Caught in the trap of materialism

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
#1
A very good article written by Lee Wei Ling on the "trap" of materialism! I've always mentioned that our newspapers glamourized consumption and materialism, and that it was very evident that such lifestyles are insidiously "promoted", even though everyone knows that frugal living is the way to achieve financial freedom. Confused

Dec 19, 2010
Caught in the trap of materialism

I scorned those who flaunted wealth but found that I too cling on to material things
By Lee Wei Ling

Christmas is a big occasion in Singapore, even for non-Christians.

It is an excuse for revelry, dolling up, eating unhealthy food and drinking expensive wines - sometimes costing more per bottle than what some doctors earn in a month.

Because of improved economic conditions, the newspapers have been carrying full-page advertisements of late, often on three to four consecutive pages, especially on Fridays and Saturdays.

Last week's Sunday Times and New Paper not only had advertisements that stank of ostentatious displays of material wealth, but also stories that encouraged such behaviour.

The New Paper had one story entitled 'He spends $14,500 on bottle of wine'. Another story, 'Branded bags and BMW for 22-year-old', quoted a girl as saying: 'I believe in spending. I always feel that when you spend, you make yourself happy... At the end of the day, the investment will come back to you in a good way.'

In her case, the return on her 'investment' was that she was able to attract attention and clients at events she attended.

I cannot empathise with such people. My approach to life has always been to pare away all material objects except the few necessary for existence.

As Singapore's economy improved over the past year, it would appear that Singaporeans have become more extravagant. A foreigner who looks just at newspaper advertisements might be forgiven for concluding that most Singaporeans are millionaires and the majority lead a hedonistic life.

Perhaps it is good that people are spending. After all, spending keeps the economy humming, so long as people are spending within their means. If nobody wants a mansion with French chandeliers and Italian marble flooring, the merchants selling these items would close shop. In addition, contractors would not need to employ foreign labourers.

These labourers come to Singapore after paying employment agencies several months of their salaries, and slog at back-breaking jobs that pay several times what they might earn in their home countries but are meagre by Singaporean standards.

But they manage to feed themselves, support their families back home, and save to perhaps buy a house of their own one day. After decades of comfortable living, few if any Singaporeans will work as construction workers or maids.

Much as I detest materialism, an incident last week reminded me that I too was guilty of being attached to 'luxury items'.

My father and I were going through one of my mother's drawers. We found knick-knacks as well as jewellery that had much sentimental value.

I found the gold bracelet that I had bought for my mother in 1978 with my first pay cheque. And there was an aquamarine ring that my father had chosen from a tray full of semiprecious stones, all mined from Madagascar, that the President of Madagascar had presented to him and other members of the Singapore delegation visiting the country in 1964.

It was a lovely hue of blue, my favourite colour. Though I will never wear it, I remember that as a child I had asked my mother whether I could have it when I grew up.

There was a gold medallion inscribed with Chinese calligraphy that my father had presented to my mother in the 1960s. There was also a fake gold necklace I had bought on a Singapore Airlines flight. I had used it a few times before my mother took a liking to it. So I gave it to her.

It was ideal for travelling because one would not be too upset if it was stolen. And she being Mrs Lee Kuan Yew, no one would have asked her if the necklace was fake or real gold. Now that I am travelling with my father again, I will take this necklace with me.

My father was thrilled to find a small, plain white gold ring that my mother had worn as a pendant after she married my father secretly in Stratford-upon-Avon in December 1947. I have never seen my father wear a ring or any other ornament. But when he found this ring, which he had assumed was lost, he tried to wear it on his little finger. However, it was too small. So I am keeping it together with the aquamarine ring for their sentimental value.

I placed the items from my mother's drawer together with some cheap ornaments in my own drawer. As I was about to lock the drawer, I noticed that a men's dress watch that I had bought on another Singapore Airlines flight was missing.

The watch cost less than $200, but it looked more elegant than the watches I had been using for many decades. I had meant to use it when I attended functions with my father. Now it was lost. I searched unsuccessfully for it for an hour, then gave up.

I was quite upset. So I resorted to my favourite antidepressant and tranquilliser - exercise. As I stepped on and off a 25cm pile of plastic blocks with a 4kg weight in one hand, my mind became clear again after about 30 minutes.

Why was I bothered about losing a watch? It had no sentimental value. The error was not losing the watch; the error was allowing myself to temporarily fall into the trap of clinging to material possession. So I let go of the watch - physically as well as mentally.

The episode was a healthy reminder that I have not yet attained the stage of detachment, not even from material things.

What right have I to view with disdain the materialism of others when I too am at fault?

The writer is director of the National Neuroscience Institute. Send your comments to suntimes@sph.com.sg

My Value Investing Blog: http://sgmusicwhiz.blogspot.com/
Reply
#2
Materialism is like money, it's only how much u want to be chained to it. Her watch example is to me, a non-issue, since its not an example of excessive materialism. I, like her, am not immune to the 'evils' of materialism as I have my cravings too but I exercise control, which I am sure a lot of u are also practising.

I like it when our newspapers print these 'glamourous' lifestyle articles since I know that other ppl are spending money and, like she said, this keeps the economy going. As long as I dun spend frivolously, I feel that I am indirectly benefiting from others' 'belief in spending' hehe. Thus, the faster and flashier the cars or handbags that appear in the articles, the more I applaud.

Then when the crunch or crisis arrives, I shall one of those 'untrapped' ones to spend on bargains. That include investments too, of course.
Reply
#3
(24-12-2010, 12:08 AM)Satchmo Wrote: Materialism is like money, it's only how much u want to be chained to it. Her watch example is to me, a non-issue, since its not an example of excessive materialism. I, like her, am not immune to the 'evils' of materialism as I have my cravings too but I exercise control, which I am sure a lot of u are also practising.

Hi Satch, fully agree with you on this point. My line of thinking is revolves around a simple thought exercise. If a relatively 'poorer' family, say a family with median income per month (last count somewhere in the region of $2500?), spends $500 bucks on one of those new fancy smartphones compared to saying a high income earner (let's say bringing in $20,000 per month) spending $3,000 on a high end watch or jewellery. Who's more prudent? I would say the high-income earner since he spends a smaller proportion of his income on the material stuff. However, I think many people are inclined to think that spending $500 on a smartphone is acceptable while spending $3,000 on watches or jewellery is excessive for nothing more than the reason $3,000 is in absolute terms, more than $500 when our high income earner in this case is actually spending a smaller portion of his income and has a wider buffer to meet exigencies. I believe this is due to social proof wherein more people own smartphones than luxury watches or jewellery hence it is more 'acceptable'.

Satchmo Wrote:I like it when our newspapers print these 'glamourous' lifestyle articles since I know that other ppl are spending money...

Not that I hate others to spend frivolously but there is there is a strong envy effect that is created when glam lifestyles are advertised (of course, studies have also shown that there is more pain from knowing that your sister's husband has got a raise rather than a complete stranger getting a raise). Envy and Greed are strange bedfellows and lead sane people to do some insane stuff. Then when things fall apart, sane people say that they were 'misled' and then demand justice or more regulation. This gives or rather compels office bearers to 'do something about it'. I rather we not get to this stage but unfortunately, this is more prevalent in SG than anywhere else which is why I prefer promoting awareness rather than regulation. I feel too much too much envy is generated without having sort of a disclaimer: You may get envious. Smile
Reply
#4
I was watching this show about poor and deprived families on Channel 8. In the recent episode, they showed how tough the life is for this family and particularly the daughter as she was inflicted with a disease. Thanks to charitable people, they were able to go for a oversea trip as it was the daughter's wish.

During the part when the father was making a call in the airport, I saw him using an IPHONE........

Not that the iphone is an luxury item but... i think it is substantially more expensive than a normal phone with an exorbitant plan.
Reply
#5
(24-12-2010, 08:52 AM)yeokiwi Wrote: During the part when the father was making a call in the airport, I saw him using an IPHONE........

Not that the iphone is an luxury item but... i think it is substantially more expensive than a normal phone with an exorbitant plan.

I wouldn't rule out the small possibility (0.5%?) that he borrowed the iPhone to make the call but yea, this is the kind of example I had in mind. I still can't get over the fact that people have no qualms paying more per month to use a data plan for their phone while complaining that their kopi goes up by 20cents per cup. I'm still not quite sure what is the perceived vs real value of switching from a normal phone to a smart phone for most people (such as students or housewives).
Reply
#6
This is an interesting topic - spending relative to wealth! Kazukirai is right to say that somehow people tend to associate spending on "common" items as being more acceptable than uncommon items. For instance, I also think paying $500++ for a phone is very expensive, but apparently many people are more than willing to cough up this amount for an iPhone as it is a lifestyle product and is very multi-functional and user-friendly. The problem arises when some of these people may be earning just $2,000 or $2,500, where the cost of the phone is already 20-25% of their gross salary; versus a person who earns $5,000 and the phone is just 10% of his salary.

Yeah, what's weird is when a person is willing to spend so much more on a lifestyle product but complains when it comes to a rise of 10% on necessities like rice and coffee. I know I am not guilty of that!

My view is that if one wishes to be frugal, he has to do it for ALL aspects of his life, not just some. This is the classic case where one is "penny wise, pound foolish", saving a few cents here just to blow it all in dollars somewhere else. A good example would be retirees saving on bus fare (taking free shuttle buses) to gamble away hundreds of dollars in the IR!
My Value Investing Blog: http://sgmusicwhiz.blogspot.com/
Reply
#7
My mind is still very vividly anchored on a TV show with MM Lee with the family dining in a house.

I donno about you.. have you seen the house and the furnishing? Smile

Reply
#8
Going by the eulogy of Mrs Lee Kuan Yew's granddaughter Li Xiuqi, Mr and Mrs Lee are very frugal persons.

I was quite shocked when she mentioned that Mr and Mrs Lee were still using a giant tub with scoop for bathing.

For those who are interested...
http://trace.adityalesmana.com/2010/10/113/
Reply
#9
(24-12-2010, 10:01 AM)Musicwhiz Wrote: Yeah, what's weird is when a person is willing to spend so much more on a lifestyle product but complains when it comes to a rise of 10% on necessities like rice and coffee. I know I am not guilty of that!

Hahahaaa...
I got an ex-colleague who used to commented that I spend too much on getting organic milk powder for my daughter while he scrapes and saves to upgrade his car which he term as 'necessity'.
Hmmm.....Cool
Reply
#10
i never spent a single cent purchasing phone since 1st phone arrived in 2000, i have been getting those basic phones for free once every 2 years with most basic contract repeatedly..so far these 5 phones are operating well and didnt fail me..i am not a phone guy, talking too much, playing game, sms on the phone is not my cup of tea..it just numbed the fingers, spoilt e eyes, inflict harmful radioactive waves into e brains..

not that i need a phone for trading stocks, most of my trades are pre-bidded the night before i work the next day, 100% focused into my daytime job..and the current free nokia phone is just excellent - got a bluetooth, camera, 3G phone what more do i need to ask??

seems like i am living a poorer life than that father in the show about poor and deprived families on Channel 8 keke

Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 14 Guest(s)