be careful of the use of the word “contested space”. And, about the people being less affected…what do you mean by this? Its is because they do not hold culture or tradition? If so, then perhaps in your theses you should clarify that you think the removal of this culture and tradition would in fact have a greater impact on the people. But I kinda still think that you should phrase it differently. Also, you say that any voice of disapproval wasn’t shown in shelter. So do thus interpret that as not being directly affected? Maybe you might want to rethink that? I think we shouldn’t assume this. Just a suggestion for one of the points in your essay: maybe you could add in a point(sort of like a counter to your own point of how the spaces in shelter affect the people less) that mentions the possible implications of their implicit(or not) responses? “Though they didn’t explicitly show this, they actually….” Or, “Because their responses aren’t explicit, they might have….” The purpose of this is to show how the removal of spaces in Moving house does affect people.

hey tash...thks so much for your comments! especially the ones about how it is also ironic that unplanned spaces, supposedly to give people comfort in times of instability(due to it being stable and secure) gives people even more sense of insecurity once removed. thats such a fantastic idea for a counter point! thks a mil gal!

hey tash...thks so much for your comments! especially the ones about how it is also ironic that unplanned spaces, supposedly to give people comfort in times of instability(due to it being stable and secure) gives people even more sense of insecurity once removed. thats such a fantastic idea for a counter point! thks a mil gal!

Hi Maiyah!

You said:
"So, I don't really see how traditions can be invented, because it seems that the traditions will gradually fade away, especially since they can no longer be passed down to the next generation. And if there is an invention of tradtions it could, how is this positive?
Is the simple fact that families visit and pray at the crematoriums (instead of at graves) a new tradition that has been invented? "

I think that your idea of traditions is that they must be old, but I'm sure the idea of tradition is less rigid than this. You may want to consider the article by Kong and Yeoh , where they explain how the Singapore government managed to "invent" the "tradition" of cremation in Singapore. Also, you may be interested in David Berreby's book "Us and Them: Understanding Your Tribal Mind", in which he spends one chapter discussing the "creation" of "traditions", and how it is possible. You may also want to consider the "Stanford prison experiment".

All the best:)

Hello Everyone (:

Thanks for all you help and really constructive comments! I think they've really helped as I try to frame my essay. Just to clarify a few things.

Tay will serve as a primary source for me as he touches on an issue that I would like to explore. He states, "In a society that puts rational calculation first, the idea of loving Singapore is emotive and radical." It strikes me as interesting, because how then, exactly, can Singaporeans develop a love for our country if urban and planned spaces are so prevalent? Is this even possible?

I will be using The Truman show to argue FOR the fact that planned spaces makes it difficult for us to develop a sense of love towards home. Seahaven is an artificial construct that Christof has created, planned and orchestrated. His routine is predictable and leaves no room for serendipity or surprises. This is exactly what he discovers when in the scene when he manages to name the convoy of vehicles to his wife exactly as they appear.

Singapore Dreaming also introduces us to another dimension of urban spaces – that urbanization has created the Singapore Dream (the desire to attain and achieve status and luxury). As people demand more from their lives, urban and planned spaces are contested for to bring forth money and luxury. Hence, home and a sense of love for home is relegated to chasing these dreams and unfulfilled desires and contingent on our ability to achieve them and derive pleasure.

Hope this serves to clarify matters! (:

Hello all,

This is a very interesting topic, and one that can be valuable to people of all cultures, not just those from Singapore.

You may want to look into people from other planned nations and how they deal with the loss of open space and how they are able to love their nation as it is built up. You may want to consider the idea that if a person is able to love there nation when it is just buildings and planned so well, what is to stop them from simply moving to another nation that is just as planned with no disturbance to their usual pattern of life. This would bring up the issues of other areas in which people associate/identify themselves with their own nation.

Good luck with your papers!