A Serial Number on my Vote

To each by their greed, by each through their reach

2011-09-09T09:00:00.003+02:00

Today's pithy thought.

"[desired] to each by their greed, [acquired] by each through their reach"

Capitalism; Legalism, whatever. Societyism.
What we 'do' in this society? What does this society 'offer' as a 'reward'?

Is the latest flatscreen TV offered as a reward, or as another chain?
Or the latest iPad?

Or power?

Referencing YB's question on whether a person returing to 'work' qualifies for any withdrawals from the state pension whilst being employed; as far as I understand, in other state pension systems, a person cannot demand from his pension if he is gainfully employed in some manner. [and thus the complex legal acrobatics required of many who know how to play that system.]

And the deeper question about Singaporean Ministers qualifying for state pensions and withdrawals from it(?) whilst still being sitting ministers, all because they 'reached' their mandatory pension-paying age of 55.

Does that then count as double-dipping? Since the purpose of a pension is to provide an equivalent 'lifestyle' as enjoyed at a person's retirement age. Does this question the continued need for outdated pension systems?

Is this Singapore equivalent of the UK MPs' expenses scandal?
[probably not; we don't have a 4th estate that does this kind of fecal-digging.]

Should it not be an issue? The state talks so much about the need for corporate governance; yet it is expert at avoiding state governance as an issue.

Which brings back the question of the definition of corruption in Singapore. If it is the state doing the corruption, is it still corruption? Why do we need to pay our ministers x-multiples of other societies' ministers?

Or just 'nepotism' in the wider familial sense of "taking care of my people [anyone who is 'for' me, according to their ability to take care of 'my' interests.] ". That's just being clannish.
[what is the difference between clannish and racist? species-ish? lingui-ish? thought without action?]

[desired] to each by their greed,
[acquired] by each through their reach

Happy serfing.

E.o.M.

Remembrancing about the failures of our education policy on imports

2011-05-02T02:07:00.002+02:00

As part of a remembrance against a troll
=============================
[not sure if it will end up being posted in the comments section. ask YB].

From my understanding during my time in poly and Uni (1998-2005)

A Malaysian friend who studied in poly.
Paid about the same level of school fees.
Officially the fees were around? 5-6k a year. After education subsidies, came down to about 1.2k or so a year.

I did not ask, but as he had signed the typical MOE bond to work 3 years in Singapore [or with a Singapore company], I was given the understanding that he did not pay that different the final amount on a per year basis.

Forward 3 years. He graduated. He worked a while. He then decided to further his studies in the UK. Forward another 5-6 years. He graduated the UK with a Masters. He came back to SG. Tried to find a job. For whatever reasons, he couldn't get employed [failing economy? lack of work experience? whatever].

He went back to Malaysia.

As far as I know, he served perhaps 1 year out of his 3 year bond at best. So what did Singapore benefit out of subsidizing his way in Poly?

Another friend in University
Also, another 3 year study bond unfinished. As far as I last new, he is enjoying working life in the Caribbean [tax reasons?!]

Brilliant person, fun to be with. Yes, his existence in school did improve our perspectives on things in this world. Yet, again, our MOE subsidy seems to not have benefited the Singapore economy.

========================

Yes. there are many who do complete their 3 year working bonds, pay their 'taxes' [GST!] and perhaps choose to continue working here. However, at the core level, they have chosen to leave their home country to come to Singapore to study because the prospects here are better. When the prospects elsewhere are better than SG, having already left one country, what's to stop them from contemplating leaving for another?

World travelers they be. World travelers our own Singaporean graduates also are. Yet, we are tied by blood and and by soil. We drink our Newater and never complain about it, understanding the strategic need to not be at another's whims.

The point of all the above is - these foreign imports did take the place a Singaporean might have benefited from; and if they, for various reasons, did not complete their part of their bargain, does it not then require some rethinking on our end in this aspect of education policy?

E.o.M.

Politics of Civil Un-obedience

2010-09-01T16:09:00.003+02:00

What powers do a community truly have?

To quote Frank Herbert (of Dune fame),

"The power to destroy a thing is the absolute control over it."
- spoken by the character "Paul-Muad'Dib Atreides"
- Dune, Frank Herbert

So, what power doth dis-enfranchised communities within Singapore have?

The power of civil un-obedience.
*NOTE: this is not quite the same as civil DISobedience.

What does concept of civil unobedience bear?

Well, simply - the collective power of actors in any given situation, to simply stop acting. No hurry, no fuss, no proclamation, no protest. The power the powerless wield by simply - not doing anything. The end result is an inaction that draws attention to the issues within the process, or to the situation itself.

Example - If the entire arts community (or anyone with an artistic bone, or claims by profession to be paid by the arts) decide that they do not wish to participate in the directing/choreographing/artistic involvement/etc of a National Day Parade, then, by extension, the technobureaucrats that run the city state would be deprived of its annual circus (from Latin: panem et circenses).

Or if they did, well, one can attempt to imagine engineers and bureaucrats trying to craft a performance together. All function and no soul.
(sign lights up - Applause!)

Is this possible without individual repercussions? difficult. Powers-that-be are powers-that-be for a reason being that they have learnt to wield their powers-given-to-them against those who cannot conceive of acting collectively. However, blue-flu days, or sickout days, are examples of unobedience. And this technobureacratic government "greatest representative" afterall once famously decried that it didn't see a need for the soft arts, and that hard maths & science were all that were needed for this society to advance?
(he has since seen the error of that view?)

And, if one is feeling unwell philosophically over a situation, why would that person be 'fit-for-work'?

Now, this post could be argued to be seditionary - afterall, one is raising the idea that is just about akin to a strike. But just exactly who are the powerless community here striking about? Lack of arts freedom? Freedom to think?

Now raise the idea to the political level - what if collectively, all non-PAP political parties in Singapore decide that instead of forever fighting from a losing (lost?!) position, to take the other extreme end of the political continuum - inaction? Would such an idea ever be possible? Is it desirable (by whom?!)

What is the serial-numbered un-candidate doing by not-doing? He is just practicing what the ruling party has desired for years - the non-concern/attention of politics. The apathy to all things political; since the average citizen does not know better, and that they should leave it to the 'good men' that the ruling party seeks and puts forth as candidates.

What are the potential consequences, if in the next election - at the end of Nomination Day's closing - the only candidates put forward from within the society only wear White? What message would that send out to the rest of the world about the quality of 'representative democracy' in this tiny island state that is more island-city? What happens if there was no Election Day? (teachers and civil servants would be happier from not having to be volunteered to return any counts!)

IT would truly exemplify a "...(servile) population, led by good men"? (or that White is so all-co-opting that only they have the good men, and nobody else has?)

What be the odds of such an event occuring? - next to absolute zero. All it takes is for one non-ruling-political party to break ranks, in the hope that by being the only 'party' other than white standing, draw to itself a greater proportion of the vote.

However, that would absolutely accomplish nothing - our system here is like the British in that it is "first-past-the-post". IT is of absolutely no importance parliamentarily just exactly what % of the vote you received - 49% still does not give you a single seat, unlike countries with proportional representation (seats that are awarded to a political party based on the % of votes it garners at an election).

So, that particular party breaking the 'ranks of inaction' would gather short-term visibility, win some brownie points with the voting population, but no real lasting outcomes in implementing whatever ideology or political view it espouses. Easy come, easier gone?

Would game theory then posit that - to bring about political process change, divorcing elections from the executive, that such collective action might bring about real change? Afterall, the futility of life is to keep trying to do the same thing, without changing anything in the hope that you get it right someday.

Would advocating such an electoral strategy be seditious? Standing for an election is a voluntary thing. (and $10,000 deposit against time wasters). So is choosing to work artistically on an NDP. Nobody can compel anyone to stand nor be artistic. Service to society has to be 'freely' (freely?!) offered.
(ahh, what is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness all about anyway? bleached-white handcuffs?)

Afterall, isn't unobedience is just apathy writ large?

E.o.M.
[ideas can never be destroyed by swords - they can be forced away, but like that itch that cannot go away, someday, self-actualization might actually happen to the people of this island.]
[princes that forget that their power is given by their peasants, will one day be replaced from the peasants.]

Religion requires rely (reliance?)

2010-08-22T13:07:00.002+02:00

hmm,

could the root entomology also use the wood rely?

Verb

to rely (third-person singular simple present relies, present participle relying, simple past and past participle relied)

To rest with confidence, as when fully satisfied of the veracity, integrity, or ability of persons, or of the certainty of facts or of evidence; to have confidence; to trust; to depend; — with on, formerly also with in.

[source: Wikipedia]

Is faith just another facet of the same thought pattern?

And if rely does have entomological links, what does that mean?

Also found here in an attempted answer of what religion means:
"It is interesting to consider that the words 'religion', 'yoga', 'yoke', and 'knot' share an entomological genesis" - Claritycouragelove @(3) On March 11, 2009 at 11:50 am

Source: Wikianswers

E.o.M.

STDs are work-related injuries?

2010-07-24T08:47:00.002+02:00

Debate:

Sexually Transmitted Diseases CAN be work-related injuries.

E.o.M.

2010-05-12T04:48:00.001+02:00

[another supporting rant to someone else's rant]

see

Jonno's perspective

and the comments at:

YawningBread's Wordpress

Ah hm,

just because it was rant-y in nature does not denigrate the viability of it’s perspective.

Overseas, Singlish (or more accurately malayglish or SEAglish?) creeps in when groups of Singaporeans/Malaysians/Indonesians congregate. Does that make it wrong? It makes us feel more comfortable with people who live in a similar region. (feels like home?)

As for whither Singaporeans can code-switch between ENGLISH as it is understood and Singlish as it is conveyed, I have serious doubts about the younger generations’ ability to do so in their minds. (and no, no statistics, just day-to-day dealings with them.)

Whither dialects or Mandarin at home, the very fact is that the move towards Mandarin was most probably politically motivated to tear Singaporeans away from their China-based clan/dialect identities back in the 60s/70s. Did it succeed? probably. I have no clan identity as a member of the Henghua dialect as I was never taught the dialect, nor given any exposure to it as a child.

We wear tribal identities as we desire. More Singaporean-born Chinese find tribal identities in football clubs than in their clan associations for one. Singapore wanted to create it’s own Chinese (non-dialect) identity in the 70s. It succeeded, at the cost which we pay today, being un-lingual instead of monolingual or bilingual.

Many in most other countries seem to survive on one language pretty fine. They are given the option of taking on second languages or third languages because they want to. Was the MTL policies needed in the 70s to distract the then politically-aware Chinese majority?

Now here is a sacred cow to slay – if all our educational syllabi are taught in the official working language of English – and mother-tongue-languages are taught in mother tongue, is it any wonder it feels alien in the classroom? Why even weigh mother tongue at all then in a PSLE/O&A-levels? After all, nobody overseas in the tertiary world cares if we have a second language proficiency, only that we can survive studying in whatever local language that university teaches in.

And as for the earlier comments who are dismissive, perhaps, it might also show generational gaps? Or am I overgeneralizing too? If YawningBread thought the perspective was different enough to put it separate and invite comment on it, I find it very sad that the first few comments are denigrating towards the perspective itself (and probably derogatory towards the ‘rant-ist’ in itself). And how those few comments seem to take certain ruling-party assumption/perspectives as sacred truth without question.

As for freedom of choice to learn languages – ha ha ha. Our overwhelmed school children have time for a 3rd language of choice given all the additional mandarin tuition that they undergo just to keep up?

Apologies to other mother tongues – but I can only speak from my perspective of the mandarin-MTL. I understand (probably from previous YB essays) that the Tamil-MTL students also have much difficulty dealing with it. And they get even less attention. (was it in another essay that also mentioned that our Malay-MTL requirements are way lower than our neighbours?)

As for knowing Singrlish, I am no expert, but the common use of it is in the substitution of mandarin (malay also?) grammar structure in an English sentence. And having the occasional chance to peek at essays that our teachers’ mark, and hearing their despair over their students’ indifference/inability to comprehend the concept of code-switching much less the issue of ever-evolving English grammar, I will firmly plant my flag with our guest rant-ist…. because it WILL (and already has) become a problem.

E.o.M.
[I wonder who will start ranting on the SMS text appearing in english essays.]

ACTA - what should we be afraid of?

2010-04-12T06:13:00.003+02:00

Copyright (and by extension the whole concept of Intellectual Property[a.k.a. content]):

Who owns it?
What is it?
When was it created? When should copyright expire?
Where are the laws that govern it?
How is it enforced?
WHY is it needed?

The arguments are endless. Central themes are:

Pro-Copyright

Death of Content: Without strong protection, nobody will create new IP.
Encouraging investment: Content owners must be able to profit from investing in their assets. How can they do that while protecting the public interest? (what is the public interest? free entertainment/knowledge?)

Anti-copyright

Content is cultural in nature. How can one entity have a monopoly(and the right to profit off it) on any culture?
Economic rent-seeking - ergo - Michael Jackson buying up the Beatles backlist of songs. Does he get to profit from those songs for eternity? new laws effectively guarantee "eternity"
Encourages only $profitable content creation - No real economic imperative to create better lifesaving drugs for the 3rd world when they cannot pay for it.
Higher profits from charging "predatory prices" on minor life-improving drugs in 1st world developed economies.

Why should Singaporeans be concerned about ACTA?
We wanted LucasArts to invest here.(unfortunately, they probably endeed up hiring more foreign talent than local talent since we didn't build a resource base of progammers first.)
We wanted the HK film industry. (didn't get it.)
We want the electronic Gaming industry.
We seek new investments in 'cutting edge' markets.
We don't want to be lumped together as Thailand or Indonesia in our approach to protecting IP. We are part of the ACTA negotiations going on.
We "kay-poh"
We are afraid of laws requiring ISPs to cut off your internet access [Three-strikes rule, HADOPI] just because someone like ODEX thinks you are stealing their IP. (NOTE: ACCUSED, not convicted! It doesn't require evidential proof that is needed to satisfy criminal court! What happened to the rule of law?]
We do not want to be beholden to content guilds. Do you know why wait-staff at most commercial eating establishmentcannot sing the Happy Birthday song ? They can get sued for copyright infringement.]

So should we be concerned? perhaps we should.

PublicACTA petition - NZ's public's response to closed-door trade negotations.
Background material - the actual petition itself.

Does the IP-concerned portion of Singapore know and care to do the same?

E.o.M.

E.o.M.
[ to think - a defunct space combat system set in the Babylon5 universe also happens to be called ACTA - A Call To Arms. Must be some cosmic joke.]

MacDonalds and self-censorship

2010-01-29T06:23:00.002+01:00

My,

what a racial flap a private entity's decisions has created.

Out of a decision to NOT offend a particular denomination, the whole can of worms over political correctness has been reopened.

What seems to be at issue that a lot of the anger has seemed to miss:

SELF CENSORSHIP

This is the private entity's societal crime. It has attempted to modify one culture's at the sake of not offending another denomination. (In this case, pithy the Chinese-Muslims, for what do they do in the year of the pig? Well, it's just HARAM - they do not eat nor touch it. But its a metaphorical pig; one that perhaps existed way before Islam became a significant religion within greater China or inner Mongolia!)

By doing this, McD's has decided to place one denomination's sensitivities over another. Hence the recent mind-war over minarets in Switzerland, or Burjas and all that in France.

So why self-censor by removing the pig from what is clearly in the eyes of Singapore society a pig? Does Hong Kong McD's offer the pig as a Doraemon character in their set of twelve? (YES).
If so, then, have they chosen to place chinese culture over muslim religion instead? perhaps because there are less muslims in HK?

Does the self-censorship speak to a deeper angst that runs as a undercurrent within SG society, and the greater world? Has the war on terror reduced the world to such weak efforts of mental will?

If we seek to be pluralistic, then secular society cannot seek to address any one denomination over another. To paraphrase a friend : "since I cannot please everyone completely, I shall offend everyone equally". What does this mean? Perhaps, every denomination should not have any kind of special 'rights' or privileges, unless the society that denomination exists in discriminates against the said denomination, (ergo 1960s and the American civil rights movement and resultant laws that still are needed today because, well, intolerance takes a long while to 'breed' out of any society.)

Afterall, many societies still treat women as near chattel. Much work universal suffrage has still to do.

And yes, since by the time I write this, Mr Wang has decided to stop the discussion in his comments page, I agree that Mr Wang has also missed the point. But its not about the religion or not, its the point about the self-censorship.

Accept that humans are naturally different in society and culture;
Lighten up on the urge to convert all to one view by means fair and foul.
Peace will then naturally arise, because hate will have left.

E.o.M.

A random poem about... informational asymmetry?

2009-09-18T18:49:00.002+02:00

Randomly inspired by random thoughts.

Originally crafted along the lines of Martin Niemöller 'attributed quote'.

this poem got distracted.
(perhaps someday, I might review it. ahh.. hubris.)

anyway, posted the following as a response to YawningBread's short

-------------------------------------
First, they abused
the illiterate, then,
the uneducated, weak with
contractual informational asymmetry;
unable, to defend

Knowledge is power,
in this economic world built,
upon the efforts of all man,
what is fair?

Yet, those taught and literate,
stand idly by, not caring beyond,
their own little reality;

Are, in their own way,
abused by powers, incomprehensible,
to even those, that traverse,
the biggest corridors of power.

Or, are we all,
already, collected for?

---------------------------------
Abuse happens when good people do nothing, or are unwilling to lift a finger to help those who build our society. Too often, we observe abuse, but do nothing to alleviate nor reverse the damage, because, well, they're not like us, or, because, just where do we start undoing wrongs?

Is the law of economics just a monetary equivalent of the law of the jungle? Are we then, human, or beast?

E.o.M.

AWARE - the fight continues

2009-04-24T11:06:00.003+02:00

Ramblings from a post to YoungRepublic mailing list:

========================
Well,

as far as the news reports are concerned, the constitution has no fixed rules on how to remove a sitting ExCo. Given the understanding most Singaporeans have and care towards the letter of the law, it is very possible the constitution of AWARE has been pretty simple and just 'borrowed' from the Registrar of Societies' simplified template.

This is a big wake-up call to other bodies to review their own constitutions and sort out their act.

As for the issues XXXX raised:

1. This is true democracy at work.
Sure, not all the stakeholders showed up at the original AGM. Most democratic societies do NOT have the rule of compulsory voting. You can either have a holiday on voting day or turn out and vote. (South Africa's recent high turnout is a rarity, then again, its a very young democracy and a counrty which now seeks equality because democracy actually ended apartheid. [Good for them!])

Most AGMs are processional. Nobody really cares except those who cared. The 'takeover' clearly shows 'democracy' in action, i.e., those who cared enough came forward and executed a 'hostile takeover'.

Now, the fight back, whither led by only 6 who attended, or 144 new members who only signed up after, or whatever, is another example of democracy in action. If you care enough, you rally the others who were ambivalent and 'fight back' against the takeover.

Will the EGM solve anything? As I have mentioned, the constitution is probably too weak in its lettering to evict a sitting ExCo. However, a sitting quorate could table a motion to cancel the previous election outcome and hold fresh elections. What is possible? Who knows. The lawyers who are signing up for the fight should know better what is possible.

2. Varying rights of membership
Now turn around and ask yourself? are you just echoing what MM1's philosophy of one many many votes? What is ordinary membership? Who can hold office? How long must they be have been members before they can hold office ? 21? can someone be president from day one or must they serve sitting positions in other committee positions (Direct to PM? Thaksin?)

Again these are issues that the organization has to resolve within itself. When is equality equal?
Comes back again to the quality of the organization's constitution. Has it been written with thought towards its depth of complexity? is it something that all members agree to?

Come again, how many people here have ever read the constitutions of the various student bodies they have belonged to? Compulsory or otherwise? Did those make sense? Uniformed groups?

We're kept unaware (oh the pun!) or uneducated on what it means to be a body of people. Deliberately. No thought is given from childhood about teaching children what their various childhood bodies are about. They just exist. No thought is given towards teaching the young where/why these bodies have come from, nor its history. They just exist. No education is deliberately carried out on just how one can attempt to redirect a body or organization at a diferent direction democratically. Just by fiat by the ruling entity. or the ??

The AWARE 'spat' is good. it is awakening the people towards the idea that cohesive action can have an outcome. The S377A appeal failed, even though it followed all the proper steps in the SG constitution to bring the issue up for consideration. Is that the amount of respect we have for our word of law?

Pithy I am male. Nothing I can do vote-wise to affect the outcome, since AWARE is so afraid of male dominance that males cannot be anything more than associate members with no voting rights. (too much feministic tendencies at its setup? or as they said, an organization for women by women only?)

Should be fun. And signal that the body is still growing towards a better understanding of what it means to be a body, and what rules there are in this body and how to change them. When will it reach the House on the banks of the river?

E.o.M.

==================
quoted (names removed)

if YR cannot even serve as a forum for a relatively civilized
discussion of something as big as this, it really doesn't bear
sustaining, quite frankly. lets fix that.

i am not familiar with aware's constitution but is it possible to
gather enough people to call an EGM and reverse this takeover? likely
the vote only succeeded because not all the stakeholders in aware
attend aware's AGMs - a matter confounded by the fact that voting
rights are not adjusted for length of familiarity with aware and other
such factors. This is not a corporation - the constiution should not
allow the theoretical "buying of common stock" by swamping aware with
new members, and thus facilitating a hostile takeover.

i dont see any end result to this other than my suggestion above.. the
last thing we want is the government stepping in to dictate social
issues (oh, the irony)

Thanks for posting this xxx.  I wasn't going to raise this on YR but I'm glad someone did.

And now they've completely and utterly lost the plot:
http://www.glass-castle.org/blog/2009/04/tale-of-two-events-how-they-have.html
xxxxx

Identityless

2008-09-30T05:33:00.000+02:00

what is a loss of email? 11 years of email?

has that much time passed?

is this the end of identity?

will forgetting history cause one to repeat its mistakes?

Is wisdom the sum of one's experiences?

There are no letters in the attic anymore.

What else be next?

tabula rasa??

E.o.M.

Another one bit the dust (sadly)

2008-09-30T05:30:00.001+02:00

JBJ is dead.

another prominent figure head in the political scene is dead.

He never sought riches. He was a true lawyer, who believed that there was more than just seeking more money in the temple.

But one man cannot fight an entire system.
So he fought and lost, but still fought, until his end.

Will this be how he is remembered? Someone who never gave up?

Hopefully history will be kinder to him than his oppressor.

E.o.M.

Transparency versus Trust

2008-06-12T07:32:00.002+02:00

Realization comes here and there.

When interacting with another entity/organization/government/etc

When there is absolute trust, there is an absolute lack of need for any sort of transparency;

When there is absolute lack of trust, there is an absolute need for transparency.

simplified

trust/transparency inverse relationship
==============
0% trust = 100% transparency
100% trust = 0% transparency

Most entities in the world operate somewhere along this continuum.

And when governments lose the trust of their people, the more the people will clamour for greater transparency.

Now if the question is flipped - if the people currently trust the government, wouldn't a call for greater transparency lead to a loss of trust from the people?

Is it a mutual dependency relationship, or a singular dependency relationship? eg, when trust is lost, transparency is needed, but if more transparency is needed, trust is not lost?

paradox of life.

all i know is the ministers look overpaid for what they do; seemingly way way higher than what the recent Straits Times salary survey showed as the mean (only $12,000?).

if we paid everyone according to the 'assets' they take care of,
shouldn't those cleaners who ensure that the shiny buildings are kept clean and safe should therefore be pretty well paid too?

Ministerial pay in Singapore is truly the "golden handcuffs" approach to ensure compliance with someone's reality.

E.o.M.

English? Engrish? or 3ngr15h?

2008-06-11T07:12:00.003+02:00

This banner has been hanging along the CTE expressway for more than a year.

The text is fuzzy, but one of them dates it to 2007.

The question is -

who rocks? RAWKZ?
and they are teaching ENGRISH????

'tis sad. Any attempt by an older generation to connect with younger generations must necessarily look foolish and stupid, if not idiotic.

But as a guardian of language and educational institution of the young, to spell it as such is....... unforgivable?

sad.

E.o.M.

when is enough enough?

2008-06-05T19:12:00.002+02:00

In response to a comment by an ANON on yawningbread's article on the latest shot to CSJ and sibling.

Not that I believe that all of CSJ's fighting tactics are the best, but since in a war, there can be no winning tactic until after the war is over, I guess this is also my official support declaration for the 'rights that is fighting for.

Where this will bring me next, who knows. Life is getting sociologically unbearable here for those who value thought over mindless obeisance.

When will the ideological war errupt, if there are no reporters willing or able to report it?
oh wait. the Internet. The last great free thought hope.

===============
to Anon: 05 June, 2008 23:35

You believed that "our political system has grown complacent & out-of-touch after nearly 40 years in power."

However, our political system has never been real ever since coherent opposition parties were crushed into near non-existence by iron rule and other tools of government misapplied.

Neither has our political system ever attempted to mature in any sensible way - whether 2 party rule, or coalition rule, or whatever forms it could have taken.

Constitutional change requirements on parliamentary majorities are a joke when one party has virtual control of the constitution, and has the legal right to change it as and when the party sees fit.
(as an addendum to this thought - when can an attack on a political party's ideology ever be constituted as an attack on government, or is that a fallacious question?)

As for the rest of what is happening to Singapore that most Singaporeans seem to be simmering hotly about, I doubt there can be any positive change towards a state for Singaporeans first.

When foreign talent are more attractive to employers than locals (eg: NS obligations etc), we can see what happens to us - HOTEL Singapore, where the majority of the staff are NOT Singaporeans.

As to leaving, I have already decided that one day, my ticket will be validated. And that is the sadness, for I will leave not for the sake of a better life, for I forever will remain born a Singaporean, but for the sake of a freer life.

E.o.M.

===============

Burma - who gives a #@$@#$)*#(@!!??

2008-05-18T04:15:00.002+02:00

Posted on YawningBread

Sovereignty
===========

We can bitch, we can moan, we can continue to make them pariahs, but if they choose NOT to accept our help, should we still be nosy neighbours and pester incessantly and complain to the other neighbours?

Double standards and misguided do-gooders. Either do an Iraq, or move on. They don't want capitalistic help.

E.o.M.

==========================

Seriously - if our neighbours want to poison themselves, or starve themselves, must be we adopt holier-than-thou-humanitarian attitudes and attempt to impose our values on them?

If we respect choice, and see the right of the individual to choose as inalienable (as long as it does not contradict other individuals' right to live etc), then, why be so bitchy and moralizing about their wrecked infrastructure and lives? We chose to draw that line that says this is their land.

Oh well. Realpolitik - also known as strange bedfellows. (or other less dignified descriptives)

E.o.M.

Apart from us, not A Part of Us

2008-04-03T07:00:00.004+02:00

Saying it for what is it - Sign board tells it like it is. No place for those who have NOT the means to be apart. These APARTments are meant to keep out the un-premiums, also known as not-haves.

Spotted along Thomson Road, this really makes one wonder - what the developers were contemplating, and who would want to be part of that ENCLAVE.

from the Merriam-Webster online definition:

ENCLAVE
: a distinct territorial, cultural, or social unit enclosed within or as if within foreign territory

Truly. APART from us. Not-haves - stay OUT.

And the wealth gap continues to widen...

E.o.M.

ISA - in search of adjudicators

2008-03-26T02:02:00.001+01:00

Commented on yawningbread's article on the ISA (see link in the link area lah!)

==============================
One funny question our ISA brings up about us is:

ARE there no non-partisan civic leaders that we can turn to as impartial reviewers rather on this proposed 5-yr board of inquiry rather than day representatives of the government, executive, legislative or judicial?

At the end of the day - to excommunicate an individual from his own society (presuming ISA is primarily used on citizens rather than foreigners who will just be deported to their home country prison systems), greater society have had a say on whether the said individual is a THREAT to its continued well-being. Yes, the judiciary should be involved, or at least, someone to ensure that procedural propriety was carried out, but to for a representative of the current government to chair the inquiry encourages a pro-govt bias.

In that sense, a non-current ex-judiciary or ex-law practicioner would reduce any pro-current-government bias on the board.

If intelligence security is an issue, then, having people that society trust as upstanding and incorruptible to review an arrest would provide greater society with a re-assurance that the executive branch is not abusive of its wide powers, whilst reducing the opportunity for intelligence leaks.

But I do agree with anonymous1 - easier to arrest the insociable (terror, crime, whatnots) over other lawbreakings rather than some insubstantial allegation that they cannot prove.
(which is why Mr Chee and company keep getting arrested on minor laws of public peace etc, rather than given the ISA hammer to take him out as a political force).

If other democracies (or at least, accountable governments that DO get thrown out of office due to abuses of power) can live without an ISA, why does a tiny city-state require one to defend itself from itself? Is it fear that we could become the pawns in international geo-politik (and what implications that gives for our own leaders who can be influenced so readily!) or that we still face 'Konfrontasi'-style threats or a resurgence of social-evolution (previously known as communism)?

I stand on the abolitionists' side. ISA has more cons than pros in its ease for executive abuse. If we are to create a society of trust rather than fear, then ISA is a roadblock that needs to be removed.

E.o.M.

Bleach for a future

2008-03-14T18:29:00.002+01:00

Inspired(?) because polite discussion doesn't get people worked up... so might as well point out the bleeding obvious.

---------------------------------------------------

Bleach for a future on a red dot
======================
"Trust us" said the men in white
(Starched so white to be stainless)
progress for all through meritocracy
(nurtured at one's own scholastic pace)
To each according to one's ability
(as determined at the tea parties in white)
the rewards of one's efforts
(one's magnitude of the reward)

E.o.M.

Revitalizing entrepreneurship in Singapore

2008-03-14T18:26:00.002+01:00

In another reply to a YawningBread post about non-Singaporeans' grassroots-entrepreneurship:

====================================================
Its all in the mindset; Singaporeans just have had it drummed out of our minds.

When we encounter a problem, instead of coming up with new solutions to the problem, we either fall back on past solutions that have worked, or wait for someone else to solve the problem.

In most other societies, people will step forward and take their chances with their own solution (however good or bad the solution might be). A Singaporean is likelier to stand still and wait.

Do we have a pro-business environment? Yes and no.
Strong regulation means the majority of startup costs are known, and hidden costs (such as 'influencing' bureaucracies) are reduced.

But, is it conducive to new ideas? NO. As Ducktours has shown, our bureaucracies are great at administrating the known, but haplessly unwilling to take any real responsibility for any decision that has not been decided before, resulting in that businessman needing a Prime Minister to give him the scissors for that Gordian knot.

With the mentality that anything new (and thus, a need to cover my ass from a possible failure) creating needless escalation of decision making, we have a bureaucracy that is efficient, but not effective.

If so, how can true entrepreneurship (new business concepts/ideas etc) flourish?

All we get is a rehash of someone else's existing business, and an open tender that means that someone with a great idea, WILL end up not being the one benefiting most from it.

What needs to be changed?
The whole mindset of taking responsibility. If an office bearer is in charge, than he/she has to take responsibility for a decision (eg: duck tours), not pass it up the chain of command because its risky to take a stand.

Taking the ducktours example, the least LTA or MPA could have done would have been for the heads of the registration offices to meet each other, and issue a joint license or something. That is an action that can be taken at the "xxA" level, not wait for a PM to say "wtf!"

When SG bureaucracy is able to make decisions that carry individual responsibility, then, yes, entrepreneurship may then have the chance to flourish in SG again. Until then, we will have to be content with very narrow bands of entrepreneurship restricted to re-offering existing market offerings.

E.o.M.

Medical fee protection in Singapore, or the lack of it.

2008-01-07T18:27:00.000+01:00

Posted as a comment on Yawningbread's comment blog, about his article on the lack of clarity on how to access medical cost support from the various systems available from the government (or not available). Click on the link above to go to his article.

===================================
I seem to remember some time ago, some minister, mayhap from some health-related portfolio, or someone, made the statement or expressed the philosophy that:

The family is the FIRST line of medical cost defense for any individual.
(and addendum - the state is the last line of defence).

Now, if I comprehend the philosophical concept of insurance, it was to ensure that the greater whole help take care of those struck by the fate of randomness. From one perspective, they 'subsidize' or help defray the costs of those unlucky individuals. (who, if one believes in societal-level of karma, some must die for the majority to prosper kind of philosophy)

However, private insurance guarantees that those most likely to need fee assistance, are also those most likely to be rejected. (in the interests of profit, every payout is a loss to the bottom line).

I understand that under the SWISS level of healthcare - everyone pays a fixed fee a year (or a higher fee depending on their desire for better beds), and then to a certain level, all medical coverage is paid for by the national fund. It is complicated in its own way, but when elderly swiss prefer to live in Switzerland rather than risk expensive medical fees in Bangkok, then, there must be some real societal level of medical care for its members.

Coming back to the SG philosophy - now, as aptly described by many, the family is nuclear (stop at 2 punishing us further again), small, and unable to seriously fund medical care should illness strike more than one member of the 'family'.

If so, it then begins a negative spiral of medical un-surance, where once the family's medisave is empty due to one illness, the family cannot let any other member fall to another long-term illness.

Now, as I understand it, most nuclear families have up to 4 grandparents, who may or may not have 4 kids (or more) to support them. So, we should choose now which of the 4 grandparents should get the medical fee support in advance now? Or, amongst the four grandparents, see who gets to be the lucky one?

Also, it appears that with the family as the first line of medical fee defense, it leads that a second medical crisis will lead to the family ending up in all kinds of debt to pay for the fees. (all in all, medical care be medical care, but money does matter when determining when to carry out that potentially life-saving but not critical injury).

By saddling the family with such loans, rather than spreading the financial load out amongst the greater society, we continue to create a society of haves and have nots.

and sadly, no one can predict when a medical crisis can strike a 'family'. Our system guarantees that not only the individual and immediate family's financial defense is consumed, but that the family must now pray that no other illnesses ever strike them again.

Its a wonder that we claim to have a swiss-standard of living. I dread the day when my remaining parent's medical bill becomes a reality.

E.o.M.

Fear for when the political is free

2007-12-21T04:22:00.000+01:00

Note on Catherine Lim's latest letter to all and sundry in Singapore. For a 1st generation immigrant, she sure has her heart set on getting society to be better, not just her own little world.

=================================

Dear Catherine,

thank you for another kind piece reminding us that we're not supposed to be aspiring to be the most souless city in this world.

Unfortunately, I do not believe that we will have evolutionary change towards that society you dream about. Sadly, by stifling all political efforts towards creating a better society, there will come a day where all that pent up energy (if any is left), will be suddenly released, in a manner that is so uncontrollable that it creates a negative impact in its urge to right the wrongs of old.

Where will we end up after that day? nobody knows. SG is a box of very dry tinder politically. Dried for 40+ years. Which spark will set it off?

truly, not a future to look forward to, but if history has shown, oppression always meets a violent end, and in turn, creates a even more extreme form of oppression by the victors over the old oppresion. Where will we all end up?

KianWee

E.o.M.
[not advocating revolution in any means, just warning that it could happen, but ruthless suppression of the "People's Action Figures Party" rally/demonstration... suggests that our political overseers are ever ready to hit the panic button and call out the riot police]

Being rewritten in the ST forum

2007-12-21T03:32:00.000+01:00

originally posted on Mollymeek

==================================

Well,

here is my experience of being blue-pencilled out of the original thrust of the letter to the forum. Instead of a call for bureaucratic self-searching (if it is possible), it just became an empty on the state of the situation, and the title suggested that I was calling on society to blindly trust its appointed functionaries without any watchdogs on them.

"C'est la vie"; be wary of the blue-pencil wielded by political apparatchiks.

Here's wot I wrote, and the strikeout in red is what was lost.

Trust administrators to
do the right thing

April 10, 2004

~~Bureaucracies are designed to fit people and issues within pre-determined criteria and rules.~~WHEN administrators are called upon to apply bureaucratic criteria, they frequently find that there are exceptional factors, or issues, that make a mess of the predetermined rules. And they find it difficult to resolve the conflict.

Unfortunately, the average administrator wants to get his job done within the rules. He is punished if he makes exceptions. Is it any wonder that we face bureaucracies that defend themselves rather than serve their constituents?

We cannot tell administrators to allow for a little 'messiness' without giving them the authority, and confidence, that their best judgment will decide the outcome of an issue. More importantly, that the system will trust and support administrators in their decisions.

These mindset changes are needed before we can reach bureaucratic nirvana. We have to learn to trust; bureaucracies, by nature, are not created with trusting their functionaries in mind. Yet, if we desire a knowledge economy and an engaged society, we cannot continue to restrict application of regulations to the straight and narrow.

All of us have in one time or another, faced situations where the rules were ridiculous, and there was no recourse. As a minor student functionary within my university, I make my best attempts to serve the students first, and not the system.

As a species, we have lost sight of what bureaucracies are intended for. Where their original creators desired efficiency in serving its constituents, today's modern bureaucracies find efficiency in serving the system.

How can we achieve greatness if we're hampered by the very systems we create? I call on all bureaucracies to review themselves regularly to remind themselves that they seve their constituents, and not the system.
-------------------------------------

So, if anyone wants to have a letter pass through with minimal edits (or re-meanings), do remember to edit your own letter so that the sentences are so tight that they cannot be removed without making the paragraph incoherent (doesn't prevent wholesale paragraph loss, but hey, at least if they slice within a paragraph, it feels that something is missing from it).

Good luck to future writers.

KianWee

E.o.M.

Diversity a bone or a bane?

2007-11-07T12:21:00.000+01:00

Sent to the ST to reply to a sad fundamentalist ex-student of SMU
=====================================

re:
http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Online%2BStory/STIStory_172944.html

Acceptance of diversity, or the first step towards intolerance?

Being an SMU alumni, I am disappointed to read that an ex-student believes
that SMU should suppress its students on speaking out for a minority. SMU
sees one of its missions to develop tomorrow's leaders - responsible
leaders that can lead a society, and not just the minority they happen to
belong to. To be aware of the various nuances in any issue, and to seek
the path that leads to equality and fairness of treatment of all and not
the privileged few.

In my experience, SMU seeks to arm its graduates with a sense of
responsible leadership: by making sure that every student takes at least
1 module in logic, my fellow graduates have been armed with the tools to
make good decisions towards the betterment of themselves, and the society
they participate in. This module also aids in our graduates' separating
fallacies from truths when they listen to any side of an issue.

The other module in question - Leadership & Team Building, is one
module that aids greatly in developing a responsible leader. A module
which I found great personal reward in, as it gave us, as students, the
opportunity to
discover what was possible if strong minds were allied with stout wills
and able hands. Many communities are better off today for the various
efforts that each individual student project group have contributed.

This is exactly the module where a publication on the lives of ordinary
citizens (who happen to have different sexual preferences) can be
celebrated in. To welcome them again as part of our vibrant and diverse
society. To remind ourselves that they have always been with us, are still
part of us, and will continue to live, laugh, grow old, and serve our
society like the rest of us.

Leonard Ng and his team have offered us a glimpse into the ordinary lives
of our own citizens. Where is the wrongness in that? Must such
celebrations of diversity be muzzled because it offends another minority?

SMU was founded to bring diversity to the tertiary education scene in
Singapore. Our graduates are not just clones off a factory line - and this
publication is the evidence that we have succeeded. May many more
innovations spring from this budding university.

Ong Kian Wee
ex-student leader
class of 2001
Singapore Management University

===================================
E.o.M.

the end of another generation's hopes

2007-10-23T23:46:00.001+02:00

Thus it is proven,
that this society will not want to evolve,
hidint behind fear-mongering, mistrust, and plain ignorance,
seeking the appeal and support of religious minorities,
without consideration,
for the non-dissenting religious majority, or non-religious;

How the few, can and will direct, the morality of the many,
for without direct evidence of monetary gain,
we shall lose, another generation of talent,
to the greater world outside, this little red dot.

Seek not, what your country would do for you,
(for it will do nothing if you are of the discriminated),
but what you can do, for youself,
and for those that you care for.

The wider world awaits.
Swim in this well no more,
little gay frog of Singapore.

For those who don't know. see. www.repeal377a.com

E.o.M.
[a red passport for the pragmatist; a believer in other more welcoming societies.]

USNW - a slap to the idea of edu-hubbing in SG

2007-05-27T04:41:00.000+02:00

As someone pointed out, if EDB's statement about 15,000 regular students is true, then, with the expected 70% foreign population in the university, over 10,000 will be foreign.
(first, we have to ask, how big a campus would they need to host 15,000 students, but hey, we want a headcount of 6.5 million anyway!)

Those numbers would be highly satisficing for EDB's economic projection planners. However, they seem to have forgotten the impact on reputation of the generated piece of paper the students are after. Its not all about chasing a paper (unlike those scholastic scholars), its also about chasing the reputation.

By all perceptions, there was never a real chance that UNSW-SG would become better than UNSW itself. the SG branch was just going to be a degree-factory, where you put young aspirants in one end, and churn out lettered people in the other end.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but, erm, most people who go for higher studies are less likely to fall for propaganda? We all decide which university we want to attend based on a multitude of factors, and the 'branding' it leaves on us for life.
(eg: one is forever known as an xxx university graduate, and the status stratification that may come with it.)

So with a reputation as a pure money-making factory, is it any wonder that given cost-competing substitutes, foreign students in the region might NOT want to come to SG, and rather, do it in Malaysia or in Australia for cheaper or equivalent?

A darker point to consider - UNSW-SG could have been set up to capture students from countries who may face difficulties in getting study visas in Australia, and UNSW-SG was designed to side-step that, with SG's more liberal student-visa policies.

However, that bet may have turned out to have much smaller returns than expected. Perhaps there just aren't that many people who have money to study yet face visa difficulties in this region.

Also, if it was true that the UNSW board only had 30 seconds to consider the project in SG, then the carrot dangled in front of them must have been so ludicrous that the only possible governance decision was a "go". And as usual, the black hole that is EDB will not disclose what kind of carrots we use. Transparency? neh.

At the end of the day, instead of organic growth, and attractiveness as a city, we've decided to go the sports-franchise route, and try to buy education franchises to set up in SG, rather than ensure that we have the attractive factors to sustain the franchise in the first place. The failure only means that such games should really still be left to the private sector, rather than governmental technocrats who cannot, no matter what, understand the financial bottomline at the end of the day, because it isn't their money.

Centrally planned economic development cannot work. We're just taking as long as the ex-great USSR to find out. HK isn't as planned, and is still doing as well if not better than us. Fallacy of causation somwhere in this.

E.o.M.

Can repealing S377/377A cause harm to SG society?

2007-05-13T03:45:00.000+02:00

Posted on YoungRepublic yahoogroup mailing list.
--------------------------------------------------

The concept of harm has evolved, and is ever evolving.
=======================================
When slaves had no rights, there was no harm caused in whipping them, or to work them all day in the sun, etc. They were not human, and so certain religions preferred preached to reinforce that societal paradigm t.

When women had no rights, there was no harm keeping them in the kitchen, delivery room, and other areas of confinement. Women were not men, and again, certain religions were happy to go with the current flow and preach against universal suffrage.

So since harm is ever evolving, then there is no real reason to try to determine hypothetical harm in a society. We just have to determine on a case by case (Caselaw style) on what constitutes harm.

Does repealing S377/377A cause more harm or does retaining/modifying it cause more harm? (applied law rather than theoretical law?)

it causes 'mental harm' to those who believe it is abhorrent, immoral and weakens the bond of society (all moralistic judgements).

Does it cause physical harm? Well, if unnatural sex occurred between non-consenting parties, erm, ye. I guess there's harm. Can such criminal acts of harm be prosecuted under other laws? probably yes too. (rape? assault? battery? etc).

Does it cause harm between consenting parties? well, if one lied about HIV status, or other high-risk situations, yes, there is potential for harm. Note, it is still potential, not definite. Is it covered under other laws? hasn't been tried in SG, though i understand that in the US etc, people have been prosecuted under murder charges or something for intentionally trying to pass on HIV on unknowing partners.

Does it cause harm between informed, true-and-fair "contracting" (trusting) adults in a private bedroom? If they slip up and have an accident, sure. But is an accident a crime?
If so, wouldn't an accident in a 'legal heterosexual sex leading to penetration' situation also cause harm and be liable under S377/377A? Why should one then be prosecutable and another not? If there is no accident, and both parties walk away satisfied, what harm has been caused?

If there is no harm beyond mental harm, and for certain religions, the idea that other religions also 'claim' to be the one true path (thus causing mental harm ), then, what actual harm to society has occurred?

The homophobic lobby's primary line of argument is the slippery slope-
that if it is decriminalized, it will lead to higher incidence of non-missionary-position-sexual-activity-not-leading-to-procreation.
Somehow, I think that activity going on somewhere 24/7 in Singapore all the time.

Axotxl tanks to save Singapore from extinction, anyone?
We coul calld it permanent national service for females.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axolotl_tank

E.o.M.
[what's abhorrent in one society is just daily course of activity in another. The only remaining option is to exercise free market will and leave an intolerant society.]

On Sun, 13 May 2007 09:08:54 +0800, koh Jie Kai wrote:

> I'm unsure however, to what extent I'm supposed to defend that. That's
> because ( and I'm just looking at my own juris notes here) even if we say
> that the state should only intervene on the grounds an individual should
> not
> be allowed to harm others, the problem with such an analysis is that what
> constitutes "harm" is in itself a moral judgment.
>
> So on one level of analysis, when Mills says that the state is justified
> in
> intervening if an individual's activities cause loss, injury and pain to
> others, it's saying that causing these things is morally wrong.
>
> Or when Mills advocated in "On Liberty" for compulsory education, can
> that
> sort of intervention be said to be a moral judgment which says that "it
> is
> better for people to be able to fully exercise their abilities to make
> choices, which they can only meaningfully do if they are literate"?
>
> As for privileging any particular conceptions of the good: I'm not sure
> if
> it is entirely desirable that the state can and should refrain from doing
> this in each and every circumstance. Raz would argue that the good of
> autonomy in human lives does not require that citizens have the
> opportunity
> to make immoral choices. While he also argues that most moral
> legislation is
> not justified on the grounds that it would violate autonomy, it opens the
> possibility that there are in fact immoral choices which can justify
> state
> coercion.
>
> Suppose we are faced with a case of a citizen who enjoys torturing,
> mutilating and killing stray cats. Why might a state be justified in
> imposing laws banning this? In fact, my guess is that liberals would
> intuitively feel more comfortable passing laws criminalising this than
> to do
> anything about the publication of porn magazines.
>
> Now stray cats are not people, and they aren't owned by anyone, which
> means
> that issues of pain or loss caused to human beings isn't present here. We
> can also disregard the factor of there being a bigger mess to clean up
> after
> these cats get killed. No the real issue here is whether it is desirable
> to
> inflict torture and pain per se. And we might say "the state shouldn't
> condone behaviour which prmotes acts of violence and torture, because
> such
> acts are immoral." Obviously I've not proven that kitty torture should be
> banned, but I'm saying that to state that the state should always be
> morally neutral as between choices of citizens where no harm is involved
> is
> not a foregone conclusion.
>
>
>
>
> On 5/12/07, Caleb wrote:
>>
>> Yes that is right. Although I believe tolerance alone is not enough:
>> not
>> only should the state tolerate all values that do not cause harm to its
>> citizens, it should also not privilege any particular conceptions of the
>> good.
>>
>>
>> On 5/12/07, koh Jie Kai wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On the specific point of tolerance ( since I am in fact on my
>> > jurisprudence topic reading now), any society which accepts that
>> there might
>> > be a diversity of ways of viewing things morally would require
>> tolerance.
>> > "Tolerance" as a value has a very specific meaning according to Raz.
>> It
>> > implies the idea that an individual is withholding doing some form of
>> > coercion or threat to someone whom that individual thinks deserves
>> such
>> > coercion or threat.
>> >
>> > I hope I got that right.
>> >
>> >
>> > > A society comfortable with itself would not need tolerance. It
>> already
>> > > accepts that within itself, there are members that may not subscribe
>> > > to
>> > > the views of the majority. However, the majority also accept the
>> > > existence
>> > > of the minority, and will defend their right to existence as members
>> > > of
>> > > the society (and other loftier ideals).
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>

There's a fundamental wrong in letting some people marry

2007-03-31T09:32:00.000+02:00

Found in the Sydney Morning Herald (31st Mar 2007)

Just the right kind of mirror I love to hold up to society. ;-)

E.o.M.
========================================

There's a fundamental wrong in letting some people marry
Lisa Pryor
March 31, 2007

The views I am about to express are not very fashionable. They are certainly not politically correct. But I believe what I am about to say must be expressed to protect the institution of marriage.

Too often in the media, currency is given to the theory that everyone should be allowed to marry regardless of gender, outlook and whether the two people are creating a suitable family environment in which to bring up children.

Well, it is time to ask some hard questions about this attitude. The only way we will save marriage is to reclaim the institution for the mainstream. Marriage is for normal people who want to raise children in a healthy and secure environment. This is why we should ban religious fundamentalists from marrying.

Fundamentalists of all religions engage in unnatural practices. The unconventional views they hold inevitably lead to their children being teased in the playground and, no matter what studies may show, there is surely a greater risk they will grow up to be fundamentalist themselves if they are exposed to dangerous ideas from a tender age.

No matter what fundamentalist propaganda may claim, fundamentalism is not sanctioned by nature. There is not a single species in the animal kingdom which stresses the infallibility of the Bible or adheres to the teachings of the Koran. Even in the higher orders of primate, no species has conclusively shown faith in the virgin birth or the second coming. Animals tend to be atheist, pagan or animist, which shows that these views are surely instinctive, normal, natural and right.

Maybe you think it is OK for humans to differ from animals. Maybe you think consenting adults should be able to do what they like regardless of whether the average person agrees with their views.

Such a liberal approach is a slippery slope. When we allow fundamentalists to marry it says that fundamentalism is OK. It encourages these people to foist the fundamentalist agenda on the rest of the community. Before long they will be trying to "convert" people to their "religions". Should we risk this? Fundamentalists are a small minority of the population, so only a small number of people would be inconvenienced by a ban. It would not even be discriminatory as fundamentalists would still have the right to marry - so long as they renounced their religion.

Let's not forget that we are not just talking about consenting adults. When you allow fundamentalists to marry it encourages them to have children. Sure, they might still have kids even if they cannot marry in the eyes of the law, but why legitimise it? Children are the true victims of fundamentalist marriages. Children don't get a say when they are born into a household practising a fundamentalist lifestyle. Tiny children should not be subjected to cultural experiments and social engineering. Imagine how confused and guilty children would feel when they were indoctrinated with the bizarre idea that they were born with the stain of original sin and were in fact so inherently bad that a man had to bleed to death to make it all OK.

Imagine also the teasing that children who have grown up in these "families" would be subjected to in the playground when other kids find out about their unusual views and practices. What are normal parents supposed to do when their children arrive home asking uncomfortable questions because they have been exposed to these groups at an age when they are too young to understand?

Before you know it, fundamentalist parents will be insisting preschool children read storybooks about the fundamentalist lifestyle in order to better understand it. There will be colouring books directed at four-year-olds showing Jesus turning water into wine and walking on water, as if it were gospel.

What hope does a child indoctrinated with this sort of propaganda have of growing up to be normal? Can you really tell me they will not be more likely to grow up fundamentalist themselves?

Before you accuse me of hate speech, I should point out that I bear no grudge against fundamentalists personally. "Love the fundamentalist, hate the fundamentalism" is my policy.

I suppose one chink in this argument is that banning a minority from marrying is utterly unfair, inhumane and intolerant. Kind of like the ban on gay marriage.

People only protect what they love,
but they can love only what they know

Jacques-Yves Cousteau

One cent too high?

2007-03-29T03:36:00.000+02:00

YawningBread put up a good analytical critique on the issue of salaries in the Singapore administrative service. I thought i should add 2 more cents in and ask if it is due to flawed logic?

=========================

in the first 20 years,

the model worked. Everyone pulled together.

having tasted the fruits of success, the model required 'tweaking'. We have tweaked.

We thought we should retain talent in the civil service, and simplistically, we thought, an individual's only incentive towards public service is the size of his pay packet. So, therefore, the simplistic logic meant that we had to pay for the best. Not necessarily the object of the work, or the intrinsic value of patriotism, but just the size of the dollar value of their 'talent'.
(which also means, as a society, we also put dilly-squat on concepts such as "serving the country", since it doesn't require any form of 'sacrifice' at all!)

The best in any private industry are always paid the best salaries. Any lesser, and they can leave for somewhere better. (can, not WILL. we confused those 2 concepts somewhen back in the 80s).

In Singapore's Civil service, the "best" come from our scholastic training, graded by educators who apply a subjective assessment of an individual's ability that determines his starting position on the grid. There are no real market forces within the public service; it would take an act of gross stupidity and negligence for one to be fired in the civil service. Bright prospects are sent around the various departments, like pidgeons stopping briefly, before being shuttled on to their next position. (which could be a cause for the mismash of policies that didn't seem to make coherent sense, as each bright prospect attempted to make his/her own mark to add to their service docket before moving on to their next position)

Why then should we be benchmarking civil service pay rates to the best in the private sector when the "market forces" are different? In a civil service, one can easily rise up to a senior position by showing some level of competence, the ability to flow with the political wind, and to avoid being caught in mistakes or potholes.

In the private sector, you rise because you are deemed to be able to deal with bigger things (and the corresponding bigger pay packet, and accountability/responsibility that comes with it)

It cannot be that such salary structures are due to the concept of preventing corruption, since if that is the argument, then by extension, we are accusing the civil service in richer countries in the EU, and the US, and other countries ahead of us in GDP to be corrupt, since their ministers are insufficiently paid in relation to the 'wealth' they manage.

Can civil service salaries at the top level come down then?

Can we ever reverse the logically-flawed course we have taken?

Or is this the grand strategic path to make SG salaries (private and public) in general so attractive that the best talent rather work here than be working in NY or London?
(A case of building a better mousetrap, and hoping that they will come eat here?)

Did we even consider that besides the huge disparity in income, public servants in Singapore also generally pay less tax than their equivalents in other 1st-world countries? (which in turn, magnifies their income streams vis-a-vis international benchmarks even further?)

Will the illusion that Singapore is successful fail one day due to such little slip-ups in logic?

truly, a slippery slope we are sliding down on.

E.o.M.

==========================
link to original article.

E.o.M.

Tolerance spheres - who's responsibility to respect these?

2007-02-19T04:33:00.000+01:00

Another incoherent comment on a YB post. click on the link above to see what he was talking about.

========================================
An Abdication of personal responsibility ?

By justifying righteous indignation through the idea that many others also think so on an issue, we then begin to give up our personal responsibility to form our own coherent opinion and stand on the issue. It is much easier for one to agree with the 'mob'.

The problem is of differing tolerence spheres. Everyone has a sphere of beliefs and opinions about all sorts of things (learnt, taught, or indoctrinated); These tolerence spheres frequently come into contact with other peoples', and when there is a conflict, the need to resolve the conflict becomes the crux on whether the issue becomes incendiary or quietly resolved.

Looking at YB's 2 examples, the sphere for tolerating smoking has been continuously expandedthrough frequent health warnings, and reinforced by the smoking ban on public places (which is vaguely worded if anything).

Looking at the intent behind that law, one can also ask, was the intent to punish smokers caught for smoking in public places, or to remind smokers to not infringe on non-smokers' tolerence spheres.

Which brings us back to the question of personal responsibility or the lack of it, and who should bear more responsibility - the smoker at the bus stop irresponsible about respecting other non-smokers, or the non-smokers needing to remind the smoker that he is dissing their tolerence spheres.

We all want a kinder, gentler society. We all seek the civility that society seems to be losing more of everyday. It all comes down to each of us respecting the existence of another human being - without which, it would just be plain darwinism and the law of the jungle at work.

Just keep that in mind when you next do something without thinking. You could be contributing to uncivilization.

E.o.M.

A disappointed view of the politics of Pragmatism

2007-02-09T18:41:00.000+01:00

YawningBread put up an analysis of the WP's attempts to position itself as an attentive voice for the voices unheard by the whites. Unfortunately, in his opinion, the WP only showed itself to be a party seeking its own brand of identity and ideology (or the lack of it in seeking the ideology of pragmatism.)

Since I am currently incapable of writing up original articles, I've been reduced to putting comments in that will hopefully awaken people to start thinking about their own lives.... so here's to adding my comments to his blog list.

(UGH. brilliance of cut n paste. It will have to wait for him to put it up after moderation before
anyone else (does anyone?) can read it here.

oops!

E.o.M.

Looking inwards - do we know the nature of the beast called Singapore society?

2007-01-16T02:28:00.000+01:00

A reply posted to Charles Tan's article on the lack of use of civil disobedience as a tool in winning public opinion

================

why isn't it taking hold as an idea?

Some additional points to ponder:

1. Indoctrination in school.

The legalistic traditions that we are educated under means that one is taught to always run to the official in charge for redress, rather than seek to convince the greater majority that there is an issue that needs redressing by all, and not just the ruling 'power'.

Other sub-factors:

1.1 The repression of all things political. We are encouraged to stay under the radar, not rock the boat, not stir up trouble, not be the nail that sticks out; all the above behaviors discourage initiative. We are taught to wait for the 'powers' to pronounce. The lack of any political training through classroom elections (and any real power that comes from being 'elected') means that politics within SG society has been reduced to something undesirable - We're better off just working hard, and letting our learned 'betters' run the government (and therefore society).

2. Social cohesion leading to apathy

Do we really feel like a community? or are we just a nexus of economic and social contracts? What is the higher ideal that Singaporeans revel in being Singaporeans? Food?
Family? Which principle or ideal do the majority of all Singaporeans subscribe to? Pragmatism?

If the only higher ideal that all of us subscribe to is pragmatism, then on an individual level, civil disobedience would be seen as an unproductive approach. Standing around waving placards to emphasize a philosophical/political point is fruitless to the pragmatist.

3. Increasing awareness - the lack of an independent press

For a city of 4 million, we seem to be in perpetual intellectual anorexia. The lack of any kind of printed diversity in local views (see Newspapers and Printing Presses Act for details), means that there can never really develop a emotionally supportive segment of society that will empathize/sympathize with the civil disobedients' cause. All we are interested as a society is news that comes in tabloid genre - trashy, fantasy-world reports of other things ongoing that only aim to titilate rather than contemplate.
(truly, titilate the masses, and all power pf theirs be yours.)

What we have here is for all intents and purposes, 1984. The citizens are told what to believe, believe what they are told, and that the powers can never be wrong. As long as nobody upsets the apple cart, it keeps going.

Is there hope? Venice in its heyday was more than a nexus of economic contracts in the 14th century. It was an economic and military power with an identity.

Can Singapore become the Venice of the 21st century? What aspirations do we have for this country as its members? or do we only have individual interests?

E.o.M.

Thoughts about the future of SG after another optimist loses his hope

2006-12-05T02:57:00.000+01:00

A response to a SigNeL mail from someone who lost his last shreds of idealism

==================
Thoughts arising:

1. The Atheists need to come together. In human society, coming together to speak as 1 voice gives power. Atheists have no 'communal center' to focus around, and thus, are always bullied by other 'religions'.

2. Agnostics should do the same.

3. There needs to be a rethink on the concept of religion. Does having a church/temple/focal point of worship equate it with a religion? Then maybe the Atheist "entity" will be a place of individual spirituality (or will the idea just be seen as a hippie flowerpot?)

4. Discrimination is true and exists. It really seems like the only way to combat is its to take it one every possible incident, the way Rosa Parks did. Speak up, and stand up against all discrimination. (though personally, I still do think its right to discriminate (Darwinate?) against people without common sense.)

5. Is SG a lost cause? or is the silent majority just content to let the conservative minority hijack any and all agendas because they rather just go about their daily lives, not remembering why and where their freedoms in their daily life arose from?
(Or is that a flaw in our education system? wait. it is! study hard and all reward will come to you!)

What this then means is, the liberal minority needs to stop sitting on its collective idealistic asses, and start getting into the trenches. The conservative minorities have causes they rally around (a holy book, a holy leader, a hate-spewing bigot in a pulpit, watever). The liberals, by standing for all things, stand for nothing.

Oh well, this is a country that stands its politics as pragmatism. Pragmatism means subservience to the majority opinion, as long as its 50.1%, one must be pragmatic and cater for it first. We can either 'convert' people into secular liberals, or just walk, and let them fundamentalists come together and have their own religious version of paradise on earth. (not offending any single fundie religion, offending all at the same time).

This form of society is also commonly known as a Theocracy (with all its attendant issues). Maybe we're halfway there already, with all these 'unenlightened' victorian-era laws that don't "need" repealing and "won't" be enforced.

In the global competition for talent and minds, sadly, those who are not welcome will walk. And those who remain will be poorer for it.

E.o.M.
[P.S. are you sure the SGgovt wants diversity? and why do you capitalize the "G" in government? it is not a noun!]
[or was it a very subtle pun at "Gggg-government"?]
=============
Original post
(pertinent issues highlighted in red)

Dear Friends,

For the first time as a gay youth do I feel the terrible discrimination we face in this country we call home. First I need to apologise to Yawning Bread and several others. They tried to join the session but was rejected on the condition that they were not invited. I must acknowledge that this session is mainly for religious leaders, in fact I wonder am i the only non-religious person there. In my conversation with the organiser who happened to be my friend, some people have been classified as 'safe ones' and are welcomed to join anytime, some are considered 'ok' while some are 'dangerous'. In his words, I guessed that religious leaders might have put Yawning Bread and company as dangerous and unwelcomed. For that part, I am deeply sorry for what have happened.

Just to report on what have happened inside. When I asked the speakers whether section 377a is a tyranny of majority, their response was that the law at anytime is the reflection of the public sentiments. So indirectly he admitted it is a tyranny of majority. That we gays deserve to be prosecuted like this. When asked about the issue of female homosexuals, some religious leader felt that there is a rise in number of lesbians and they want to criminalise lesbians, the speakers' responses were that it is relevant and they will bring it back to consider.

When asked about whether gay man having sex outside singapore, and whether they will be prosecuted when they return. Their stand is yes. They claimed that it is a bit extreme. But the public do not accept homosexual acts, so the first step is to criminalise. In future, they will follow the public opinion and further strength the penal code against homosexuality!!!
Then some girl raised the point on Gay Saunas in town. Their first reaction is they don't know. And immediately, they felt it might lead to the increase in HIV cases and wanted immediate action from ministry of home affairs. So gay sauna owners out there, be prepared for raids and police in disguise.

As I was sitting in the room listening to all these, I was on the verge of bursting, yet I was upset. I wonder what can we do to reverse this trend. What can we do to reach out to the public and change people's mindset. The Government wants diversity, but obviously this don't seem the case. We are at a very crucial point in our struggle for acceptance. We need to get together, discipline ourselves and fight for our rights. The government will not give it to us, we need to fight for it.

To Yawning Bread, I apologise again for what have happened, I was totally unaware that the religious leaders made such a restriction. If any of you have been sitting inside listening to all those, I bet you will burst up as well.

With Regards,
Shuzhang

SiGNeL - The Singapore Gay News List. For more info, see our homepage
http://www.plu.sg/main/index_signel.htm

GST raise in SG - correcting misconceptions

2006-11-16T07:10:00.000+01:00

Posted as a reply to a SigNeL email.

NO. its NOT 2% on each. GST is calculated on final consumption, with each intermediate level allowed to claim against GST paid.

IN simple language:

I am the middleman. I pay the farmer 7% for GST on a $100 order. ($7)

I stupidly sell the retailer at $100. on which I collect 7% GST for the government. ($7)
The actual tax that I collect is still $7.

This is the actual tax revenue received by the government. NOT $7+$7x$7(to the power of X).

instead of trying to confuse the world with the tax on tax on tax (which is something i think some opposition wannabes are trying to do), can we focus on the serious issue, which is that the GST is increasing by 40%?

(FROM 5% to 7% is an increase of 40%! basic math!)

Keywords are very important in obfuscating the impact:

Increasing GST by 2%
GST increase of 40%.

which is the preferred number used by the MsM?

Pithy the common man, for consumption taxes like these hurt the poor more than the rich.
As long as there aren't exemptions for basic necessities, then the poor will continue to carry more and more of the tax burden of the SG government. (oh, btw, poor also refers to those middle-class wannabes that prop up society. They will feel more pain from the GST increase than the pitiful income tax discounts that they will receive in the goodie package. as for those 70% who don't pay income tax, you can have 10000% discount on your income tax, and you still wouldn't be any better off.)

Either way, why is the government raising taxes when it isn't running a real deficit? Do our ministers and civil servants need a bigger raise (above inflation) that cannot be funded by the investment income? What happened to a smaller government sector?

Also, Has Temasek really squandered that much that they must now raid capital gains too to keep the fat cats well paid?

Issues that should matter, but are obfuscated and misdirected to keep the general public away from asking difficult questions.

Next thing they will tell us next year after the budget - to take care of so much money, we must pay our ministers more so that they will not be corruptible or tempted. (when the state does the corrupting, how can private individuals hope to compete in the corruption stakes?)

Truly, societies are made up of people who's primary goal is to screw the other person faster and harder than himself is screwed.

C'est la vie. Our fellow Singaporeans voted them in afterall.

E.o.M.
================================================

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 03:34:40 +0800, xxxx wrote:

Ho, ho, ho. The PAP has raised the Goods and Services
Tax from 5% to 7%.

Everyone who voted for them is getting his just
desserts.

Aren't you glad you're gay and don't have any children
to support?

Now the cost of raising a child from infancy to
university graduation will skyrocket.

Actually, the 2% GST increase is misleadingly small on
the surface. Contrary to what the PAP claims, i.e.
there is no multiplier effect, I've noticed that the
more levels of service a product goes through, the
higher its end cost as a result of the GST increase.

Let's take the case of an imported fruit that retails
for $1 at the supermarket. With the 2% GST increase,
the freight forwarders will jack up their charges by
2%, the warehouse owners will do the same, the
transport company that delivers the fruit from the
warehouse to the supermarket will follow suit, and the
supermarket itself will also add its own markup.

Thus, these 4 levels of service will increase the
price of the $1 fruit by 2% x 4 or 8%, so that the
item now costs $1.08. In practice, the ultimate price
increase will be more than that because companies tend
to round up their charges to the nearest $5 or so. So,
the end result is an increase of more like 20%,
causing the fruit to now cost $1.20.

I feel sorry for the poor, the retired and the
unemployed. The government handouts will hardly be
enough to tide them over the increased cost of living.

Gays should be commended for not producing children to
add to the growing numbers who will require handouts.

I would also like to reiterate my point that the aging
of Singaporean society is being accelerated by
Government's policy of importing foreign "talent" by
the truckload.

Many of these emigres are from mainland China and have
been culturally indoctrinated to produce only one
child. Some even remain DINKS (double income, no kids)
after settling down in Singapore. Thus, the population
pyramid is being pumped with adults who have offspring
way below replacement level and this inverts the
pyramid faster than if the phenomenon were to happen
naturally, without immigration.

(removed for privacy purposes)

Tapping Capital gains

2006-11-15T03:21:00.000+01:00

Now I'm sure I could do a lot better, but I'm not being paid, nor am I being graded, so here's a very simple explanation of what the SG government wants to do with its latest constitutional change. (posted over at mollymeek!) in response to a question on what it meant.

==============================
Capital gains - profit that results from the appreciation of a capital asset from its purchase price (source: Wikipedia)

Translated into simple buy and sell.

I buy a house at $200k in 1980.
Today in 2006, I sell the house for $2000k (say 10x value).

The capital gains will be 1980k.
(odd how the sums add up!)

Previously, because of the agreement with the people, all 2000k must be kept in the reserves. I cannot use them for anything other than reinvestment (buy more house hor.. and build up bigger nest egg for a rainy day).

By changing the constitution to allow them to "TAP' the capital gains:

I sell the house for 2000k. I return 200k to the reserves. 1980k, I can now go out and spend on all sorts of excessive consumption (such as million dollar ministerial salaries). The 200k will be reinvested, and any future gains will be spendable again, while the core 200k cannot be spent.

Now, capital gains takes into account 2 things - the increase in value, and INFLATION. By being allowed to spend all 1980k, there is no accounting for inflation (not by much, since accounting practices just lumps it all under capital gains). Which means, the core 200k loses value everytime it is turned over (sold/reinvested).

which means, the 200k you invested today, will only be worth 190k the next time you invest it (in today dollars) and so forth.

Smart of them to try to figure out more ways of spending that rainy day kitty.

*meow*.

E.o.M.

===========================

Cascading consequences (rant against road ragism)

2006-10-15T17:05:00.000+02:00

Decision tree analysis.

Context: Filtering left on the PIE onto the CTE off-ramp (don't we love acronyms?!).

New factor: Aggressive taxi driver. Decision: Give way.

Action: Start filtering left towards off-ramp.

New factor: Random aggressive car driver. Out of nowhere. Driving very fast up the left, trying to 'break free' from the filtering lane (wonders why she couldn't wait just a second more). Collision in 1/2 second.

Decision pathway:
1. Drive right into her. (I think it was a her...) crumple the front left bumper of my van, leave huge scratch/dents along her right side. possibly cause her to lose control and create huge wreck.
2. Avoid. bear right, and pray nobody else to run into.

Decision taken: Avoid. Split second check of right mirror. no cars. Should not run into anyone else on the right. Hard brakes. Collision avoided.

No crashing sound from the rear. Nobody ran into the hard breaking maneuvre. Stupid aggressive car that started the problem drives off.

Random Beeping on the rear. Random aggressive lorry driver starts gesturing and trying to make me stop. Cuts me off and forces me to come to a halt on the off ramp. Lorry driver gets out, and starts screaming about me being a bad driver.

almost exact words " wah lau bu long tio tau... yi ai long leah, then le long lo ke.... Wah lau bo long tio tao siang peh?? Le chun lai.... " (asking me to step out of the vehicle).

Decision path:
1. Step out - let him be aggressive. be physical. ruin his life by ending up in jail for road rage. (bare fists, no weapons, odds of dying not that high). His mother will really be worried if he ends up in jail. Maybe he already has been in before... as the classification goes "Kim moh" and that bluetooth borg-type earpiece.
2. Wait, let his aggression wind out...

Pause.... apologize for his mother's injury. (presuming it cannot be a case of her flying out of the lorry's cab, or fracturing the lorry's glass, else, he would have been smashing the van already in a violent rage.)

Ah-beng-wannabe commits fatal sin of argument - he demands that I take my mother out and let him bang head. Mother long dead. not much for him to bang, goes the reply.

Ah-beng's violence-logic goes "splot". says nothing else, turns around and goes back to his van.

Stupid woman who created the whole chain of cascading consequences drives merrily on somewhere else.

===========================================

Moral of that story: We are an impatient society. Stupid, unthinking, only able to react primally without thinking of possible consequences. I could have had him end up in prison, and me in hospital for his stupidity in road ragism.

We are also terribly bad drivers. (blinking turn signal is an invitation to drive faster and cut the person off rather than to give way.) Its really a case of drive as if you own the road (well, 0.000001% of it mebbe with the road tax you pay)... and damn everyone else who gets in the way.

This society is doomed....

E.o.M.

When will SG society progress?

2006-09-27T04:25:00.000+02:00

Maybe when we are 1 billion in population, and there are enough brave souls to speak up against discrimination?

When a senior UN figure speaks up on the subject, and a married one with 2 kids, it does make me wonder when will SG intelligensia start to speak up. (or have they all been so completely corrupted by the state's offer of the 'good life' that nothing else matters? what is the catalyst necessary?)

Article by the Indian newspaper reproduced here for historical records. Received in an email, so if you're bothered about copyright, please figure out why copyleft may bring you more money in the long tail than short lived copyright.

E.o.M.

Gay, but not happy
Monday, September 25, 2006

Nitin Desai

Recently, a group of us released an open letter asking for a repeal of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. At the same time there is a petition lying before the Delhi High Court seeking an order so that this Section would not apply to sexual acts between consenting adults of the same sex. Many of us who are not personally affected by the impugned Section have joined in this effort because we feel strongly that an egregious wrong needs to be righted.

What is this Section of the Penal Code that we are so exercised about? The text reads as follows: “Whosoever has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to a fine.” This Section is the basis on which a sexual relationship between two consenting adults of the same sex is treated as a crime. While the rest of the world changes and accepts the rights of sexual minorities, we in India are stuck with the 1861 Penal Code.

The criminalisation of homosexuality has constrained efforts to reach out to the homosexual community for HIV/AIDs education by forcing this community to be secretive. It also leads to police harassment of sexual minorities. There was an episode where an NGO trying to reach out with HIV/AIDs prevention advice was charged with a conspiracy to promote homosexuality.

Some hold that Section 377 is necessary to tackle child abuse. But many who are concerned about the sexual exploitation of children would like a more specific law, far clearer in its provisions than this generic and somewhat vague Section. In any case, the plea at the moment is only for a proviso or a court-approved interpretation which would make it clear that the Section does not apply to consenting adults in a same-sex relationship.

Homosexuality is not a crime. When practised by two consenting adults it does not cause anyone else any harm. It has been legitimised in most of Europe, North America, Latin America, South Africa and several other countries in Africa. The prejudice remains enshrined in law mainly in the countries that were under British colonial rule, even though the UK itself has moved on, and in many Islamic countries.

It is not a disease. The WHO removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses as far back as 1981. Yet in India, when a man approached the National Human Rights Commission for help when he was being made to undergo drug and electroshock therapy for his homosexuality, he was denied redress because of Section 377.

Some argue that same sex love is not acceptable in our culture. That is also the case in many Christian countries. But that did not stop them from legalising same-sex relationships. Hindu mythology, on the other hand, is astonishingly open-minded about gender roles
and sexuality. Our culture has been far more open to sexual experimentation as we can see in texts like the Kamasutra and in some of our temple sculptures. The norm enshrined in the Penal Code is strictly a product of the Victorian morality of our British rulers.

It is possible that many people in the country are uncomfortable with the idea of same sex relationships. Yet several assessments suggest that they are widespread. In any case the rights of a minority, whether it is small or large, are not some sort of gift from the majority. They rest on basic constitutional principles of human rights and democracy.

Some who support the aims of the open letter ask whether we should be worrying about this problem when there are so many other worse prejudices and atrocities in our country. Why, they say, are you exercised about sexual minorities when women are being raped and burnt, children exploited, dalits and tribals oppressed. The reason for caring is that
these other injustices have no basis in law. They arise because the law is being violated with impunity. Tackling them requires that the law be implemented. The injustice against sexual minorities is different. It is sanctioned by law and correcting that requires that the law be changed.

A respect for difference is essential in any pluralist society. Homophobia, like racism, caste prejudice or religious bigotry should never be legitimised by law or custom. By giving homophobia a legal basis when we have legislated against other forms of prejudice and
divisiveness, we are committing a grave injustice against a minority that has not caused us, the
majority, any harm.

The writer is former Under Secretary General, United Nations.

===============================
Good arguments. Maybe they should be taken up by a lawyer.

E.o.M.
[pithy a legal challenge against S377 cannot be mounted right now because the state is conducting a 'review'. Pithy even more that this will be used as an excuse to maintain the law for another 3-5 years. And it will continue to encourage gay talent to leave the country or not enter the country because they are not welcome. pithy the tiny, self-important state.]

Are singaporeans picky? or just a lack of desire to serve?

2006-08-28T19:04:00.000+02:00

Interesting nugget today, told to me by the GM of a large hotel in Singapore.

1. new coffeeshop being renovated in hotel. Change of theme and style requires change of waiting staff as the original staff are cultured to the old setup.
2. ads go out for new staff in newspapers. Not enough locals respond. No staff hired. Countdown to new opening is ticking.
3. New ad goes out. Now offering 1 month's sign on bonus. basic pay just under 2k a month.
4. ZERO responses received by said hotel. Countdown continuing to new opening. still zero staff at the waiter level.

Now, this is a pretty good hotel by most measures, and most definitely no slouch when it comes to being willing to pay well for good help. The problem here is, they can't find good help!

As a foreign friend then commented - Chinese people do not like to serve. They only like money and power.
(now this may be stereotyping, but there probably is a big nugget of truth in that statement!)

Nestled within that stereotype are chinese post-colonial attitudes about servitude. Now there is a slight difference between modern day service industry and servitude (though one could also argue that one still has a choice in both colonial times and modern times as to where to work in the 'service' industry).

In colonial times, the chinese had to serve foreign masters. In modern times, they may still see waiting in hotels as 'serving' foreign masters. I guess this is one prejudice that we will have to overcome (if we can ever overcome our own 'inferiority' complex).

Now, last I checked (and I could be rather wrong), $2k a month wages is something that a university graduate might accept. It is more than what the average polytechnic grad could expect to get in their first year(?) while working for the government. Now with a 1 month signing bonus, I would also think that they would probably get good opportunities for wage incrases and year -end bonuses to encourage them to stay on (given the shortage of service staff hotels face all the time!).

This is not a WongKanSeng call for people to accept lower wages. The wages being ofered are more than sensible given that one doesn't need a huge amount of education to wait, just a pleasant attitude, genuine smile and interest in the customer's well-being. If I had fewer options, I would be considering such offers too.

One thing that the GM also mentioned, is that we do have 'quotas' that must be filled by Singaporeans. Now, we do not have a minimum wage system. Maybe that reduces the prestige of being a waiter (especially since there aren't enough big tippers for waiters to earn big bucks). On the other hand, basic economics teaches us that when there is a quota, and a lack of supply, wages would rise, because the companies must fill the quota.

Is this Singapore society's response to the lack of a minimum wage? refuse to work in the service sector until the wages are the equivalent of a lawyer or doctor? Maybe they will have to pay that much to get labour waiting on tables. Maybe that is one way to get to a lower GINI co-efficient. Or maybe I'm just rambling.

sigheth. As the GM said, and I wholeheartedly agree -good help is hard to find.
In the service sector, it seems, its even harder despite the market rate going up.

best wishes to my friend to find good help.

E.o.M.

Short rant on Foreign(?) nationals of chinese descent

2006-08-21T19:50:00.000+02:00

10.30pm Orchard Road; waiting for the bus.

Up comes fairly well-dressed woman (about 30ish?) who speaks with some difficulty in a very soft voice, in Mandarin (not singaporean/malaysian accent.), stretches over and tries to speak into ear with a very very VERY soft voice.

"can you please help me? I am ill, out of work, and need help. "

"sorry, cannot help."

"where do you need to go?"

*points at nearest bus, "Bedok"

Finds $1.20 for bus fare, gives to woman.

Woman walks to next bus (No.7 for those who know), and amidst the crowd of people trying to get on the bus, tries to get (sneak?) through without the driver/conductor's notice.

Driver/Conductor notices, calls woman back.

Woman tries sob story again on conductor. Tries to get close to bus conductor/driver's ear and speak softly in ear with difficulty (attempt to pull on sexual strings?)

Bus conductor/driver waves woman towards back of bus. Decides its not worth his effort to contest such free-riding behavior.

Bus drives off.

=====================================
What did this incident illustrate? Are we wrong to hold racist attitudes? Do a few rotten apples
contaminate the whole batch by accident? (yet, in statistics, if we do find a rotten apple, we might throw away the entire batch?!)

I'm not sure how to respond about my own biases. Here is someone, out to 'free-ride' a little on the rest of society. The money was given for a bus fare (though she looked like she could afford it, and I happen to believe that if one can help, one should work towards a kinder society), yet, the money was put into the pocket, and she also CON(vinced) her way onto a free bus ride.

Maybe she wasn't from China. Maybe the sob story was real. Somehow, the body language just didn't seem to hint at it. No thanks at all after receiving the money, just straight away turned and walked to the bus. Maybe I was biased. but my read of her motions was that she was happy to have conned me out of $1.20. (or was it $1.30?)

Now, I was standing there wearing a short sleeved shirt, and short pants (reaching to the knee), and in what the Americans like to call "trainers", reading a book, minding my own business and waiting for the bus. Either she was desperate, or she thought maybe even a few cents from another unwary individual is still a few cents more in ther pocket than not.

Either way, free riding practices such as this (regardless of ethnicity or nationality), are inhibitors to a kinder society.

Globalization, they call it. Overcrowded society, where every man/woman for himself attitude, I think it.

Sigheth. What future can the world bring, when 2.5bn people are 'unleashed' with personal values that include such 'CONvictions'?

E.o.M.
[btw, i hope this doesn't lead to any 'counselling' for the bus driver. He was thinking of meeting his demanding timetable, and the inconvenience to other passengers for delaying the bus. Did I ever mention that the buses in SG rival HK in terms of their urge to get away from the bus stop? buses on the European continent seem to operate at a more sedate pace. Wait, maybe he does need counselling, because he has caused the firm to lose income, and encouraged more passengers to consider trying this form of CONtact with bus drivers to get a free ride.]

Identifying the Ideological Construct used by the ruling party the first step towards defeating it?

2006-08-21T18:03:00.000+02:00

While doing research for my final university course on culture, I came across a really interesting entry on Wikipedia that happened to describe Singapore very well:

Legalism

- a pragmatic political philosophy,
with maxims like "when the epoch changed, the ways changed"
as its essential principle, than a jurisprudence.
(Source: wikipedia)

(Jurisprudence: Jurisprudence is the theory and philosophy of law. Students of jurisprudence aim to understand the fundamental nature of law, and to analyze its purpose, structure, and application. Jurisprudential scholars (sometimes confusingly referred to as "jurists") hope to obtain a deeper understanding of the law, the kind of power that it exercises, and its role in human societies. At a practical level, some jurists hope to improve society by studying what the law is, what it ought to be, and how it actually operates. They seek a deeper understanding behind law's seemingly unpredictable and uncertain nature. Source: Wikipedia)

Now, what really intrigued me was how each of the core principles described in the wiki entry, could easily be reflected in the political approach to governing Singapore:

Fa (法 fǎ): law or principle. The law code must be clearly written and made public. All people under the ruler were equal before the law. Laws should reward those who obey them and punish accordingly those who dare to break them. Thus it is guaranteed that actions taken are systemically predictable. In addition, the system of law ran the state, not the ruler. If the law is successfully enforced, even a weak ruler will be strong.

We have our laws. We interpret our laws. We reward our politicians who attempt to use summary judgement to enforce the sanctity of the state. We have a society where politicians demand to be above reproach. (someone tell me why? serving the nation is a desirable state of mind, serving the nation while having a 7-figure salary package must be nirvana?)

Is junior a strong leader? only the historians will know. But for now, it can be shown that he is not above using his father's tried (tired?) and trusted methods of stifling dissent with policy. The only other states where intellectual dissent against policies receive such responses are either dictatorial or totalitarian, which doesn't leave much to compare against.

Mr Brown is a good example of being silenced, possibly by bureaucrats seeking to gain the favour of the ruler, rather than any actual decision by the ruler.

Shu (術 shù): method, tactic or art. Special tactics and "secrets" are to be employed by the ruler to make sure others don't take over control of the state. Especially important is that no one can fathom the ruler's motivations, and thus no one can know which behaviour might help them getting ahead; except for following the fa or laws.

Hmm... how long is the list of Singapore's special tactics?

a. Out-of-bound markers - hmm... invisible - nobody knows one has crossed them until one has crossed them. as per the quote above, no one can understand Singapore's motivations, and thus no one can know which behaviour might help them get ahead, except for following the "golden path" - study hard, work hard, and leave politics to the politicians.

b. Un-independent Elections Department - Now, in most other democratic countries, the elections commission (or equivalent), is independent. They do not officially 'report' to anyone, and their independence is seen as a societal necessity to check against excesses of power. Singapore's version reports directly to the Prime Minister's Office. Now, efficiency is nice and good, but doesn't that reinforce the incumbent's ability to stay in power? If I had to answer to a boss who needed to get re-elected, it would truly take a man of conviction to be completely free from any undue influence - actual or imagined.

c. Continual shifting of target markers - 5Cs, Academic achievements, Shared values, heartlander v cosmopolitan, Stayer or quitter, foreign talents, desirable immigrants; do we really know what we are working towards or are we just expected to be hamsters, changing wheels at the command of their owners?

d. Artificially inflated land prices / HDB - the original goal of public housing was laudable. The current policies of HDB do not seem to be fulfilling those idealistic goals. Housing that takes 30 years to pay off? Will working hard at paying off the loan interest ensure that one gains the favour of the ruler? Or will it just make one a wage slave, asset rich, but without any cash to retire with?

Or maybe its housing that is re-developed at the whim of a bureaucrat at URA's hand? Land that can be compulsory acquired by the state for $1, and re-sold to developers at prices that make a mockery of the original landowner?

e. State determination of the right to associate - any gathering of >4 people can be considered an illegal assembly, and cause for the state to turn out the riot police. We are a pure society, prudish, and conservative, thus, all sorts of fringe groups such as People Like Us are not allowed to form for fear of upsetting the conservative majority (more likely, its the apathetic majority!)

f. Maintenance of obscure statues - S377, an inheritance from prudish Victorian times, a law repealed in the country where it came from, yet continues to exist as a statute on our books. By its last intepretation by the Singapore Judiciary, I guess most Singaporeans above 18 are probably guilty and should be thrown in jail (except that this might grind the economy to a halt?!). Then again, better to have all sorts of wierd and underused laws on the books, that can be drawn out to skewer any potential political dissenter. As long as the threat exists, the chilling effect on speech exists. Nice to have a hammer to threaten people without actually having to use it.

g. Constitution that defers to the law of the day - An example of a country not really knowing what it stands for. I'm not very sure what other countries do with their constitution, but ours seems more intent on giving power to the ruling party of the day rather than trying to uphold some ideal of society. See S14 (Freedom of speech, assembly and association), where, the right to be free, is 'conditional'. "Parliament may by law impose" a pretty long list of issues that are frequently subjective in light of the present. (simple translation - write new law, or change law to prevent any kind of intellectual dissent when they see fit. The parlimentary majority possessed by the ruling party is beneficial in this case, isn't it?)

h. State Control of Media - Check out our over-protective Newspapers and printing Act. Specifically, S10 (Special features of newspaper company). Now, only the Minister may grant the right to transfer management shares to people he favors. Not exactly a model for media independence.

i. Legislative, Executive, Judiciary - with the ability to control all 3 elements in a society which seeks balances through checks through the 3 branches of government, is there any room for dissent?

j. An ongoing list? Please do point me to other things that are dissent-unfriendly, and I'll add ot this list!

Shi (勢 shì): legitimacy, power or charisma. It is the position of the ruler, not the ruler himself, that holds the power. Therefore, analysis of the trend, the context and the facts are essential for a real ruler.

Position of the ruler? Hmm... The offices of the government must be public, and above reproach. These "JUN-ZI"s have been carefully selected from (by?) birth, and groomed for high office. They cannot make mistakes, because they are the best our people have to offer, and the best will not make mistakes. (enjoying the circular logic yet?)

We have a system where the position holder holds the power. No longer the Charisma of the "founder of modern singapore" to wield as a stick to beat dissenters into submission; now, it is the office that is beyond reproach, and any dissent against the pronouncements of the office, must be met swiftly and surely.

---------------------------------------------------------
Now, it would seem far fetched that a 3rd century BC ( that's -300 years for those who have difficulty with Anno Domini) would be relevant to Singapore society today. For those who enjoy cerebral pleasures - I would invite you to read the entire wiki entry on Legalism, and then decide for one self if it fits modern Singapore society. For those who are reading-challenged, here's a briefer cut&paste and the Singapore analogy:

...Legalists emphasized that the king as head of state was endowed with the "mystery of authority” (shih), and as such his decisions must always command the respect and obedience of the people. The king’s very figure brought legitimacy.

Hmm... lawsuits against Tang Liang Hong, J.B. Jeyaratnam, Francis Seow; Investigations against Martyn See. Rather a good way to maintain the mystique of high political office.

...Legalists emphasized that being too kind would spoil the populace and threaten the state's internal order.

Hmm - Low welfare expenditure as a % of GDP/GNP thanks to very strict and reductionistic criteria, spiraling healthcare costs due to the need to 'co-pay' (what are taxes for if not a form of redistributive justice?), requiring individuals to achieve self-sufficiency rather than state-assisted sufficiency (what is the use of the state if self-sufficiency is taken to its logical maximum?).

We're not known for having a kind government. Most commentators/critics would describe it as hopelessly paternalistic (graduate mother? high eugenics? social engineering?) and invasive of individuals' lives. Senior even said he rather direct Singaporeans' lives than leave it to their own responsibility to decide what's best for themselves. I guess it really isn't our own life. We're just another corporate digit in Singapore, Inc.

While the laws promulgated by the Legalists were ostensibly meant to benefit the common people, in reality, these laws aimed at benefiting the state by placing war and agriculture at the forefront of state policy.

Lets see, paraphrased in modern Singapore language:

While the laws promulgated by the ruling part were ostensibly meant to benefit the common people, in reality, these laws aimed at benefiting the state by placing economics and money at the forefront of state policy.

Some people have said - strong country, weak people. In our case, its strong government, weak people. Last I checked, the government was the appointed representatives of the people. When did they become the rulers of the people?

Last I checked, our ruling party seems to be in love with the idea that we're in an economic war, and ruin will come to the losers of this war. Paradoxically, although we desired a highly educated workforce, we only seem to desire their higher education for the increase in 'value-adding', rather than the evolution of society that higher education could lead to. By relentlessly calling on the workforce to be more productive, accept less for more so that the state can survive, pitting us in competition with the greater world (of which we're not really equipped to compete in the knowledge economy world, not without large importation of "immigrants/foreign talent"), these 'educated' hamsters are required to run faster and faster, and expected to switch wheels at the snap of a bureaucrat's fingers, because of some perceived competitive advantage (that usually turned out to be more puff than substance)

Legalist philosophers emphasized the primacy of the state over individual autonomy. The lone individual had no legitimate civil rights and any personal freedom had to be undone to strengthen the ruler.

Hmm, acid test - do you believe the state is more important than the individual, or the individual is more important than the state? What kind of real civil rights do we have? personal freedoms? (after being tied down with onerous financial chains, what freedoms can be left?)

=============================================

So, if the ruling party's political philosophy is a variant of legalism, what then can we do against it? With complete control of the media, and the power of legislative, executive, and judiciary all on the side of the ruling party, can any individual dissenter achieve any progress in a kinder, friendlier, gentler Singapore?

The decline of legalism was hastened by war. I'm not really sure anyone would look forward to war as the tool of changing political philosophy in today's "life-is-precious" world. History has sadly, shown that frequently, sharp changes in politicall ideology have been preceded by bloodshed. At the end of the day, life is 'cheap' for statistician, or economist. Its only valuable to the individual that is living that life.

If the ideology is the enemy, then, is it time we woke up to its existence, and work towards defeating its absolutism? Or will I, like many other idealists, decide the fight's not worth fighting for, and leave for fresher (not necessarily greener) pastures?

E.o.M.
[Comments appreciated. New perspectives desired. Flames, please stop contributing to global warming.]

Hamsters without souls

2006-08-10T16:44:00.000+02:00

Posted on Xenoboy's musings about the SG soul.

=========================
We are Hamsters
bought into this country,
through thinly disguised attempts
at eugenics,
and even thinner protestations
about, the need to maintain a racial balance of 77/17/6/x

Trained from birth, to run,
relentlessly, as fast as we can,
exhorted to sprint,
to stay on the hamster wheel that sits, in the corner of our cage
and keep running all day.

Hamsters, to be entertained,
once a year, with pretty explosives,
A choreographed show
reminiscent of a North Korean
extravangaza, for our Dear Leader and his merry men.

Full of pomp, and the message to continue running.

To run from birth, till death,
for retirement is a pleasure,
that must be put off, for we must
help the men-in-charge, save for
our rainy day, which when it arrives, is still woefully insufficient,
due to the need for higher wages.

Running in a city,
that calls itself a nation,
wither a countryside, for used hamsters to rest in.

Hamsters. Be all that we can be,
for the only thing that is desired of you, is your body at work.
Your soul, is an unnecessary component, in this economy that they call
Singapore.
-------------------------------
E.o.M.

41 years and still, mindless entertainment for the masses

2006-08-09T19:23:00.000+02:00

for those outside SG thinking of doing negative things to SG,

national day can be no better an opportunity to just about take out the entire political leadership structure in Singapore. (not that it would be easy, but just pointing out that fact. Hmm... does even contemplating the possibility equate to sedition?)

anyway, negativity aside,

it was interesting to observe that the choice of movie for national day had all to do with guns, big explosions, unreal scripts, and the american way of life.

Bad Boys 2 was the choice of late night entertainment for NDP revellers.

One could point that its the free market that enabled the national TV station to program this kind of "entertainment" on a day of remembrance. That to put any kind of politically-themed movie would be to attempt to go one-better than North Korea in collectivism.

Then again, if art is all about exploring the un-mundane-ess of life, then, Bad boys 2 is a political statement in itself, in that it encourages individual initiative, disregard for rules, and general american "bad-assness' attitude towards the bad guys. (that the only thing criminals will understand is power through a gun barrel.)

However, remembrance is scary when its intepreted in the political light of the present.

NATIONAL DAY CEREMONY FOR SCHOOLS
- by MoE, 23 July 1998

Its scary. Programming from young, including a step-by-step guide.

How my school does it is it makes the emcees read out certain sections while our the rest of the students chant out certain key phrases. It’s a very surreal experience really. The first time I saw it happen, I was quite amazed. Can you imagine 1600 students chanting loudly phrases like: “Our happiness was not to be / Until our country could be free”.

and the late night movie post 12 midnight on "free"-to-air main channel?
(must pay annual license fee!)

"Army of Darkness"
ugh. maybe its a hint that the individual has to battle the darkness cast by the MiW?

E.o.M.

rethinking the Happy Planet Index

2006-08-06T04:13:00.000+02:00

Various other commentators have talked this topic to death.

Well, I had the opportunity to examine in detail the actual mechanics of the HPI, and there are mitigating factors why SG is at the bottom of that ranking.
(mainly due to the fact that we have Jurong Island, and that we really have no land!)

Below is the comment I appended to Mr Wang's entry on this issue.

=====================

measuring environmental impact,

the question is - how much does Jurong Island contribute to that measure, and how much 'happiness' does Singapore derive from having Jurong Island and its petro-chemical crackers?

Having looked through the measures used in the HPI, Singapore would be an outlier no matter what, because we have a highly industrialized city without a countryside to balance out any ecological damage we do to the environment.

The more important data point would be the Life satisfaction level, at which SG is measured at 6.9 (No 59 according to their data).

However, even there, we lose out to Malaysia (7.4) and barely beat Indonesia (6.6).

Other notables include being more satisfied with life than
Hong Kong (6.6)
Taiwan (6.6)
(our nearest ideological/economic neighbours.)

Again, it really depends on where we want to go - do we want to be like Switzerland/Denmark (8.2), Ireland (7.6), or even Malaysia (7.4)?

And further intepreting the data, and in terms of scoring,

at 6.9 on the Life Satisfaction index, SG is ranked No.11. That means that there are 10 'ranks' to climb before we are as happy as the best in the world.

(for the quantitave-obsessed, the total number of different results are 45; for those who choose to be exacting and demand 2 decimal places, please check with the happiness ppl at http://www.happyplanetindex.org/index.htm
. I'm just intepreting data they gathered with my own biases).

Thus proving the quote, variously attributed to Benjamin Disraeli (and nobody seems to be definite about it either!).

"There are three types of lies - lies, damn lies, and statistics."
- Benjamin Disraeli

Believe whatever we want, but the fact that we felt that being ranked at the bottom of the HPI reflected our reality means that all is still not well.

=====================

Well, I guess, the question is - in a city, does it really matter if the only pursuit that matters is economic?

Paradox comes when those who seek to pursue anything else other than economic success, find their paths blocked by 'well-intentioned paternalistic do-gooders' in our approach to government.

More on that coming along soon. Think about comparing Singapore against other cities, rather than other countries, and maybe, my Parisian friend is right. Its NOT that hard to run a city.

E.o.M.

More poems - has a barrier been broken?

2006-07-22T05:03:00.000+02:00

More bad poety,

inspired by Spawnius Croakius' posting on "Narrow minded Singaporeans"
with additional verses.

'tis a paradox,
when we accept all as equal in our philosophy of laws,
but choose to limit,
or deny, through those laws,
the equality of all.

'tis a hypocrisy,
when we profess love for all things homo sapiens,
but practice, indifference for people not like us.

'tis a necessity,
for a society's evolution,
to consider and accept,
all things homo sapiens as
family, in the pursuit of
individual happiness.

'tis time not, for Singaporeans,
to stay, frogs in their well.
and wait, for the well's owner
to decide on improvements to
their society.

'tis time, to wake up, and
accept, truly, our fellow Singaporeans
as family.

E.o.M.

Hamster evolution....

2006-07-21T18:49:00.000+02:00

Found on mollymeek that inspired a poem as an answer to what our representatives see their constituents as:

==============================
Anon:
Good analysis. Ah well, the MIW have always stuck to the divide and rule axiom. What do the MIW think Singaporeans are? Chattel?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	What does Singapore Inc see its inhabitants as? Hamsters! (Anonymous) 2006-07-21 04:45 pm UTC (link)
	Yubyub. Run. Run. Run faster. Keep the wheels turning. Run. Run. Run smarter. Use your brain and make every step most efficient. Run. Run. Run without rest. Produce, and you will enjoy at 55. Run. Run. Run with more zest. 55 has moved on to 65. Your time will come. Run. Run. Run no more. Pasture awaits, in lands across water.

The hamster is awakening...

Emancipating?
schiezophrening?
liberating?
rebelling?

options abound...

E.o.M.

Letterbox Activism

2006-07-13T10:32:00.000+02:00

Driving through the English countryside, I noticed signs promoting political positions.

"Say NO to European Union"
('nuff said, The brits are euro-skeptics afterall)

"Say No to park n ride"
(residents do not want the added traffic jams that come as a result of increased traffic due to a 'park the car and ride the train' scheme being proposed.)

Do we in Singapore ever say NO to anything? Or is our default mode "yes unless you say no" (also known as "opt-out")

Do Singaporeans express their opinions? verbally-very often. Visually in print? maybe in inane bumper stickers. Apartment living means that even if you did have a sign outside your window, nobody can read it! (its too high!).

But there is a solution. The letterbox bank! Every apartment block has a letterbox bank. If you disagree with building management decision, you could put your message up on the letter box, and the whole building will know about it!

Imagine, true politics of organizing around common purposes in Singapore, starting from the humble letterbox bank. Put up stickers, state your opinion, all through the letterbox.

What a relevation. The End is not yet near.

E.o.M.
[someone better check who actually 'owns' the letterbox. hahahaha. typical Singaporean reaction]

<5 months away, yet, what will have changed?

2006-07-13T10:24:00.000+02:00

*Beep*
- Game over.

10 1/2 hours to takeoff.

Time's up in observing the western world and how interesting its evolution and current status.

*Beep*
back to the well that is Singapore.

What will have changed? What is now better? what is worse? Thanks to the internet, one can stay updated. But what is the 'mood'? Have SG been "re-browned" now that the party has 'won' the right to govern for another 4 years?

Once i believed only in objective facts. Now, I realize that subjectivity and intepretation plays a more important role in life than just 'facts'. Can I still be 'me' in "stuffy Singapore"?

Time will tell.

E.o.M.

Singlish - the evolution to being a proper language

2006-07-13T09:52:00.000+02:00

Derived from Wikipedia's entry from multilingualism

Bilingualism - can be rigidly defined as being native-like in two languages. It could also be loosely defined as being less than native-like but still able to communicate in two.

Being a POSES (Product Of the Singapore Education System), I have to agree that our education system has not quite delivered a bilingual education as promised. By the rigid definition - I am a "factory reject". By the loose definition - I am. But am I bilingual thanks to being a POSES, or bilingual thanks to a far-sighted policy my parents adopted from birth?

Reading further down the wikipedia entry,

Multilingual speakers have acquired and maintained at least one language during childhood, the so-called first language (L1). First languages (sometimes also referred to as mother tongue) are acquired without formal education, by mechanisms heavily disputed. Children acquiring two first languages since birth are called simultaneous bilinguals. Even in the case of simultaneous bilinguals one language usually dominates over the other.

My parent decided - the father would speak to the children in proper Mandarin, and the mother would use proper English. No Singlish (didn't really exist as a classification then either!)

The choice of language was probably forced upon by the limits of their own ability and training. However, it did lead me to grow up in a family of 2 languages. In terms of family policy, now that was a SMART policy. I am a "simultaneous bilingual" by the definition above - however, one language does dominate - English.

If the experts are right, and bilingualism or multi-lingualism is learnt outside formal education, then, maybe we are bashing the wrong target for failing to provide a bilingual education. The unevenness of language evolution within Singapore, and our attempts to educate using English (economically sensible decision), we now have a generation growing up in an environment of mixed languages - Manglish, Chinglish, Singlish, watever.

Take a walk around any hawker centre, or any public space, and try listening in to the language used in daily communication in families - Singlish dominates. Often, it may be eager parents, trying to help their children learn English vocabulary, but if we learn grammatical rules by osmosis and practice, then this ernest parenting actually detracts from learning English grammar, but does wonders for learning Singlish grammar.

I didn't know Singlish had its own grammar structure, but take a look at the Wiki entry for Singlish, and most Singaporeans will probably recognize that they didn't have to go to class to learn it. We chose English as our "1st language" in education policy. However, societally, we have chosen "Singlish as our 1st language".

Maybe its time to start treating the teaching of English as a "2nd language", ranked equal to other language classes such as Mandarin, Malay, French, or even Spanish. Go back to teaching English as a "learned language" rather than one that is treats all its students as 'native'.

Our native tongue is Singlish. Its not ENGLISH.

Evolve, or ossify.

E.o.M.

Neither English or Mandarin Grammar - Is Singlish an excuse for bad Grammar structures?

2006-06-28T10:41:00.000+02:00

Now there's been a lot online about English standards in Singapore, and I didn't have anything new to add to the conversation, until....

E-mail from an MOE staff (possibly a teacher.)
(sanitized to protect identification)

from: xxx@moe.edu.sg

"You can come tomorrow morning before 12 noon? thanks."

----- Original Message -----
When do you want me to drop by with the ABC? I have most of the EFGs barring XYZ for the moment, can I drop by tomorrow or Friday? Please advise.

Try translating the sentence into Mandarin. It also appears to contain structural deficiencies.

How about Singlish? Is there a proper grammatical structure to Singlish? Would the above sentence sound like Singlish to most Singlish-acclimatized ears?

I don't know, but if MOE teachers communicate like this, and the growing trend towards less reading and more cut-scene based knowledge acquisition (see Star Wars 3 for a fine example of cut-scene film-making), is it any wonder we have a growing problem with speaking English properly?

I'm usually on the side of language evolution, and that there are infinite varieties of a common tongue, but this is just plain BAD.

Ouch. Where can the healing begin now that the problem has been starkly personified?

E.o.M.

Another consequence of Out-of-Bound Markers

2006-06-03T21:49:00.000+02:00

Welcome to Singapore. A world where the AUTHORITIES will take care of everything. Noisy neighbour? the police will soon be by. Illegal parking? The parking attendant is around the corner. Act of violence in a crowded bus? The bus driver will take care of it. (he's a bus captain afterall, so as commander of the vehicle, what goes on inside it is his responsibility! And since its a SG-registered vehicle, then SG laws are to be enforced!)

Now, it it had been a case of molest, and the girl screamed, I'm sure our bus drivers are completely well trained to lock the doors, and drive to the nearest police station or such. However, its probably not written down in the bus driver's training manual on how to deal with a act of possibly racially motivated violence. So our confused bus driver just continues driving, and hope it goes away.

The more we don't know each other, the more we see shadows jumping out at us. Its just another symptom of modern society - let someone else care. Luckily this time, someone did. Either way, its a sad situation in Singapore when we cannot talk about such issues without crossing OB markers. How can we mature as a society?

KiWeTO

E.o.M.

Grounding the SingaporeFlyer

2006-05-27T21:05:00.000+02:00

When the concept of the Singapore Flyer was first announced, I wondered what sort of attraction one could see 160metres high above Marina Bay. Look south, and all we will see are various oceangoing-ships at anchor. We look east, and we just might be able to see planes leaving Changi Airport. Look West, and we'll see signs of Singapore's economic muscle in the container business, and the huge CO2 emitter that is our Petro-chemical plant called Jurong Island. Look north, and we'll get a nice view of the Skyscrapers, and possibly a view into the heart of Singapore. Apparently, according to a Wikipedia entry, a 'flight' on the Singapore flyer is expected to cost around S$27.50.

The London Eye, on the other hand, cost me £13 (S$40) back in 2003. What the flight gave one the opportunity to see was London, and all 800 years of its development into the capital of the United Kingdom. In a sense, it was boring - all around, you could see were lots of typical english housing roofs, stretching for as far as the eye can see, a testament to London's long history of civilization.

It was fun to see the various railway lines snaking into the huge train stations, and watching trains come and go. And to look at the various statements of each generation, in examples such as London's Gherkin, and the Millennium Dome. The flight was over too quickly, and I longed to watch the trains go all day from literally a 'bird's eye view' of London.

Insulted by many, and initially only given a 5 year planning approval, The LondonEye is now one of London's top attractions, and if you want a overview of London, a trip up the London Eye has no substitute. (except a Helicopter flight over London maybe.)

Unfortunately, for Singapore, our inability to really create complementary planning has enabled us to score an own goal for the SingaporeFlyer even before it boards its first passenger. That is the Marina Bay Sands. With the Singapore Government accepting the Las Vegas Sands bid, it seems, a perfect substitute for the SingaporeFlyer has shown itself.

The planning proposal indicates that "A 1-hectare Sky Park at 50th storey (above the three hotel towers ) offering panoramic views " is part of the offering from the Marina Bay Sands. Now, I could be wrong, and "Location, Location, Location" holds true that the real estate the Singapore flyer sits on will never be the same as the one Marina Bay Sands sits on, but looking at this particular picture, and imagining where the Singapore flyer will be, most economists and real estate professionals will be hard pressed to say that the experience offered by the SingaporeFlyer's has NO substitute.

According to Yawningbread, he says that the Sky Park will be a 'public park', which means no entrance fees(?!). I cannot conclude that it will be a public park from either STB, and the LasVegasSands website fails to load (on both IE and Firefox) , so the question remains open, but I do doubt that it will cost S$27.50 to enter the Sky Park, unless the operators are perfect collusionists with the SingaporeFlyer firm.

So, I guess, the most important questions for investors of the SingaporeFlyer now are:

When will I ever recoup my multimillion Singapore Dollar investment?
Is s$27.50 still viable given the presence of a near perfect substitute less than 1 kilometre away, and possibly with free entry?
Why didn't I put in my contracts a no-compete that Singapore was not allowed to approve any development that could create a near-perfect substitute for the x-years?
Is there any way of getting compensation for the loss of revenue a-la when Singtel was "forced" to give up its "telecommunications" monopoly early?
Arrrrrgh!!!!!!!

[Oh, the fun of being an STB bureaucrat dealing with the SingaporeFlyer people ;-)]

Way before the Marina Bay Sands was confirmed, back in 1999, I already felt that it would be difficult for people to want to take a trip up an oversized Ferris Wheel, when half of the view was just empty sea. Now, with a near-perfect substitute, I think the SingaporeFlyer will become a perfect business case study on business uncertainty and the failure of vision.

Anyone with investments related to the SingaporeFlyer best be calling his broker now or consulting his online brokerage web site?

random rant on meritocracy - brought to its logical extreme, it is worse than Noblesse Oblige

2006-05-24T00:27:00.000+02:00

Elitism can create misperceptions of reality.

Many a scholar do not come from a fishmonger background, or a roadsweeper background. Many come from more privileged backgrounds.

Basic principle - the rich get richer, the poor well, have the "opportunity" for social mobility.

The elite study in elite schools, mix with smart students, and think, all of Singapore is like them. It is not that they are unable to empathize. They just haven't been exposed to other perspectives. I once had a long discussion over elitism with a friend who went through Tao Nan Primary, Raffles Secondary, and Raffles JC before ending up in NUS. It took about 3 hours to get him to comprehend the reality that he had no opportunity to be exposed to in his education process.

So, do we blame the products for being completely out of sync outside their perfect operating world, or the system based on the philosophy of meritocratism that shaped these elite in the first place?

Even kings understand the concept of Noblesse Oblige... our modern elite, many are incapable of understanding people other then their own, for they live in a different world. Looking at my 'last post on being in 3 Cities in one week, I cannot deny that I am becoming one of them, but at least I still remember what it felt like to had to find enough money to take the bus to work and back. (At least I didn't have to walk 15km just to work for 4 hours and back, though it came rather close then.) So hopefully, I will never forget that time, and how people can get caught in situations beyond their ability to affect. And to react and help out of empathy, and not sympathy.

Guilt of the elite is not the path to assuaging the soul. Noblesse oblige is. Noblesse oblige is not waiting for that once a year donation, or "community visit", but simple acts of kindness and support for your fellow man whenever you can. For it its society that recognizes wealth, and every man is part of society.

Without peasants, there can be no food for the king.

E.o.M.

Random responses to comments on someone else's blog

2006-05-19T15:33:00.000+02:00

Reproduced for my own sorry records:

============================================

Seems like a lot of noise in this entry's comments, but what are the positions here?

Pro-PAP arguments:
1. Economic stability and Progress
2. No-PAP = Philippines/Indonesia and other failed democracies.
3. Democracy is for the birds. Give me peace and stability any-day.
4. No corruption from PAP.

Can these premises be demolished.

Not1:
Democracy does not mean anachy and regress. the UK/US/Europe all have high per-capita GDP & standards of living, and these did not arise out of a permanent autocracy in their democracies. (Magaret Thatcher, for all the good she did, was kicked out when the British decided she had 'served' her purpose.)

Not2:
No-PAP - We don't even have enough squabbling political parties to end up in a situation like the Philippines, or even Italy and the rest of Europe. We have a few old political parties (sans PAP) without a lot of good leadership, nor any new blood. Why is this so? Because it has been systematically trained out of the Singapore population that politics = bad and PAP=good. Don't you love brainwashing? For the forseeable future (5-10 years?) we cannot turn into the Philippines overnight if PAP loses majority in an election, because the opposition isn't good enough yet. For our society to evolve to the next level of civilization (that means no more 1st world infrastructure, 3rd world mindset), we have to leave behind the "Junzi" (gentleman-scholar) mindset of always believing that someone 'better' knows better. We have to learnt to take care of ourselves ourselves.

Not3:
Peace and Stability can exist without a democracy. Even in North Korea there is 'peace and stability' (not much else.) There is a misconception that peace and stability will not exist if Singapore does not have a democracy. If we had inefficient bureaucracies and governmental (NOT Political) corruption, then yes, we would not have peace and stability in a democracy.

Singapore is known for having a corruption-free governmental bureaucracy. That is a mainstay in our attraction for foreign investment. Having more opposition members in Parliament does not mean that our bureaucracies will be come corrupt.

Not4:
I believe there are sufficient examples over history that no party will ever be corruption free, PAP included.

What the pro-democracy supporters can use to enhance civil dialogue:

1. A rigourous media industry with different perspectives help ensure that any shady games played by anyone will be efficiently brought to the attention of the country.

2. Singaporeans need to learn to be responsible for themselves, and not wait for an authority to tell them what they should do to take care of themselves.

3. We are a 1st-world economy competing with other 1st-world economies. It is no longer possible to just copy someone else's successful economic model. This means we need freedom of ideas to compete with other 1st-world economies' ideas, but our education culture does not encourage a free mind.

4. Singapore needs to grow up. We cannot as a society remain forever 'babied' by the agents that we give the authority to govern us.

A government serves the people, but in Singapore, it seems, the people are just 'employees' of Singapore,Inc, and encouraged to to go Malaysia when we are of no more economic use.

E.o.M.

==========================================================

Looking at Europe's history, and The US's history, democracy is not an overnight event. It is a gradual process of civic realization that a society is made up OF us, and not made up FOR us.

E.o.M.

Where lies Home? - A journey through a tropical greenhouse

2006-05-14T22:56:00.000+02:00

"One never really understand what home means until one has lived away from it"

"Home is where one chooses to make it"

Does the 2 statements contradict each other? Are they mutually exclusive?

Still doesn't quite answer the question - but walking through a tropical greenhouse in the Palmgarten in Frankfurt today brought back memories of home. No, not memories of the house, nor memories of the places, but memories of the air, the humidity, and well, the scents of the tropics.

It was like a mini tour through the various major climate areas of the world, in one greehouse, the air was dry like in the California region, in another, the air was 'wet' like in the tropics. Did i also mention that the temperature was different? Walking through the tropical section, it felt so much easier to 'breathe'. Having breathed in the tropics for 28 years (less a few weeks), it seemed like home, because the air and temperature felt 'normal'

So there lies the question - what then defines home? the place where one grows up in, and drinks water from the land, imbibes from the plants in the region, and leaves permanent memories in the body? (I can't compare meats anymore, since we now have "airpork" from Australia" after the Nipah virus scare back in 2001/2?, and we don't have much of a farm industry in Singapore)

Or is it the place where one forms one's first relationships (familial, societal, etc)? What are social relationships, since they appear to form anywhere and anywhere if one tries hard enough. Family links cannot be changed, though the relationships can go through ups and downs. Friends, well, one can always move to a new city! (which is a little hard to do in tiny Singapore.)

So the scent and humidity of the tropics re-triggered the question of where one calls home. It was brought into sharper focus when I saw the latest Newsweek article "The new Jet Set": Rootless travelers - or citizens of the world?

Reading through the article, it appears that I am already practicing some of the customs and habits of them, while living in Europe on Exchange. As it stands, the schedule of events for next week is as follows:

Week X of 52

Monday: Start Summer School Programme @EBS in Oestrich-Winkel (Morning/Afternoon)

Tuesday: Same as above

Wednesday:
Morning - visit to European Central Bank (Frankfurt);
Early afternoon fly from Frankfurt Flughaven into Paris CDG.
Evening: Champions League Final @Stade de France.
(Seats behind the bench, so I am told!)

Thursday:
Morning: Knock on Board Game Company's doors in Paris because they never reply to any emails.
Mid-Afternoon: Fly back to Frankfurt
Evening: Possible dinner meeting in Frankfurt
Night: Return to Oestrich-Winkel.

Friday:
Morning - return to Summer School classes.
Afternoon - Summer school class+dinner/wine tasting?

Sat/Sun
nothing scheduled yet; odds of going somewhere with the summer school people are high.

Looking at all that hopping around, studying+football+working, all within the space of 72 hours, in 3 different cities (erm, Oestrich-Winkel is a "Stadt", but it sure is a tiny "stadt"!) - is this the life of the future for many in the knowledge economy? Or will this still be the preserve of the top 0.01% of the world's population? What gives me the 'right' to live such a life?

With so many options, is there a real need to return to 'home' as it is currently known? Or is there a need to re-define home in terms of seasons? eg:

Spring - Europe
Summer - somewhere not so hot? (still searching for a great place)
Autumn - still searching
Winter - Singapore (because it doesn't snow, and its not so hot anymore!)

If the knowledge economy enables work to be carried on from anywhere with an internet connection (VPNs, VOIPs, Webcams, etc reduce the need to be face to face), is there a real need for tomorrow's generation to stay firmly rooted in one place? Or will all of them have bases all over the world to travel to and fro? What factors would tie them down more to one location over another?

I guess, children would be a major factor in such a situation. Tonight's dinner with the Course Leader for the Summer school, was a clear example - She is currently based in Germany, teaching @EBS. She will be heading to Virginia, USA for (a sabbatical? no idea). She mentioned how difficult it was for her and her husband to both be able to go away to Virginia for 1 semester (6 months?) at the same time. And most importantly, she was worried about her children's education not being disrupted.

On that issue, it was interesting how she offered the option to her children of deciding whether they wanted to join a more advanced class and be challenged, or stay with other children in her age group at a lower-level class. She was concerned with issues like class size (looking at a private school with 2-3 teachers for a 12-20 student class); and back in Singapore, we're still talking about a 40-student class in our national schools.
(Don't want to turn this into a discussion on societal evolution (that will come?), but its interesting how her children have a 'choice'.)

So, it appears that the primary factors for deciding if she could go away were:

1. Familial-Husband
2. Familial -Children.
3. Nothing else critical?

Would she be considered a jet-setter as per the Newsweek article? I don't know much of her life as an academic, but she was educated in France and Florida before landing a job in EBS. I guess that makes her a citizen of the globe.

So, where lies home? or what is home? I don't even know what my room will look like when I return to SG. Does it trouble me? I don't seem terribly worried about not being rooted anymore. Maybe I am already a citizen of the world.

E.o.M.

When should a blog die or lose its reason for continued existence?

2006-05-09T00:57:00.000+02:00

I thought about it after my friend who's on study exchange outside Singapore, decided his blog would have nothing interesting to write about after he returns to SG.
(is SG really that boring? or is it reflection of the fact that one's mind has to put on blinkers to survive in SG? or?!)

Oddly, it then made me wonder - when would this blog have reason to cease continued existence?

Well, its rather simple isn't it? just take the title of the blog and turn it into a yes/no question.

The day that there are no more serial numbers on my vote, will be the day that this blog ceases to have relevance to the future.

(that just means its time to find a new reason to blog)

anyway, just as a link to help spread the word, if one wants to look for non-StraitsTimes/CNA viewpoints, check out www.yawningbread.org

Next up: Trainspotting.

E.o.M.

Is the party the government, or does the party form the government?

2006-05-03T12:02:00.000+02:00

Semantics - or the world that we come to recognize as reality

As a friend commented - your writings are so long, boring and plain. No color. Well, colors are an ebellishment. It should be the ideas-that-words-inspire to make life exciting. (anyway, too much background, no context, and digressing from the post.)

This was the contents of a mail I had sent to the SiGNeL mailing list after being told about MM Lee's open debate with the youth (well, university students.) I was told it was rather fiery. So off I went to the state-owned media company's website, to find a report and writeup. Well I found it, and also found evidence that even the mightiest can only stay so long in the sun.

As a lawyer, it is about the worst sin you can commit to argue illogically. Well, I think i found evidence that the argument used was illogical.

POST
======================================================
When a political party wins an election and forms a government, is its mandate to take care of the entire nation or only the wards that it wins?

I have no issue with some pork-barrel politiking, since you do have to reward your supporters, but to what extent should the government act for the party's supporters' benefit, and to what extent ALL citizens benefit?In our case, WHO are party supporters? Wards where the opposition did not contest? that seems to me a not-false premise, but not necessarily a true premise.

Going by the pork-barrel logic, one must reward those wards first that voted, then those wards that didn't vote, because the latter is suspect, and the former has declared its support.

Is the government to represent a country's citizens, or only citizens who voted for the party in power? (again, did they get a mandate, or was it a walkover?)

Where lies seperation of church (party ideology) and state?

I guess SG's world-reknown personality has defined it. In his opinion,
it clearly seems, the equation is:

the party = the government

the government = the party

and NOT

The government = sum(elected representatives who
may be majority from one party)

see the statement he made and question the logic of what he said:

"does any government help the opposition to displace itself?"

Should it have been?:

"does any party help the opposition displace itself?"

(caution: he does ask the rhetorical question in a debate-style response to a queston on the viability of other political parties etc etc, but flaw in logic is a flaw in logic. The party is not the state!)

The party is NOT the government. The government is not the party. It appears that to him, for all intents and purposes, the party IS the government. If so, then we cannot call ourselves democratic anymore, for the state is now opposed to helping any opposition displace the ruling
party.

We're now no better than any other nation state that has fused church and state. Sure, our ideology may be less limiting, or restrictive, and may not be based on the religious written word, but in no sense does it that mean we are better for it. We have fused church and state in our own unique way, and the democratic experiment is over.

======================================================

This mail was sent before the elections were called, so I guess the SG democratic experiment is not yet over. No educated society will ever want to be told what it should be, but rather, want to be given the freedom of choice to determine what it wants to be, at the individual, and at the societal level. Maybe the SG democratic experiment is still going on.

One can only hope. Potential and realization are not mutually exclusive, but they are also not sequential either. We will know by May 7th if the experiment is still on-going.

A Serial Number on my Vote

2006-05-03T11:03:00.000+02:00

Well,

i guess, nothing like starting a blog with a title like such in the midst of election season in Singapore. It appears that the end of one-party dominance has begun in Singapore.

Anyway, the reason why I got inspired to write was simple - a one liner on one of my friend's blog that said, and I quote "I used to think Singaporeans were ignorant. Some are.. but I have realized that most are not. Most were afraid. I honestly believed the PAP would know if you voted against them. I remember growing up wishing that nothing would happen to my parents if they had chose to vote opposition." So, thanks Fir, you've now got me to start blogging

I grew up with those same fears. The government had made the political scene in singapore one where the opposition were seen as people who would destroy what our parents and their parents and.. (u get the idea) have spent their lifetimes building up. As the ruling party of over 30 years, in a Parliament of 82 representatives (for a population of only 3.5million?!), their standard electoral spiel is - vote us in because we know best, and the opposition knows nothing.

Well, that worked as long as the ruling party was able to pick the best of the remaining talent pool to be put forth as members of Parliament, and also as well, to discourage political participation in everyone else. (Apathy? or systematic denial of political maturity in a society?)
The spectre of economic doom and gloom (straw man? slippery slope? bad logic?) was always used as a scare tactic during elections.

Digressing as usual. Back to the whole idea of the blog title - Firdaus' remark made me remember the choices I had when i stood in that voting booth back in (2001?) in MacPherson Secondary School. The voting ticket was clear and simple. 2 choices. Ruling party candidate and i think it was an independent candidate. No complex voting forms like in Euope, America (North and south) or such. I cast my vote based on economic principles, or what I thought was economic principles.

Well, 4 years later, much more tertiary education later, much more thinking later, it appears that I had cast my vote on insufficient information. Sure, the ruling party had a track record. The independent had none. Sure, the independent candidate cannot compete in terms of getting his message out in terms of campaign funds. (which makes me wonder, WHERE does the ruling party get its campaign contributions from? Do we have the potential for a US/UK-style scandal occuring one day?

I had also been irresponsible with the decision. I had not made any effort on my part to hear what the opposition candidate had to say about anything. (well, the internet wasn't as pervasive as it is this election, so it was harder to get any message out!) I had not bothered to be an informed voter. I had made the decision based on available information, which was +ve for the PAP candidate, and 0 for the independent candidate. (come to think of it, he may actually have been a member of some party).

Again, too much background, not enough focus on today's issue. That is - a serial number on my vote, and the fear factor it produced. At least a portion of the decision on voting was made based on the fear that I could be identified as being an opposition voter and discriminated against in my life from now on. On the back of the vote, there was a serial number. Now a serial number is nothing wrong, especially since there must be some sort of record to ensure that every vote can be accounted for. However, what caused the fear was that before I was given the voting form, I was registered in a process, that had someone identify the serial number with my name and IC number.

I cannot remember if the actual electoral process was one that could actually have made me idenfitiable by vote. However, the general feel within Singapore is that "big brother is watching", so it definitely had an effect in limiting the decision sphere. And in the new information age, it is actually easier than in the past to make one identified with every action/decision made in one's entire life. But back then in the last election, there was definitely that sense of fear.

So the ruling party and the government did nothing to dispel the fear that "big brother knows". From a selfish perspective, it is unnecessary to waste any advantage in the competition that is an election. However, it perverts the purpose of an election, which is to choose representatives that best represent the people.

What we have in the world today are candidates that sway to 'public opinion' (in our case, its the invisible conservative majority that the ruling party claims to reflect). We no longer have many candidates who stand for what they believe in, and tell the world what they believe in. We have politicians, when we are looking for leaders. (but that's for another day's diatribe).

Anyway, just to re-state the point - there was a serial number on my vote, and the then perception of being identified, singled out for voting opposition and persecuted against was an unnecessary constraint upon my freedom to choose, and based on that memory, I shall remember the time where I abdicated my full right to be responsible for my own future.

E.o.M.
{Post-logue - I can't vote in this 2006 election because I happen to be out of Singapore, and by chance, I will be able to make it to the Singapore High Commission in London where overseas voters can go. However, to qualify as an overseas voter, it appears that I need to have stayed overseas for 2 years (and as a colloquary, it appears that u also must have stayed in SG for 2o hf the past 5 years). So since I have only been away from SG for 2 months, I don't qualify as an overseas voter, and must again, abdicate my responsiblity as a citizen of the little country that I still call home.}

A Serial Number on my Vote

To each by their greed, by each through their reach

Remembrancing about the failures of our education policy on imports

Politics of Civil Un-obedience

Religion requires rely (reliance?)

Verb

STDs are work-related injuries?

ACTA - what should we be afraid of?

MacDonalds and self-censorship

A random poem about... informational asymmetry?

AWARE - the fight continues

Identityless

Another one bit the dust (sadly)

Transparency versus Trust

English? Engrish? or 3ngr15h?

when is enough enough?

Burma - who gives a #@$@#$)*#(@!!??

Apart from us, not A Part of Us

ISA - in search of adjudicators

Bleach for a future

Revitalizing entrepreneurship in Singapore

Medical fee protection in Singapore, or the lack of it.

Fear for when the political is free

Being rewritten in the ST forum

Trust administrators todo the right thing

Diversity a bone or a bane?

the end of another generation's hopes

USNW - a slap to the idea of edu-hubbing in SG

Can repealing S377/377A cause harm to SG society?

There's a fundamental wrong in letting some people marry

One cent too high?

Tolerance spheres - who's responsibility to respect these?

A disappointed view of the politics of Pragmatism

Looking inwards - do we know the nature of the beast called Singapore society?

Thoughts about the future of SG after another optimist loses his hope

GST raise in SG - correcting misconceptions

Tapping Capital gains

Cascading consequences (rant against road ragism)

When will SG society progress?

Are singaporeans picky? or just a lack of desire to serve?

Short rant on Foreign(?) nationals of chinese descent

Identifying the Ideological Construct used by the ruling party the first step towards defeating it?

Hamsters without souls

41 years and still, mindless entertainment for the masses

rethinking the Happy Planet Index

More poems - has a barrier been broken?

Hamster evolution....

Letterbox Activism

<5 months away, yet, what will have changed?

Singlish - the evolution to being a proper language

Neither English or Mandarin Grammar - Is Singlish an excuse for bad Grammar structures?

Another consequence of Out-of-Bound Markers

Grounding the SingaporeFlyer

random rant on meritocracy - brought to its logical extreme, it is worse than Noblesse Oblige

Random responses to comments on someone else's blog

Where lies Home? - A journey through a tropical greenhouse

When should a blog die or lose its reason for continued existence?

Is the party the government, or does the party form the government?

A Serial Number on my Vote

Trust administrators to
do the right thing