Escalator and other paralyses

"Escalator paralysis" is a new term coined by Mark Featherstone in his article for the Sunday Times published 27 July 2008 ("Seized by 'Escalator Paralysis' "). I'm sure it's going to be a useful term for one of the most annoying habits of Singaporeans.

In his piece, Featherstone described the rigor mortis of Singaporeans whenever they step onto escalators or the stepless versions of the same, which he called "walkalators" (I believe the correct term would be "travellators").

Time and again I have witnessed seemingly healthy individuals rendered immobile the moment their feet come into contact with the escalator stairs. When this happens to a couple who step onto the escalator side by side, not only are they themselves riveted in place, but they also block the passage of those lucky few who have retained the use of their legs.

He even did a count of people on the gently-inclined travellators connecting the various floors of IMM shopping centre, where it takes 59 long seconds on the belt to reach one floor from the next:

Positioning myself on the second floor, I observed just over 200 people as they came down the descending walkalator. I then did the same for the ascending one. For both groups, I scored the number who remained stationary versus those who walked. I did not count people with shopping carts, strollers or babes-in-arms, or those who were hopelessly impeded by the corpses ahead of them.

The results? For the 'up' walkalator, 96 per cent didn't budge once they set foot on the paralysing black belt. Now, if shoppers had the full use of their limbs, this number would decrease for the 'down' ramp, right? After all, gravity does most of the work. Nope. Same number: 96 per cent.

I note that this scourge is race-, age- and sex-independent. People from all, um, walks of life were well represented by both climbers and those comatose. In fact, among the sprightliest were an auntie and uncle well into their 70s, and some kids who figured out how to stay in one spot by walking up the 'down' ramp. (It did look like fun.)

By contrast, the most striking paraplegic was a young man in his early 20s who strolled smoothly onto the belt and then, without a soul in front or behind, calmly endured his 59 seconds of solitude without twitching a muscle.

* * * * *

I wonder whether the tendency to inertia is part of a larger social phenomenon afflicting Singaporeans -- that of waiting to be served. We don't take things into our own hands (or feet). We don't take the initiative. Instead, we expect to be waited upon and solutions delivered to us.

We see a similar phenomenon in food courts and fast food restaurants, Nobody clears his tray. One instance comes to mind: A couple couldn't find a table except for one which a diner had just vacated. The latter left his tray on the table, but generally, the table itself was clean.

True, the diner should have cleared his own tray, but since he didn't and the new couple needed the table, what did they do? They stood around and waited until they managed to hail a service employee and asked her to clear the one tray.

How did Singaporeans get brought up to think it a major social transgression to help ourselves?

Might it be related to the phenomenon of allowing the escalator or travellator to deliver us to our destination without any movement on our part? The machine is supposed to serve us and we are not supposed to do anything for ourselves?

* * * * *

A few weeks ago, I came across a Straits Times commentary on the subject of Singapore's low birth rate (unfortunately, I didn't archive it, so I cannot now pinpoint which article it was). One point the writer made struck me as perspicacious.

She began by recalling the oft-repeated complaints that it was difficult for men and women to juggle work and children, with the result that too many couples put off raising a family, or stop at one. However, she pointed out that American women somehow manage to balance career and motherhood, giving the US a higher birth rate than Singapore, without any loss of female employment. Did the problem therefore lie in Singaporean expectations, she wondered?

Might Singaporeans be waiting for conditions to be perfect -- enough money, enough free time, career on the fast track and no more financial insecurities -- before they decide to have children? Were they expecting external parties -- the employer, the government, etc -- to create the optimum conditions for them?

In other words, are Singaporeans waiting to be served?

* * * * *

Take the idea further. What about civic political participation? "Oh, no, there is no democracy in Singapore," we hear some say. "How can we speak up if there is no freedom of speech?"

Then do something about it, I would say. Find ways and means to slowly nudge your views forward, the same way you squeeze past the immobile idiot on the escalator.

More often than not however, we find people taking the position that it's for the government to create the necessary conditions of liberty (and security of dissent) before they feel "safe" to speak up. It's for the government to create the outcomes that we desire, whether these be environmentalism, safety consciousness, more opposition in Parliament or our human rights. 

Even lawyers adopt this position. Earlier this month, the Human Rights Institute of the International Bar Association issued a review titled "Prosperity versus individual rights? Human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Singapore", within which Recommendations 17 and 18 were:

17: The Singapore Government should respect the right of the Singapore Law Society to engage in debate on law reform and should immediately repeal the prohibition on the Singapore Law Society commenting on legislation.

18: The Singapore Law Society should ensure that it is actively participating in law reform debates on a wide range of issues, as that is its responsibility as a law society.

This was an oblique criticism of a clause in the Legal Profession Act which barred the Law Society from commenting about public issues unless specifically invited by the government to do to. Clause 38(1)(c) of the law says,

Purposes and powers of Society
38. —(1) The purposes of the Society shall be —

(c) to assist the Government and the courts in all matters affecting legislation submitted to it, and the administration and practice of the law in Singapore;

According to press reports, the government has since reiterated that it would not amend this restrictive clause. Yet, this should not be the end of the story, which other press reports suggest may be the case. Lawyers don't have to wait for the government to unfetter the Law Society. Some among them can form a new society with the express purpose of giving informed opinion on various matters of public interest.

But I don't see this happening. There is a pervasive inertia permeating all levels of Singapore society. We sit back, stand still, fold our arms and wait to be served, secure in the belief that it's only our inalienable right as Singaporeans, for the government, escalator, employer, cleaner, etc, to deliver us to the promised land.

© Yawning Bread 

Footnotes

None

Addenda

None