KIASUISM: The nip syndrome

A fine line divides efficiency from kiasuism. Efficiency is when the Internal Security Department nabs suspected terrorists before they get a chance to blow up Yishun MRT station.

Kiasuism - the fear of failure, trouble, inconvenience and everything else - is when the Housing and Development Board forbids an artist from staging an exhibition in his HDB flat, for fear that he might annoy his neighbours.

Both actions involve the same thing - nipping problems in the bud. Singapore officials are very good at this. Unfortunately, other things get nipped in the process, such as a young artist’s hopes, aspirations and enthusiaism.

Just in case the HDB takes unkindly to this commentary, let me nip potential problems in the bud by making it clear that I am not criticising them. I am merely questioning the wisdom of being over-cautious in our attitudes.

In Singapore, the legal system goes on the basis that a person is innocent until proven guilty. If we were to extend this concept, then “everything is OK until proven otherwise”!

This is not to say that it is okay for terrorists to plan their activities until their bombs actually go off. Obviously we need to draw some strict lines.

But it is a different matter altogether to anticipate that an exhibition by an unknown artist (which does not even feature nudity or sex) will draw such huge crowds that HDB corridors get jammed and neighbours get upset.

---

Tolerance

And what if one or two neighbours do get upset? Well, the relevant authorities can tell the person to stop immediately, or even find an excuse to jail or fine him, perhaps for unlawful assembly.

Or, they can explain to the neighbours that the disturbance is minimal and plead for greater tolerance.

This might be asking too much. Easier for the government official to say, “No. It is against the law.” By doing so, they nip any problems before they arise.

Whether or not a person breaks the law is actually not the real problem. Laws can be changed. For example, the law was changed in 1999 to allow certain IT-based businesses to operate out of HDB flats.

The real problem is when a person causes trouble or danger to others.

Even those who operate within the law can make a nuisance of themselves. Recently, some Chinese temple officials staged wayangs (street opera) and auctions near my HDB flat. They had the necessary permits. They were legal. Yet the noise they made was way too loud till way too late at night. I was annoyed. I called the police.

For the sake of inter-racial and inter-religious harmony, we are asked to tolerate considerable inconveniences and disturbances.

Can we not tolerate far lesser “disturbances” for the sake of encouraging entrepreneurship? For the sake of allowing our neighbours to earn a living?

Is it that much of a disturbance if our HDB neighbours welcome occasional visitors who come to repair their personal computers, or attend cooking classes, IT courses and even art exhibitions?

Better they do that than come for regular - and therefore legal - residential activities like playing mahjong or singing karaoke, which can be more noisy and disturbing.

Already, there are many people running small businesses in their HDB flats without their neighbours complaining. They keep a low profile for fear that attracting attention would get them penalised.

---

Relax

If the government genuinely wishes to help these people, then it is time to make it legal for them to operate freely, so long as they do not cause trouble.

If the HDB wants to be sure that people won't object, it could first conduct a survey among residents, to ask if they mind their neighbours conducting certain types of businesses.

Over the years, the government has been relaxing some of its rules without adverse outcomes.

When the first bus ads appeared long ago, they were promptly stopped - because the ads might distract other motorists, because commuters might not recognise the bus, and so on. Today, no one bats an eyelid at bus ads. The problems turned out to be more imaginary than real.

Another example are the R(A) movies. When censorship rules were relaxed to allow sex, nudity and vulgar language, some people feared it would create a nation of sexual perverts. Sure enough, that did not happen.

Relaxing the rules does not mean abandoning controls. For more than 20 years, street hawking was banned in Singapore because they were said to be dirty, unhygienic and so on.

Recently, it was re-allowed in Chinatown, with all the cleanliness and hygiene controls in place. It turned out to be a big hit.