Some things never change

I was amused to read Rachel Chang’s piece in ST today lamenting that political issues don’t seem to matter very much in the Singapore Conversation. Her attempts to raise the subject of GRCs, ISA, NPPA etc were met with polite indifference by other participants, who promptly went back to their concerns: bread and butter issues.

It’s always been that way.

It doesn’t matter that people are getting more educated and all that and should be interested in political stuff and civil liberties. The fact is, they see no pressing need to change anything so long as the G doesn’t make a huge mistake which stirs the conscience or affects the pocket badly.

It’s something the G has relied on for years – the ability to deliver the goods. We are so used to getting the goods that the bigger stuff, the bigger, greater good, that is beyond the pay cheque and the ability of our children to get a better pay cheque – isn’t important to us.

But she is right to say that they are important. When we wake up one day and we find that the G has turned bad, it’ll be too late. I know what the G will say – make sure you elect good people. Then again, five years is a long time and so many things can happen so fast in a small country.

Likewise, I was amused to read about how singles don’t like the idea of going to dating agencies and being match made, an issue prompted by those dating vouchers you can buy as gifts for single friends that was reported earlier.

It’s always been that way.

Again, it’s not about people becoming better educated and sniffing at the idea of not being able to secure a life partner without help. More than 20 years ago, the Social Development Unit had this practice of welcoming new graduates with a letter informing them of their eligibility. I threw it away, so did everyone I know.  We KNOW we were not Single, Desperate and Ugly.

Some things never change.

Small country, big movement

The PM has set out to defend three principles : the pursuit of economic growth - not at a “ridiculous high speed’’ but at about 2 to 3 per cent growth; an openness to foreigners and the system of meritocracy. I think that’s a good starting point to get the Singapore conversation more focused. Three big categories – and let’s see what sort of consensus we can achieve. Then sub-divided into smaller areas where this consensus can be re-calibrated on the policy front.

Actually there was one phrase PM which struck me: the results of “over-correction’’. You know, too many people praise Singapore for being efficient and organised. We’re small and nimble which means we can move fast. It’s one of the advantages of being a small country. So when we cut the CPF rate to help employers, everyone moves and so does the economy. One indication from on high and everyone falls in line. We take the cue, we follow. Good if the lead is a good one, but what will happen if we go the wrong course? The Singapore system will kick in and everyone will move – right down the wrong path.

I think I see some of this happening. Like the foreign workers tap being tightened. The G has come out several times to say that the approach hasn’t changed. That the numbers are still tied to how many Singaporeans are hired. But this is the Singapore system. One cue and everyone reacts. It’s not just about a policy change, it’s about the people who do what they think they are being asked to do.  So employers find it harder to get the employment passes renewed and find other stumbling blocks in the way. That’s because people down the line want to, well, toe the line. The effect is then a big effect, bigger than expected.

It’s the same thing too on the education front. Because the MOE says it doesn’t want to release the names of top students, principals suddenly think that they too should do likewise. Odd. Principals were quite happy to broadcast names in the past, and now they suddenly agree they shouldn’t? Is there no room for independent thinking?

I think that’s why people always look to the G for answers. If the G says so, it must be so and it will do so. And the Singapore system starts cranking. Very flattering for the G – and not necessarily the people.

A conversation headed somewhere…

OKAY, how many of you are old enough to remember the Shared Values era? That was in 1991 when a White Paper on Shared Values was presented. The man who headed the parliamentary committee which put it together was PM Lee.

Now values is all the rage again, except that the reasons for the renewed interest are different. Then, it was very G-driven. It saw the need for Singapore to have an identity, to keep it rooted in Southeast Asia and put up a dam against that terrible Western wave sweeping over the globe. Communitarianism versus individualism. There was a whiff of Confucian values. Some people thought it was an attempt by the G to keep paternalism and authoritarianism as acceptable values, by different names of course.

For the record, here are the five Shared Values
Nation before community and society above self: Putting the interests of society ahead of the individual.
Family as the basic unit of society: The family is identified as the most stable fundamental building block of the nation.
Community support and respect for the individual: Recognises that the individual has rights, which should be respected and not lightly encroached upon. Encourages the community to support and have compassion for the disadvantaged individual who may have been left behind by the free market system.
Consensus, not conflict: Resolving issues through consensus and not conflict; stresses the importance of compromise and national unity.
Racial and religious harmony: Recognises the need for different communities to live harmoniously with one another in order for all to prosper.

These values were supposed to be imparted through the school system and community groups. I don’t remember if they were. But I bet very few people can name the five values today. Or what the five stars in our flag stand for…

Different kinds of values have been thrown up in the current Singapore Conversation. As Lawrence Wong said, we’re looking harder at the intangible aspects of what we think should be “Singaporean’’. The values espoused so far are pretty universal: we want a kinder, more gracious society. It sounds very much like what the ex-PM said he would like Singapore to be when he took hold of the reins of the G. Seems it didn’t quite happen…given that we’re still talking about it.

The values conversation today looks like more bottom-up. Excellent. Not good to have the visible hand of G in something as fundamental as values. Let’s not politicise this, the way it sorta became in the 1990s.

The conversation seems to be headed this way:

We want to be competitive, but just enough so that we can still smell the roses at the Gardens by the Bay which we must be able to afford to enter.

We believe in meritocracy, but not if those with merit think they did it all on their own and thumb their noses at the less meritorious.

We want to be a more equal society, but wonder if this conflicts with our pursuit of excellence which now seems to be measured by how big a car and house we have.

We want to be kind and compassionate, really, but we’re so caught up with looking at our cellphones that we really didn’t see that old lady who needed the MRT seat.

We want to be No. 1 in the happiness index, but we’re not sure if we can be happy if we are also No. 110 in cost of living and No. 111 in economic growth.

We want to be nice to our neighbours regardless of race, religion, language or place of origin but we can’t help being irritated by some of their practices.

Tough huh? The five shared values look easier to uphold.

Anyway, I’m glad that the Singapore Conversation is getting down to a more “focused’’ approach. I hope one of the themes would be to craft some sort of vision/mission values statement for us. Good luck!
What we now know is that one of the themes will be education. I can see where this is headed from what the G has let fall:
We want a less stressful education system. Parents will know what is the basic level of accomplishment needed when their tots enter primary school. Kindergartens will be “sparked’’ and accredited. Primary school teachers will be told that the word “private tuition’’ is banned. Parts of the curriculum will be replaced so that there will be greater emphasis on character development, in other words, values. Students in elite and neighbourhood schools will mix more. Oops! There is no such thing as a neighbourhood school. (Media, please note) Every school is a good school. We are not going to split hairs over who has 1 mark more than the other in the PSLE – which will be kept because we still need some kind of measurement of achievement. Secondary school ranking has been done away with already, you know. Never mind if your kid is in poly or JC, he/she has a better chance of getting a university education because we are going to have more uni places. The undergrads won’t be learning abstract or esoteric stuff. Subjects will be integrated, multi-disciplinary and practical. This is so we won’t have unemployed grads protesting on the streets, demanding that Workfare be extended to them.

Okay, I am meandering. But I do think the Singapore Conversation is getting somewhere. Where, though, I don’t know.

Swinging the other way

ST had an interesting column today on the three missed opportunities in the population debate. The three:
a) No one wants to talk too much about the plight of SMEs who suffer a shortage of manpower especially with the squeeze on foreign workers. Many want to re-locate.
b) Not many want to assert the old Singapore must be No.1 maxim, going for break neck economic growth to outpace competitors. Even past advocates now sing a different tune.
c) Not many, including new immigrants, want to talk about the benefits of having foreigners in this country.
It’s so strange. It used to be that speaking for fewer foreign workers was anathema given that going for slower growth was taboo. Making noises about immigrant influx was likely to be countered heavily too. The counters came from officialdom and ministers. That being the case, what they said carried weight. I reckon people decided that it was better to keep quiet than to think carefully about whether their words had “holes’’ which should be pointed out and debated. The “robust’’ response that is the habit of the G achieved its objective of keeping people in line. Now the opposite is true. We’re hearing more of the other side of the conversation. It’s a pity because some arguments – maybe not all – for the “old ways’’ could still valid. It’s just now politically unpopular to say that we need more foreign workers, more immigrants and should grow as fast as we can. Does anyone want to risk being flamed?
I am not in favour of more immigrants and would not mind sacrificing a percentage point or so in growth to achieve social harmony. But then again, I hope I am not so obtuse as to close my ears to countervailing points and arguments. The pendulum cannot swing so far the other way. That’s no way to conduct a reasoned debate. If there’s one thing the Singapore conversation should be clear about, it is to ensure that even unpopular views (by that, I mean the G’s point of view, I’m afraid) should surface. Sometimes, I find that the “defending’’ is all being done by the G and those who repeat or espouse the views are immediately labelled lackeys. Speaking for the establishment is not trendy.
It might be worth asking how it’s come to this point. I would suggest that it’s all due to what I described earlier as the habit of robust response that the G is so proud to proclaim. With its superior intellect, extensive information and multiple platforms, when it talks, it outshouts all others. That’s the trouble with a strong G; even clever people are in awe. And those who are not clever but think they have a legitimate grievance don’t have the words or the information to argue a point. They know getting emotional is irrational. And no one wants to lose face. This is too small a country to find a private place to lick your wounds after being lambasted or even gently chided. We are so thin-skinned.
I don’t know what the Singapore Conversation is suppose to achieve given its current unstructured format. From what the G has let fall, maybe we shouldn’t set our expectations too high. Maybe it’s just an ideal we are reaching for rather than concrete policies. Like achieving 6 million people in Year X. In this case, what is the Singapore Conversation suppose to achieve in Year X, whatever that might be?

News headlines of the future

I thought that first Singapore Conversation session threw up an interesting way of looking at what sort of country we want: by putting up newspaper headlines people would like to see. That’s good because a headline is a “bottomline’’, the chief point that encapsulates what the article is about. So rather than having to articulate the problem in our inarticulate way, discuss a million solutions and get tangled up in the whys and wherefores, let’s just get to the point of what we want.
So here’s my non-exhaustive list of headlines of the future with a brief a summary of what the news is about, with tongue only half in cheek.
HD: ITE student is President’s Scholar
Chin Jia Gou, 19, hails from the Normal (Technical) stream of Kampung Kana Secondary School, didn’t take his O levels but went on to ace the electrical and mechanical engineering examinations of the Institute of Technical Education. The only son of duck rice stall owner Chin Jia Cham is also an under-18 national soccer player who led the team into the World Cup finals for juniors. He credits his secondary school discipline master for getting him to knuckle down to study. “He shaved my head bald when I turned up for exams with tinted hair,’’ said Jia Gou who will also make history as the first President’s Scholar to opt for study at a local university. “My parents saved on a haircut but I was so psychologically scarred that I stayed at home and started studying.’’
HD: Repealed: Maintenance of Parents Act
Parliament has decided to do away with legislation that compels children to pay for their parents’ upkeep, after the watchdog tribunal reported zero applications over the past three years. MPs on both sides of the House supported the move, long considered a blot on the nation’s conscience. Minister How Hai Zhi said that the tribunal would now turn its attention to dealing with errant parents who pressure their children unreasonably to do well in school. “Too many tuition classes, enrichment programmes will rob the children of their childhood,’’ he said as he gave details of how children from the age of five can apply to have their parents reprimanded. “Caning is being considered,’’ he added.

HD: Netizen, name thyself
One million members of Singapore’s internet community have signed a pledge to be “transparent and open’’ when they post comments online. This will start with posters giving their full names instead of relying on email handles like imsexy and cannotdoit. Ms Ai Am Mee, who is spearheading the move, said that netizens should stand up and be identified or sit down and shut up. “Why be such cowards?’’ she said. “You can still be as vulgar, extreme and as racist as you want. Nobody says you have to control what you say. You just have to give your name.’’ She said one idea was to also have netizens post their ages, addresses, occupations, race, language, religion, household income, housing type, marital status and sexual orientation but thought that this was too much personal detail that could be exploited by telemarketeers.
HD: 100,000 Singaporeans return home
Singaporeans the world over have heeded the call of home and are returning in droves to power the nation’s economy and raise citizen numbers. Sources say that half of the 200,000 living and working abroad are uprooting themselves to solve the chronic manpower shortage here and solve the social problems of having too many foreigners. Drawn by housing vouchers and priority school places, they are trading their big homes, cheap cars and relaxed lifestyle to live in studio apartments, squeeze into buses and trains and join the rat race for Singapore to be No. 1. One of them, Mr Goh Bak Ken, 42, an investment banker based in Darwin, Australia, said he was going home for the food. “I mean, have you tasted the Hokkien prawn mee here?’’
HD: Housing vouchers for all
The hot property market’s lukewarm response to cooling measures have prompted the Government to propose giving every Singaporean a housing voucher once they hit 25. This one-time voucher will be distributed to all regardless of whether they are married, to appease singles who clamour for the same treatment as married couples. It will also assuage those who claim they are forced into buying private property because they do not qualify under the income criteria. A Housing Board spokesman said singles can choose to combine the vouchers and apply for a flat jointly. Those who do not want to live in public housing can also choose to donate the vouchers to those who do. Mr Tie Koon Kin, 60, a property developer , said this move signalled the death knell of the private property market unless it was matched with offers such as free renovation, furnishings and a luxury car.
HD: PM is GOH at gay function
After years of being sidelined, the gay community was finally accepted as part of the mainstream community when the Prime Minister graced its fund raising dinner last night. The PM told reporters he was glad to be part of an effort to raise money for orphaned children, including Jia Jia and Kai Kai. Clad in a long-sleeved pink shirt, he said he did not adhere to the function’s dress code as he did not own a pink V-necked tee-shirt. It was also because he did not want to encourage too many people to come out of the cabinet, he added.

What’s the story leh?

Non-story No. 1: 6 million and counting
I read and re-read ST’s page 1 story and agree entirely with economist Irvin Seah that the MTI occasional paper on population did not shed much new light. Which begs the question why it was splashed on Page 1. The more illuminating stuff is actually in the inside pages in the Q&A section with Lim Hng Kiang when he acknowledged that the G was trying to get a message across: That if you want more growth, you need more foreigners. If you don’t, then be prepared for slow growth because we’ve already stretched the productivity targets as it is. Can people accept this or not? I think the issue was laid out more sharply in Today. And ST should be glad if a reader reaches the bowels of its paper to get to the Q&A section in the Home pages.
That’s how the National Conversation should move methinks. We need to know what life will be like when growth is say just 1 per cent. What does it mean for me in every day terms? More elbow room on the MRT, less anti-foreigner sentiment and lower property prices? Yay! But lower wages too?
I can’t seem to reconcile the debate with the fact that we’re already embarking on infrastructure development. Is this to accommodate the current squeeze but for 6 million people that the PM said we would have no problem with? (By the way, I really wish we wouldn’t keep asking PM questions like what is the ideal population size. Doesn’t that depend on what us, the people, want?) Seems the target has been settled, and if Singaporeans don’t get on with producing babies, then foreigners it is or we work very hard to reach some economic growth target that we are all comfortable with.
Thing is, what would we be comfortable with?

Non-story No. 2: Law Society meeting
Some lawyers want some kind of accounting on the LawSoc’s conduct vis-à-vis M Ravi. Seems the EGM produced nothing enlightening. The reason that Wong Meng Meng gave was that he couldn’t say very much coz there were some cases before the court and his comments would be prejudicial. You know, I am getting real tired of people saying they can’t say anything because of “on-going investigations’’ or “subject of a court case’’ or “subject to internal review’’ or “now before what and what committee’’ or “company policy’’ etc. Okay, okay. I know some things have to be kept under wraps but some reasons are just fig leaves. I mean, who okayed Wong Siew Hong’s move to present the doctor’s letter on M. Ravi to the court? Now it seems it is the lawyer himself. Then who okayed the press statement saying that he did so under LawSoc instructions? Seems “they didn’t have full information’’ when they did so, says Wong Meng Meng. Who is “they’’? Okay, I’m nit-picking here but I must say I am still sore about how Wong Meng Meng started shooting people about making allegations when his own Law Soc/their statements aren’t clear. What I really want cleared up though is whether lawyers can anyhow bandy around doctor’s letters about patients. That, I suppose, we have to wait for….

It should not be a Q&A

I think it’s good that ST’s Singapolitics is taking trying to play a part in the National Conversation by funnelling questions to the PM.

http://www.singapolitics.sg/ask-pm-choose-your-top-10

Now it’s asking people to vote for the top questions that people want answered.
My problem is this: Why are we insisting that PM answers the questions? Why do we always assume that the G has the answers? A far better approach methinks is to get as many people as possible to state their views, proposals, problems etc on the top five questions or so – and then collate them for all to see. The PM can then look them over and comment on them.
We really have GOT to get away from thinking the G is God. This is a conversation, not a Q&A session.

Listen to the international conversation

Let’s put aside the national conversation and listen to the international one going on instead. Man… it’s very loud. Here we are wondering about what to do about getting people to return their trays at eating places and there is the rest of the world wondering about what to do about dialling down the level of violence.
So the Japanese and the Chinese are literally eyeballing each other over some benighted islands and the Chinese people are asserting their strength of numbers. It’s tough to be a Japanese in any Chinese city but I suppose if they don’t say a word, they could blend in.
At least that fight is a bit further away and unlike what happens whenever the North Koreans are involved – we haven’t heard talk of violence going nuclear! But then there’s that silly video which is making Muslims angry, even the Muslims in next-door Malaysia. So much for the US government distancing itself from the video. No State involvement or sanction, it says. But no, no. just because an American made the video, America must pay. So Google and the likes are blocking access to the video – a small but belated move methinks.
Old historical wounds are being opened up. The Jap-Chinese animosity goes back centuries. The Islam versus the Great Satan debate has always been simmering. Massive diplomatic work and greater economic ties don’t seem to be able to paper over the differences, and the freedom that social media brings only widens gaps. Years of bilateral and international work undone because someone wants to exercise freedom of speech…never mind a dead envoy or two…Crazy.
Can we stay immune? This little red dot? Can we keep our distance even as we host a hotch-potch of nationalities of all races and religions here? Can we still enjoy the luxury of bitching about the MRT and getting frazzled over the need for tuition for our children? Times like this makes the national conversation more, rather than less relevant, methinks. We have to settle what we want our country to be before we can think about insulating ourselves against all that international noise. One reason this LRD has been a calm oasis is that we are rich. Never mind we can’t afford landed property and the income inequality is climbing, the fact is, there’s no enough economic dissatisfaction for others to exploit.
I know we sniff at terms like national resilience, total defence and societal cohesion. I suppose we see them as brainwashing techniques to get people to toe a certain line. But that “line’’ is important – we must all have a say in what that line is and should be. One example: How tough should we get over hate speech? What’s the consensus on this?
Actually I am a bit worried about something that’s happening even further away – in the Artic. Chinese ice-breakers which want to carve out a sea-route that would allow shipping to bypass the Straits of Malacca – our very important economic artery. Will this happen in my life-time or will we see yet another fight for resources there among the Chinese, the Russians and the Canadians before this happens?
I don’t see how Singapore can sit by and make polite noises when this comes to pass. So let’s take stock while we can and add to our strengths. And let’s add some “defence’’ elements into our national conversation. Maybe we should ditch phrases like national resilience et al. Maybe we should just say Be Strong, Stay Strong.

Phrases for the National Conversation

I read Linda Collins’ piece in The Sunday Times today and her contribution to the Singapore Conversation. Hers is: Move down the bus! What a great idea to have phrases embedded in the national consciousness that we would reflect what Singapore is about. So here’s my list:
Kid in a neighbourhood school: “I am NOT in a neighbourhood school. I’m in a good school.’’
Kid in a top school: “I am NOT elitist. I am special. That’s my humble opinion anyway.’’
Parents on selecting kindergartens: “PCF is good enough. They have graduation ceremonies too.’’
On welcoming foreign talent: “Sure we welcome foreigners. Look at Kai Kai and Jia Jia.’’
On feeling squeezed on the MRT: “We might not have elbow room, but we still have breathing space.’’
Lower income on raising pay: “We want both: hand-out and leg-up.’’
Higher-income on doing more: “Sure thing. It’s tax-deductible.’’
On the NIMBY syndrome: “You are welcome to use my backyard – if you can find it.’’
On the Government doing everything: “The Government is not God; it’s just demi-God.’’
The single’s mantra: “I am just single. Not hopeless.’’
The homosexual’s mantra: “I am gay…and, boy, am I happy too!’’
On having more children: “Show me the money.’’
On the LionsXII’s 0-0 draw against Johor: “Why fight? We’re neighbours.’’
On returning trays in eating places: “Bring your own maid.’’
I want to add this last phrase in case someone out there doesn’t have a sense of humour which we seem to sorely lack here: “Just joking.’’

A muted conversation

I think the national conversation is getting off to a bad start.
First, did Mr Heng Swee Keat mis-speak when he said, with utmost irony if unintended, that bloggers and Opposition politicians aren’t included in his committee because it was NOT a partisan exercise? And did fellow minister Tan Chuan Jin really clear the air when he told TOC that Mr Heng meant the opposite, implying that his quote was taken out of context? Seems to me that the list of members of the committee is a fact, and Mr Heng himself should do the clarification in the mainstream media where he was reported saying those strange words.
Second, we’re not just hearing from Mr Heng but the PM as well on how the national conversation is not about culling sacred cows. Seems a climb down from what Mr Heng had said earlier. (See earlier blog post on Cows to the slaughter). It certainly seems “prudent’’ for the G to do so, or it might as well be stationed in an abattoir…The problem is, the box, once opened, can’t be shut simply because someone says so. Especially when Mr Heng’s committee isn’t pre-determining the agenda for the moment. This DOES mean cows will be offered up for sacrifice because that will be nature of the conversation – at least in the beginning.
I take to heart what PM said about lifting stones and putting them back in place if they fit better there. So no stone left unturned – I take it to mean that we can at least TALK about cows and bulls – and there won’t be an attempt to restrict the conversation. After all, if the national conversation is for slaying a couple of cows, I don’t see why the G should say no. This is a political exercise; a fight for the best ideas. If the G cannot persuade the majority to its point of view – and keep the cow – then the cow should be killed. To not do so would be to hold the national conversation in contempt. Or to think that superior ideas or values belong only to the realm of the elected (oops, sorry! Opp MPs not counted) and not the electors.
Sheesh. What did I just say? I can just picture someone saying that those in favour of slaughter should join a political party and fight in the political realm. I hope I won’t have to hear this line from anyone. It’s been levelled so often in the past that I keep wondering if we have given our brains away along with our vote and can only utilise them once every four or five years.
Go read Today. Academic Eugene Tan has a good article on his concerns. More importantly, he referred to PM’s injunction that the national conversation cannot undermine the core values such as meritocracy, multi-racialism and financial prudence. The PM added that “within these broad principles, we should review what needs to change and where we should act more boldly”.

He wrote:

While the core values are critical to our well-being, surely the conversation must be open to examining how those values can be refined and tweaked to serve us better? If we assume that the core values as they are being practised cannot be improved, then this imposes a severe inherent limitation. Take, for example, meritocracy. Given the likelihood of persistent and significant income inequalities in Singapore for the foreseeable future, our system of meritocracy can potentially be divisive if it results in a permanent underclass. So, while we insist on meritocracy as a cardinal organising principle of our multiracial society, how we practise it is crucial in the final analysis.
So long as a minority genuinely believes that the meritocratic system makes it difficult for them to progress, even if the majority of Singaporeans think otherwise, cohesion would be undermined.
I am a great believer in meritocracy but as I said in an earlier post, its de-merits are also becoming more evident. I will defend it, and repudiate its bad points, such as a sense of entitlement and a “self-serving nature’’. The whole issue might deserve a fresh airing, so that detractors can be persuaded that it is, like democracy, the least bad way of living your life. And ways can be found to limit its bad effects, along with a societal understanding that being meritorious is without merit if it is not couple with humility and generosity.
So how “inclusive’’ should this national conversation be? Today reported opposition politicians being upset at being left out of the committee. And some want to distance themselves from the process. I suppose Mr Heng’s idea of being “inclusive’’ seems to be “not at the top level old chap, but maybe down the line, speak to us, we’ll call you…like we would anybody else’’. While I am at it, I take great objection to bloggers being lumped into the “alternative views’’ camp along with the opposition. Some bits of the G, I like, some I don’t. Ditto, the opposition. I cannot speak for all bloggers but this blogger merely has VIEWS, which could be mainstream, alternative or even radical. Should anyone writing online who has a view be considered “alternative”? Can we stop boxing up people so conveniently? It does no good to draw lines among the people.
In any case, I think the G missed a great chance at showing a bigness of heart. Sure, I know no political party will want the profile of another party raised but this national conversation was supposed to be different! The fact is, the G has raised expectations – not the people. Online, views abound. Impatient views, rational and irrational, yes. And it has taken weeks for some sort of structure to be made public. Slow, going by the standards of the G.
And now it should do something about rescuing some public confidence. Mine has been a bit dented.