Picture above: Morning in snowy Copenhagen
I have been pondering on my concluding comments from the previous post regarding the lack of social critique on Singapore TV. On a second thought, our local shows are not detached from reality, and there are a few shows such as Renovaid and its Chinese version on channel 8 which are focused on the plight of marginalised individuals. But the way these shows are produced seem to individualise the problems and even with the help given by volunteers and producers (like finding benevolent employers willing to give them a chance of work) one is left feeling a bit powerless as to the real possibility of the individuals having any substantial improvement at the end of the show. While individual problems are consequences of individual circumstances, more often than not, they are the symptoms of structural/societal problems which only structural/broader-level solutions could help these people. Till then, for the help rendered to these individuals, even though they may not be far-reaching, they are still something we should appreciate and be thankful for. Not to do anything is worse right?
The variety show that is perhaps closest to Jack Neo’s movies in terms of portraying social satire is none other than The Noose (I encourage you to look up on youtube for its videos). The mockery on authorities is quite obvious, and I wonder how MDA has approved for the series to be shown on national television.
Now going back to my thoughts of フリーター、家を買う. One of the strongest points put across through the series is how not to write off or despise people who are working in physical labour jobs such as construction work, because of a lack of education or due to other unfortunate circumstances (In Seiji’s case, he had to urgently earn money to cope with family expenses and later to save up to shift house). The writers and producers behind the series have put this point across by elevating the non tangible qualities exhibited by these construction workers, values such as teamwork, caring for one another – in essence, casting these people as humane, real, as people whom you will experience warmth with – in contrast to those from the corporate white-collar world who are cold, where not much emphasis is placed on relationships etc. While I could not show you the clip, but the above observations are almost exactly mentioned in one scene when Seiji explained in an interview why he has been working for so long at the construction company (he said how in office, 
interactions are not genuine, and going to gatherings amongst colleagues was painful, but in the construction site, people are genuine and treat each other with dignity). I was so agreeing with him when he made those comments! Well, it is a bit hard to hide my contempt for the corporate culture as you may have suspected.
I am also at a crossroads as I decide my future career path. I’m thankful for the results I have received, and I am optimistic about my future prospects. But what route should I take? Should I go public sector or private? My girl friend has been sharing with me her experiences in work which largely confirms the above observations. She recounted how her manager was surprised when she just asked for his drink preference so that she can, in the future, buy that out of a polite gesture. His surprise could perhaps reflect his ‘resignation’ that he does not expect that kind of respect and treatment from fellow co-workers in the office because such good-will gesture is non-existent in the first place?
While I can be quite an idealist, I also know the need to be practical (I mean, being practical is what Singaporeans are well-known for right). At this moment, I am more inclined to go towards the private sector, maybe in corporate communications or human resource. Sprouting out these terms don’t necessary mean I know what they involve, but I think working with people and just being involved in planning or strategizing is my cup of tea and these areas fit the bill. But one thing I know for sure is the culture that I will be confronted with – a corporate culture.
One thing I have learnt in Denmark is that culture is necessarily created. Our society’s tendency to fear losing out and competing incessantly does not just exist since 1819. It was created by, or rather more precisely a result of, what the state has done to our education system (this maybe a generalisation but it nevertheless is true to a large part). What is second nature to us as culture does not emerge independently from nature, but has been moulded by fellow human beings, often those in positions of power. While not all elements in Singapore’s culture is negative, some are. I once attended this workshop by a very senior human resource director from GIC who claimed he has scouted and recruited 
many of the world’s best talents to GIC. He said that the culture of any company is determined by the policies set by the leadership, especially policies of reward and promotion. He gave the example of Shell, of how a new CEO decided to make job rotation a compulsory feature in the corporation, meaning that no one can stay in the same position for more than 4 years, and after one term, one has to reapply to the company as if he is a new employee. I understood that this strategy helped to push up productivity and profits, but I can’t imagine the emotional and social costs incurred with the anxiety, competition and insecurity.
So, culture is created by people, period. And people themselves can also create a counter-culture as a form of resistance to unhealthy forms of prevailing culture.
I think this is what Jesus Christ has came to do and is continuing that work through His Body, the church. He taught a way of living that is counter to his time, especially regarding acceptance and inclusion of those marginalised (I have more to say on this as I deliberate on my reflections for Christmas) rather than degrading judgement. Since culture is created by people, then really, the underlying conflict between cultures (there is a popular academic term for this called ‘culture wars’ ) is one based on power held by people of opposing cultural values. Whoever is more powerful can exert or impose their cultural values over the wider group. As Christians in a corporate environment with our own culture which can run contrary to that of the office, what power do we possess? What and who are we fighting against? Is the conflict against our superiors who seem unreasonable to us?
Perhaps some of you (if not at least me) know where I am leading to. Ephesians 6:12 ‘For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places’. I think we are tempted to fume at the injustice we may receive or perceive from superiors and bear grudges against colleagues who have unfairly treated us. But there could be something deeper than what is seen (As Optimus Prime from Transformers so often reminds us, there is more than meets the eye).
The conflict may well be in the spiritual dimension. Yes, superiors have power and authority over us, and the overall corporate culture perhaps is spread through such power channels. And God also exhorts us to submit to authority. But as believers I think we need to discern between what is godly and what is not as we subject ourselves to authority (which many a times is secular as the example of Caesar by Jesus show) and deal with the consequences of being subjected to that authority. I think as believers while we live in a prevailing culture which is not fully godly, we need to carve out a space where we assert godly cultural values. And that no doubt requires conviction!
I don’t want to keep on going on, but as a concluding comment,
I want to share from Matthew 7:12 : ‘Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets’. I was reading a commentary by Pastor Chuck Smith on this chapter, and realised the above verse is also known as the Golden Rule. Many of us will also know that many religious and great moral teachers have taught about this before. Individuals like Confucius and Plato (I think, but definitely one of the Greek philosophers) have talked about it. But what is really surprising is that when they talk about this, they frame it in a negative way, i.e. Don’t do to others what you don’t want to be done unto you i.e. passive stance. But Jesus my good Lord has framed it in a proactive, positive way – do to others what you want to be done unto you. It’s not passive, its taking the initiative, that first step, and seeing how the ‘boomerang effect’ run its course, just like that gesture my girl friend displayed towards her superior.
While saying the above, I have this fear that in such a culture of the office, gestures of goodwill will be preyed upon by vulture-minded people and they would think you are naive to be made so easily vulnerable. That’s why I think to take the initiative to help another, at the expense of your time to do your own work, needs conviction and confidence in God. Once again, culture is created by people, so it implies that it is not static but dynamic. While we don’t have the bureaucratic power to effect much changes (unless you are the boss!), we possess spiritual power in our good Lord Jesus to resist, rescue and redeem culture from the clutches of the enemy.
