Welcome to Rebrab Moor

Where is the 2cents worth?

2005-05-12T00:54:00.000+08:00

I was going through Sammyboy Forums, of which the ratio of good, readable content to trash-talk/flamewar/whining is approximately 1:1000. Whenever I sift through the site I feel like I am a lone diver trawling the entire span of the Pacific Ocean looking for less than half a dozen pearls.

I was actually looking for AcidFlask related material, when one forummer queried about how the opposition parties failed to get in their 2 cents worth on the AF-A*Star saga.

I pondered upon this thought for a while. I was surprised, as I am inclined to think that this was the exact kind of subject material the Opposition Opportunists love to capitalise on. They were indeed strangely subdued over this matter.

A few seconds later, the answer hit me like a tonne of falling bricks.

UPDATE:
This was meant to be a brief observational post on opposition parties silence over the AF-A*Star affair. Interestingly it has garnered (imho) various top quality comments ancillary to the original post.

To find out more about Han's indignance at being labelled 'pro-PAP', Redrown's (me) 'anthropological' study of Sammyboy Forums, Gilbert Koh's reaction to SDP's unauthorised lifting of his articles, Goh Meng Seng's (WP) opinion of non-partisan bloggers and name calling, and Huichieh's excellent justification and clarification of (non-partisan) bloggers position, click on the comments!

UPDATE 2:
Huichieh continues to chew upon the role of non-partisan bloggers in civil society, reflecting on Jeffrey's insightful comment. As he (Jeff) aptly puts it, we are simply "Equal Opportunity Commentators". That would be a good starting point for anyone who do not fully appreciate our niche.

Open Letter to Mr Philip Yeo

2005-05-09T10:47:00.000+08:00

Congratulations on your victory. A bitter victory that perhaps left quite a few scars.

AcidFlask has apologised in the manner you wanted him to.

But, tell me, was it worth it?

Was it really necessary? Did it do more hurt than heal in the end?

What are the repercussions on your reputation? The very same reputation that you strive so hard to upkeep?

Did the apology reassure you, made you sleep tighter at night? Did the apology improve your quality of life in any way? Did it do wonders for your ego? (ok don't answer the last).

It was supposed to be a simple, clearcut shushing procedure.

How did it get blown up? Why did it get blown up? Why did it enthrall so many local and foreign entities?

Would it then contrastingly have become more of a loudhailer effect?

Were their interest in the affairs in your best interests?

On Hindsight, would there have been a better way to resolve the issue? One more subtle, one more proportionate, one more reasonable?

On Hindsight, would it have been better to dismiss it with a wave of your hand? He is but a student, whereas you are the head of a government agency. The repute and goodwill that have accrued over the years surely outweigh the student's. Do you doubt that people will see your good works in a different light just because of a simple student's inane comments on an obscure blog? If so, why?

I, for one, do not doubt, nor have ever doubted your esteemed name or works, nor will this issue affect my opinion in any way. However, this event has cast a dark cloud over sensitive, fragile issues such as the Singapore's reputation in the eyes of the world and free speech. It has planted seeds of doubt which would hopefully not be allowed to sprout. I recognise that defending your name is important. But in the same vein I beseech you to understand our position (as citizens of Singapore, and as purveyors of free speech).

I do sincerely hope that it was worth it.

Taking a Stand

2005-05-06T20:32:00.000+08:00

Latest developments are well covered in From a Singapore Angle, Singapore Ink Tomorrow.sg, Singabloodypore, and other sites, reproducing AcidFlask's reply to A*Star.

It is, by far, the most revealing and insightful content to the entire debacle so far. One wonders why Mr Yeo, who seems to have plenty of time and resources to spend on engaging lawyers to handle every single minute potential legalities with regards to his esteemed name, has not found the time and resources to produce a proper, detailed and concise statement. (I suppose its in drafting now, right, I hope???) AcidFlask also mentions that Mr Yeo has not pointed out exactly what material was defamatory. May I suggest the generalisation is perhaps due to inability to pick out specific red-letter material? That it was just used as a general measure to oppress someone? Of course, it may just be that Mr Yeo, busy man that he is, has not enough time to do specifically pick out the nitty gritty (P.S This is a Fair Comment and should not be construed otherwise).

From the latest developments, it is becoming more evident that it is not too far off from the purely speculatory Hypothetical Libel scenario I envisioned what seems like a long time ago now.

It is heartening to see AcidFlask not being intimidated. It is heartening to see that he is making his own stance, unafraid to point out glaring inaccuracies in news reports. It is heartening to see that he is taking taking has stand against someone who wields far more power and influence than him. It can be likened to a kid who stands up against his physically stronger bully and his friends – taking them on and challenging them (P.S I am not insinuating anyone is a bully – I am just using abstract analogy).

And it is heartening to see fellow bloggers aiding him in whatever ways they can possible, standing up for him. Because this is not just about a student against a government agency any more. This is about blogging, freedom of speech. This is about the reputation of the very country we are living in, in terms of press freedom, in the eyes of our own citizens, in the eyes of foreign entities. Perhaps, while A*Star claims to defend the reputation of Singapore, they have inadvertently done the exact opposite, which will be highly unfortunate. We must strive to clarify and rectify this.

Because publicity of the real facts, the real issues at hand, will let us all have a clearer insight to the whole debacle. That is why bloggers who feel strongly towards preservation of blogging (which is the best bastion of free speech in Singapore) – should do their part (but should not be forced into doing so) - by the best way they can - public support on their public blogs.

We now await Mr Phillip Yeo's reply to the whole matter. Any refusal to construct a reply, with his own version of events, with full clarification of what he did and why he did it, (and what words were construed defamatory), could now be construed as a sign that, maybe perhaps even the esteemed Mr Phillip Yeo may just have been a little too sensitive this time round, maybe he did overreact to what are no more than harmless commonplace every-day conversational jibes. Dare I also suggest, maybe there is more to the threat than meets the eye...(Fair Comment!!)

However, I am sure that he will write out his own version of events. I sincerely await that, because then we will have a clear picture of events from both sides. The full picture, the vantage point of a neutral observer.

We can then analyse both accounts and decide whether AcidFlask's defensiveness was justified or esteemed Mr Philip Yeo's original aggrievement was justified.

*(Having met esteemed Mr Yeo before, I do think he comes across as a good person. I do find his legal threats ..out of character..but of course I do not know him that well)
*I do hope the entire matter is clarified soon enough. This is certainly a case of having dirty linen aired out in public, which is unfortunate. However, it is hoped that since it is already full-blown, it would be useful if settlement of this issue serves as a precedent, so that bloggers will be more clear and aware of their responsibilities and liabliites.

Making Martyrs out of Molehills

2005-05-02T09:01:00.000+08:00

I thought the Singapore blogosphere had finally laid the ghosts of the tripartite CZ-Infantile-AcidFlask affair to rest. I had wanted to post about some inane, out of point topic (ie resume normal service) but evidently there are somethings I just cannot resist commenting on.

Apparently some very 'insidious' smart aleck has instigated MrBrown, MrMiyagi, Xiaxue and CowboyCaleb to 'use their voice' against what he – i use the word 'he' because it is probably one misguided individual – perceives as a miscarriage of justice, a oppressive, bully tactics against freedom of speech.

MrBrown and especially MrMiyagi and CowboyCaleb reacted with indignance, castigating the instigator with biting posts. I think Xiaxue reacted the best in such situations, which is effectively ignoring the post as if it never existed (i think she is somewhat used to doing that anyway, heh, but thats another matter).

Nevertheless it is somewhat perturbing to see yet another matter go out of hand. Firstly, while I fully sympathise AND empathise with AcidFlask, I do think inevitably it is a matter between 2 parties, as opposed to the forces of good against the forces of evil as some have made it out to be. And somehow I doubt that most are actually genuinely sympathetic towards AcidFlask, but rather, seizing this opportunity to further their political agenda, effectively making AcidFlask a hapless martyr. Grabbing whatever little morsels they have about the issue, they use it to further their own personal cause and grievances. Adopting a siege mentality – blogs against authorities. Freedom of Speech against Opression. Which is still ok, except that you should pick your own fights, you do not expect others to fight your battles for you, you do not use others to fight your own battles. You are probably one of those persons who complain that the gov 'never lets us make any decisions for ourselves', and if this is what is going to happen if they do let you have freedom to do whatever you want, then I'm sorry to say I'd rather the gov reins in on your petty tail than to let you wreak complete anarchy upon us.

I put it to you, that you are merely using 'freedom of expression' as just another convenient tool to further your own personal grudges and distaste against the establishment. Worse still, you martyr others for your own cause. Frankly, on a scale of respect for such perpetrators between 0-10, you rank about -15, and thats kind because you probably meant well but are seriously misguided.

If I may suggest, you could start by starting your own blog to highlight whatever grievances you have, you could start by championing your own cause yourself- and not expecting others to do your trumpet calling for you. And write your own original stuff, and not lambasting others for not doing so.

And then Gilbert of SLMJD finds that his works have been literally copied and pasted unto a political website without his permission or knowledge. Pardon me but that is just blatantly STUPID, not to mention DUMB. Obviously Gilbert is none too happy about having his works copied and his name associated with a party he has absolutely no affilations with. I have no idea what they were trying to achieve by lifting his texts, other than pissing off a lawyer – not the wisest of things to do imho, especially since this can be an extremely grave offence. As Gilbert has mentioned, even students ask permission to use his work in private school projects. This is simply basic courtesy, respecting others work and crediting them where they are due. NOTE: THIS is what freedom of expression is about. By abusing others works without permission, you have committed the most grievous sin against expression itself, by infringing on others freedom of expression, so to actually claim to want to promote freedom of expression is a farce. This is also what the Courtesy Campaign is about – and you wonder why the Gov takes the trouble to have such campaigns. The answer could very well be found by looking at yourself.

Gilbert also mentions an email about a perpetrator who wanted Gilbert to join 'the opposition', then claiming he is 'of no use' after he politely declined their offer. Again this scenario is another instance of stupidity, and a certain conclusion can be derived from these events.

Some People Just Don't Understand What is Free Speech. Some people don't understand that with freedom comes responsibility not to abuse it or abuse others right to use it. Perhaps that is why the checks and balances in place are arguably more stringent than elsewhere. Note to you: The word 'Free' in Free speech is not to be taken literally

By taking such misguided steps, it is, in effect, one step forward and two steps backward. If one wishes to champion free speech then he should firstly ensure that he truly understands what free speech entails. Then, instead of abusing it, he can actually practice free speech himself rather than instigating others to do the work for him, or alternatively using other's name and work for their own advances. This in itself is a sin against free speech – then again, it is most likely that these people do not actually care so much about free speech as opposed to their own personal or political agenda and grievances.

In other words, seizing on every tiny morsel they can find, blowing up the matter out of water, opportunistically martyring others for their own causes, twisting causes to suit their own agenda.

And the scale of respect that should be afforded to such people on a scale of 0 to 10? -20.

You refers to Instigator for the 1st part and CopyCat for the 2nd

The Community

2005-04-30T10:48:00.000+08:00

The community in Singapore is small. So small, that everyone is linked to each other through friends or acquaintances, or at the very most, three or four degrees away.

As Agagooga has noted in his entry on Thursday, April 28, 2005, the Singapore blogosphere is undergoing a similar transcending – the blogosphere is finding increasing semblance of organisation and union through the good works of everyone @ Tomorrow.sg and Huichieh of From a Singapore Angle, to name just 2. In effect, a very distinct Singapore Blogosphere Community is slowly taking shape.

Picking up on CowboyCaleb's post which is inspired but perhaps somewhat self-contradictory at some parts, as highlighted by comments on his post, Agagooga goes on to observe that the communion of the blogosphere has resulted in everyone talking about the same events, everyone linking each other, everyone knowing each other. In other words, everyone converging on the same old few topics. In defence, it has to be said that the recent events (CZ, Infantile Saga, and erm..'AlkalineBeaker') certainly affects everyone in the Singapore blogosphere, and thus convergence on these topics is simply natural cause and effect.

Agagooga however laments what he perceives as the singularisation of the blogosphere and observes this as a Singaporean trait, in which Singaporeans are indulgent in all things Singaporean and nothing else, which results in a generic nexus.

A growing segment of the Singaporean blogosphere - in absolute, even if not relative terms - now seems incestuously small, just like Singapore itself, and the Singaporean diaspora - at least the Singaporean student diaspora. Everyone links to everyone else, everyone trackbacks everyone else, everyone talks about everyone else and everyone reads everyone else, especially the same few heavyweights. Perhaps it's a fetishism by Singaporeans of all things Singaporean.

Which I can't really deny – in a sense, we already observe this in other aspects of Singapore life, such as food courts, of which there are many in Singapore but whose variety does not differ much from the next. Or for that matter, the radio stations on our airwaves, of which the content offered by each station differs inconsiderably from the next. I would think that one's traits would naturally be reflected upon one's writings and as such there is no surprise that the blogosphere has evolved as such.

It would thus seem indeed that singularisation is taking place, rather than divergence. As I have noted previously the dearth of niche blogs is stark, however, other than the specific disapproval shown by Agagooga, most bloggers would see the communion of the blogosphere as a positive thing.

I would be inclined to agree with Agagooga, except that such natural evolution was bound to take its predestined path sooner or later. The advent of blogs has impacted the way the internet is used and the number of people jumping on the bandwagon is only bound to increase.

As such, both Agagooga's pessimism and CowboyCaleb's optimism may not be warranted. On one hand, Agagooga laments the singularisation while on the other, CowboyCaleb remarks that the blogosphere has reached 'saturation point', thus heralding a semblance of community with sites such as Tomorrow.sg .

I tend to fail to correspond in certain aspects on both counts. Firstly, Agagooga neglects to highlight the importance of blogging as a social tool in addition to its informational prowess. As such, a communal blogosphere will only serve to enhance its capability as a tool for social networking. Perhaps too, the entrance of a good number of new bloggers may leave the older bloggers aggrieved that their space have been invaded, but I suggest in all likelihood the opposite is true. Unlike real-space, internet space is limitless. There is equal room for 1 blogger or 100 bloggers. In addition, with the growing awareness of blogging, older bloggers who have already established a foothold in the blogosphere will only continue to grow and thrive (in terms of readership). Indeed, Agagooga laments the difficulties of separating the wheat from the chaff when there are countless blogs sprouting the same content. However, I suggest this can only be a good thing, because this provides more competition between bloggers, so that only the more outstanding ones will catch the eyes and interest of readers, leaving the rest in obscurity. This is a better scenario than having only poorly drafted sites simply because there are no other alternatives.

And in response to CowboyCaleb's assertation that the blogosphere has reached 'saturation point', I suggest that this is only the dawn of the Singapore Blogosphere Era. I further suggest that if one were to use a chronological timescale for the evolution of the Blogosphere, this would be circa 0 AD. What happened prior would be prehistory, and what awaits us is the future, where the blogosphere, with its apparent present convergence, will finally mature and sprout its branches, with niche blogs arising from the outer reaches of its branch. Agagooga's grievance (and mine too) about its convergence and present regurgitative nature would then be alleviated!

It is good that both CowboyCaleb and Agagooga have strong, albeit polarised, opinions on the future of the Singapore blogosphere. For they serve as fodder of consideration to the future of blogosphere.

A collateral point I wish to raise is CowboyCaleb's original post,in which he embraces the collectivity of the blogosphere, similarly raising demand of accountability from fellow bloggers by raising the CZ affair, by arguing that we are seen as one collective union.

However, if you go ahead and write something insensitive that upsets everybody, you’re going to give the rest of us a bad name. The people who do not blog, see us as a gang.

This tenuous assertation may not go down well in every corner of the blogosphere, especially since it conflicts with his previous paragraph as observed by commenter Edan.

I blog for me and nobody else. I just know you understand what I’m saying here because a blog is a very personal thing.

In this instance I would tend to settle for a middle ground approach, in which I feel that one should blog with the requisite responsibility that one would be expected to offer, but that this should be primarily motivated by self-accountability as opposed to accountability to other bloggers.

In conclusion, I wish to highlight the very irony of this post is, by reflecting on Agagooga's post, I have perhaps committed the sin which Agagooga had raised-

When something happens on or with one blog, the rest will be quick to pick up on it, spread the word, and pen some commentary, as if something had just happened to someone in the neighbourhood. Gossip and comments flow, just like in a MeatSpace neighbourhood. Wash, rinse and repeat recursively.

But the question remains: Is this necessarily a good or bad thing?

A world of Disclaimers

2005-04-28T08:54:00.000+08:00

I am seeing disclaimers sprout out all over the blogosphere, like mushrooms in a damp field after a gentle summer shower. I must say I am very amused/bemused by this phenomenon.

Do I dare also suggest, for some blogsites at least, that the disclaimers are put up as a symbol of defiance rather than actual fear of threat.

The satire goes on in the form of disclaimers.

UPDATE: I would like to take this opportunity to remind exuberant disclaimer users that disclaimers do NOT automatically absolve one totally of all responsibility, especially when the disclaimer is not constructed properly and/or placed at an easily accessible portion of the site.

In the same vein, discussing of sensitive topics MAY also lead to liability even if one chooses to use masked language and innuendo – so be careful.

[What is my disclaimer doing at the bottom of the page in mock serious language then? And why am I discussing hypothetical libel suits then?]

UPDATE 2: In seriousness, do check out the Singapore Blogger's Practical Guide to Minimising the Risk of Defamation Suits at SLMJD.
-

Self-censure

2005-04-26T23:27:00.000+08:00

Recent events on the blogosphere have been fast paced and very eventful, and it only serves to reinforce my cynicism. The events that have unfolded are both disheartening and frightening.

It is disconcerting to see how blogs are slowly being recognised and curtailed by the big boys. Most bloggers treat blogs as personal blogs (naturally and rightly so, I might add) but fail to appreciate the dangers of publishing content open to the entire world. In doing so, opinionated matters especially of a sensitive nature and/or relating to an identifiable individual or corporation are openly published and leaves the blogger in a very vulnerable position. Some application of tact or discernment is warranted but some things are beyond one's control. Especially after recent episodes, only the most naïve would continue to think that his words are not being monitored. This is no Conspiracy Theory, but as cliché as it sounds, Big Brother IS watching you. Even if you think you are secure behind a veil of anonymity, you are still traceable.

The crucial question is: how will mere mortals ever be able to appreciate all the responsibilities and liabilities incurred by publishing a blog? Indeed, like many aspects of cyberspace, there is still much uncertainty. Unfortunately it is never a defense to plead ignorance of the law, but is that fair to hapless individuals?

I'll be the first to admit: I have, to date, written under a pseudonym, mainly due to prevent potential repercussions on my 'real' life. To be frank, my intentions were never to start a blog site which offers the content it does so now. There are a couple of entries whereby I wince before I press the 'publish' button (including the previous entry) and indeed many more potentially sensitive ones which will never see the light of day. Yes, I very much practice self-censorship, I am quite aware of the dangers of airing one's opinions, having been burnt before. Indeed, I have steered clear of politics (no desire to be involved in such discussion), focusing on personal opinions from a layman's perspective. As it is, this site is first and foremost a personal site, in contrast to more journalistic-styled sites. Yes, some opinions are somewhat subjective, and although striving towards objectivity is laudable, we are, after all, normal layman, unlike professional reporters who, indeed in certain domestic publications, more often than not give skewed subjective opinions masked in objective language as well. Absolute objectivity is the Serpent's Lie, because to be truly objective, one will need to encompass the viewpoints of every individual in the whole world, since everyone is uniquely individual. That is, of course, quite impossible. As such, it is all a matter of degree, with esteemed publishers tending toward absolute objectivity, as opposed to layman blogs which offer much more subjective material.

Pretty much because I do not have any ulterior agenda other than to air my opinions, I have, as far as its reasonably possible, try to remove references to distinct identifiable persons or objects, preferring to use satirical, hypothetical or theoretical examples, primarily for 2 reasons: Self-preservation and Disengagement.

While The Singapore Commentator rightly says that 'satire not a good substitute for serious discussion' when important issues are at hand, and states that it is often used as 'disguised rants', on the flipside, satire often protects and softens the blow, and gives one leeway in expressing unbridled opinion whereupon otherwise there would be no opportunity of doing so without exposing oneself to susceptibility. I believe in adaptation. To ensure one's own survival, one must adapt to the circumstantial surroundings. As it is commonly known in Singapore it is prudent to exercise discretion when airing potential sensitive views, hence the proliferation of sites such as Talkingcock and Mollymeek. Like it or not, thats the way it is here.

While I am admittedly somewhat anti-establishment, I have no time or desire to launch a 'crusade' to 'right' the 'wrongs' of society. I do not think its worth forsaking my family, friends, career, and goals (incidentally very different from what may be construed from this blog). Unfortunately, this is a sentiment shared by many fellow Singaporeans. Rather than being apathetic or infantile, it is just not worth the sacrifice. Whether such a situation is 'right' or 'wrong' doesn't really matter. What matters is that the situation is such and we just have to deal with it.

*Note that 'right' and 'wrong' are inherently relative and subjective as well. What may be 'right' to me may be 'wrong' to you.

And those few who choose to take up such a thankless task are either shot down, compromised, or most commonly, join the very establishment they were previously opposed to.

The vicious cycle goes on.

*Oh yeah and I shall also add a disclaimer on the sidebar, for what its worth.

Hypothetical Libel

2005-04-23T10:29:00.000+08:00

A hypothetical blogger, AlkalineBeaker, who runs the site Sarcastic Na2C03, has apparently been hit by the threat of legal action from a seemingly innocuous post regarding a fellow blogger's retraction and apology for his statement.

While there is apparently no libelous material (to me, at least, it seems innocuous enough, nothing beyond the norms of free speech), I do have a suspicion it may have something to do with some of the comments.

From what little I know in this area of law, if the material is found to be libelous, even if its from the comments, he will be liable, if he does not take the necessary steps to remove it as soon as he is alerted to the offending material. Likewise, his service provider (the host of where his blog is sited) will be similarly culpable. This cannot be disclaimed, but it can be excused.

Although the threat of legal action probably stems from a Hypothetical Nation (hereby HN) in which AB and his site is not currently based in, he will still be liable within HN's jurisdiction. Whether HN can actually enforce the threat, is of course another matter altogether.

However, the threat of legal action is simply bully-boy tactics, one often used by big corporations and the likes to intimidate and force people into submission. It is unlikely that a legal action will be commenced, and in the even more unlikely situation that AB actually attends trial, the hypothetical claimant from HN will prevail, because he is from HN. In other nations, there wouldn't even be grounds for a legal suit.

Of course, it is also unlikely that the hypothetical claimant actually wishes to commence proceedings. As espoused above, it is just used as an intimidatory tool to force AB into submission, to silence him. Furthermore, if the claimant has an axe to grind with AB due to other issues, he may be all the more willing to 'monitor' AB and seize any opportunity to bring him down. In this hypothetical scenario, this may just be the case.

Keep in mind, if AB is merely a student who is emerging into the working world, with nary a penny and experience in the real cruelties of the corporate and political world, this will be extra intimidating. Then there is also the side issue that such an action will not only stain AB's reputation, but also affect his studies.

Powerful People (PP) abusing the judiciary is a commonplace occurrence, but that doesn't make it right. But it also serves to warn normal layman bloggers like you and me about the perils of free speech. This may also serve to warn us that as mere mortal bloggers, we are pretty much susceptible once we accidentally step on PP's toes. Even more so if HN and PP in HN are very surveillant and vengeful. Maybe we must band together to protect ourselves. Strength in numbers. Besides watching our words, we should stop our zealous infighting and band together against the real threat. For example, if some other bloggers choose to post, say, racist comments, then what we should do is to settle the issue between ourselves. Eg, post a comment or send an email and highlight one's grievances with him, and see the response. An apology and retraction would suffice. There is no need to take the matter to other authorities – and hence out of our hands – we are feeding one of our own to the crocodiles.

*I am just thinking aloud about a hypothetical scenario that is playing in my head at the moment. Any similarities to real persons or situations are purely coincidental.
*Discerning comments with a large dose of tact is most welcome
*Thankfully this is only a hypothesis. I am fortunate enough to reside in SG, where there is excellent systematic justice in place.

The Singabloodypore Blogosphere

2005-04-22T10:45:00.000+08:00

*The terms 'mature' and 'infantile' are used in the same context as Steven.

Over at Singabloodypore Steven asserts that the majority Singaporean blogs are 'infantile' and goes on to cite 'Xiaxue' and 'Mr Brown' as two examples.

While I do not agree with the examples he has highlighted and shall explain below, I tend to agree with his general observation. The number of 'mature' blogs which deal with 'important' socio-political issues are few and far between. Mostly blogs deal with inane aspects of their life, concentrating on leisurely pursuits, day's work or emotions.

If the Singapore blogosphere is anything to go by, then 'mature' blogs are surely greatly outnumbered by 'infantile' blogs. I am also inclined to observe that the blogosphere could actually serve as a microcosm of Singaporean's mindsets in general. The proportion of 'mature' bloggers to 'infantile' bloggers would not be out of line with the proportion of 'mature' people compared to 'infantile' people in our general populace. My insinuations about the mentality of most Singaporeans can be thus derived from these assertations, although it is hardly fair to label someone 'infantile' just because one is not predisposed to 'mature' issues. However, it is in all probability that any blogosphere, including the 'US Blogosphere' or 'UK Blogosphere' has a similar proportion of 'mature' to 'infantile' blogs as well, simply because not everyone is predisposed to the same inclinations as Steven would like it to be in his perfect world.

However, what I disagree with Steven is his tendency to relate that blogs should only serve as a harbinger of 'mature' information, opinions and comments. Perhaps somewhat condescendingly, he insinuates that usage of blogs in other forms may be deemed 'infantile'.

Steven fails (or at least shuts his eyes) to the fact that there are a myriad of purposes for blogging. Many choose to blog to share their personal lives with friends. Others choose to share jokes, sites or other 'lighter' material. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. A blog is not just a source for information, it is also a source of leisure and entertainment. It is an outlet for expression, for exhibitionism, and perhaps Steven may not be too well aware, in Singapore it is in many ways a crucial social communication tool as well (due to the primarily reserved nature of Singaporeans). While development of the mind through 'mature' thought-provoking issues on contemporary affairs is crucial, similarly important is the development of one's character socially. If people choose to use blogs to derive that, I would not hold it against them.

That said, to suggest that these people are 'infantile' is also unfair. We cannot expect everyone to create blogs for the sole purpose of having a predisposition to current affairs, or so called 'mature' blogs.

What I suggest then, is that there is a severe lack of niche blogs in the Singapore blogosphere. There are a few with deal with a niche aspect of society- for example Days are the Those, which deals with army life – although most are generally rambling ons about their lives. Perhaps Steven should be more inclined towards suggesting that there is a dearth of niche blogs pertaining to contemporary issues – which I agree with totally – as opposed to suggesting that the dearth of blogs in this niche represent an 'infantile' mindset.

Why do I not agree with Steven that MrBrown and Xiaxue are examples of 'infantilism'?

Firstly, a lot of credit has to go to MrBrown, for being one of the real pioneers of the blogosphere. Even before the existence of blogs, MrBrown was there, as a pioneer of freedom of expression, offering his by now famous Singapore National Education (SNEs). He first posted in newsgroups, and then maintained a static website, which is decidedly inconvenient as compared to the ease of blogging today. He is, in some way, the LKY of the Singapore blogosphere.

If one bothers to trawl through his older articles (in Brownlands), you would see that Mr Brown is indeed a man who is in the know of contemporary events. He presents his opinions on contemporary affairs in an excellent satirical manner. However, what co-transpires during his ascent to fame is his consequent desire to appeal to a wider audience. Perhaps his status as a married man has also changed his outlook somewhat, but one thing is clear, he has mellowed 'for the wider audience'. In a sense, if one takes Steven's 'mature' viewpoint, his content has been severely compromised. This is not due to MrBrown's fault, per se, but his readers, those who cannot accept or understand his more subtle 'refined' articles. In a way, he has become a sell-out, but only if his 'origins' are anything to measure his blogging intentions by. Just like 'artistic directors' who move on to produce mainstream Hollywood movies.

As for Xiaxue, I would similarly (but perhaps surprisingly to some) spring to her defence. As we all know, her controversial, brash style of writing upsets many readers. However, her fame is unprecedented, even when compared to Mr Brown. In other words, her voice and power over the Singapore blogosphere is second to none. As much as the 'mature' bloggers would wish they exerted a similar sphere of influence, I shall make the following proclamation:

Even if all the 'mature' bloggers 'combined forces' together to rival Xiaxue's influence, Xiaxue will still prevail.

And her voluminous influence is one that 'mature' blogs will probably never emulate, unless they go the 'way of the Brown', simply because this is and will always be a niche market and the interests level toward a niche market will never be comparable to 'mainstream' content such that offered in Xiaxue.

However, Xiaxue's influence is also very much crucial for blogs in general, including 'mature' blogs. While some observers have commented that 'Xiaxue is the Tabloid to Brown's Newspaper', Xiaxue's site introduces many to the world of the blogosphere, and while predominantly personal in nature, has also covered issues such as nationalism, religion and other social matters, albeit in a personal subjective way. And in doing so, provoked comments and opinions, up to a few hundred in some cases. While most of the comments and opinions are decidedly amateurish and immature, the crux of the matter is that people make comments and opinions.

Rather than taking Steven's perspective that blogs should reflect 'mature' as opposed to 'infantile' content, I take the view it is alright to deliver 'amateurish' opinions on social matters, as opposed to not even bothering or attempting to do so. To bother to voice one's opinions is the start to involvement with social contemporary issues. Keep in mind that most of the readers are probably in their early-mid teenage years. We cannot expect them to deliver an opinion or comment which is of equal 'standard' as that of a 'mature' individual. But the fact that Xiaxue is available to 'provoke' them into commenting, is something praiseworthy and not to be treated lightly. In other words, Xiaxue's blog functions a crucial entrance point, a stepping stone for people new to the blogosphere, perhaps even a stepping stone for some towards this 'mature' niche in the blogosphere.

*Full credit to Steven to wisely pinpoint MrBrown and Xiaxue, the 2 flagships of the Singapore blogosphere, to ensure maximal provocative effect to get his point across.

Synopsium at From a Singapore Angle

2005-04-22T01:00:00.000+08:00

Huichieh of From a Singapore Angle is organising what we hope to be the first of many synopsiums, in a sense putting into action what I have envisioned before.

Full credit must be given to him for his enthusiasm and willingness to devote time for all our benefit. If you would like to contribute or know sources who may be able to contribute, please do so.

This current synopsium, incidentally, deals with the Casino issue.

Bloggers Against Reverse Discrimination (BARD)

2005-04-21T09:22:00.000+08:00

With the failure of FACTS – Family Against Casino Threat in Singapore to prevent the government from deciding to 'bulldoze its way' and build casinos (IR)s in Singapore, I have taken it upon myself to form the BARD – Bloggers Against Reverse Discrimination.

Reverse discrimination - Discrimination against members of a dominant or majority group ie Singaporeans in Singapore

Yet again, the Government has demonstrated their arrogant and avaricious nature in this episode. Lets face it, from the moment the casino was announced, only the most naïve among us doubted its eventual implementation. Yet, the Government, like a master puppeteer, managed to pull the strings in their favour once again. Allowing for people to voice out their concerns, allowing for people to speak out against it. That way, the citizens should be 'satisfied' that their voices had been heard and considered. Yet, the refusal to allow a referendum demonstrates their appallingly transparent lack of sincerity on this issue. Paying lip service to our concerns with regards to the feasibility of a casino, and patronising us with contradictory reassurances was the first Insult heaped upon us. Announcing the decision to install not 1 but 2 'integrated resorts' merely doubles the effect.

But assuring us that we are mature enough to have a casino and then imposing a $100/entrance or $2000/annum fee is simply spitting in our faces. I shan't point out the deficiencies of their rationale since it is already quite transparent to the masses and covered in various places.

It is not the quantum of the fees that is the issue at hand here. The fact that there is a tariff for local citizens but not for foreigners is yet another fallacious example of reverse discrimination in Singapore.

It may come to a surprise to Singaporeans, but in a democratic society, a government's primary function is to serve the citizens of the country. In other words, we vote for what we want, and they implement it. In most parts of the world, too, there is preferential treatment given to its citizens, or at the very least, equal treatment.

I reckon, no country, not even countries like North Korea, adopt such self-discriminatory measures – foreigners are not even allowed into North Korea, for example (not that many foreigners would want to go there, but thats another story). Contrast Singapore, where foreigners with the slightest hint of 'talent' are given free reign to reap our fields – and take it back home, leaving us indigenous souls with whatever scraps are left. There is much parallelism which can be observed between the foreign talent policy and the tariff for entry to these casinos.

This imposition is ludicrous because it simply means that we incur a penalty just for being Singaporean. In our supposed home country of Singapore, no less.

We are made to endure the social costs arising from casinos, without the corresponding social benefits. In other words, the government is again exploiting us, at our social cost, for their own economic benefit, as opposed to our (both us and government) economic (and social) benefit. They are installing something that has both positive and negative features, but we must bear the brunt of the 'negativity' and pay a price to enjoy it, while they enjoy the 'positives'.

Even if its 'justifiable' on the grounds that the purpose is to keep out the 'poor' people, which imho is ludicrous, because it simply conflicts with the 'Singaporeans are mature enough to handle a casino in Singapore' rationale adopted by the government, I suggest that such a method is misconceived and prone to backfire. In all likelihood, those predisposed to gambling will find the way to access the casino (eg using desperate measures to secure the amount needed for entrance). Alternatively, they may simply return to their original hangouts in Genting, etc, which also defeats the rationale that a local casino will keep gambling consumption (and hence revenue) within the country's economy.

While I do not agree with the justification of the tariff, if the government has to insist on taking measures to 'protect the poor', alternative measures could be used.

One measure is to actually restrict or admit people in on an individual basis. Naturally, those excluded will include bankrupts and those with evidence of financial incapacity. In addition, the gambling habits of the individuals may be monitored, so as to detect potential compulsive gambling syndrome. Dare I also suggest, to actually imposing a 'cap' on the losses accrued. Once someone loses above a certain amount, he is denied access or asked to leave the casino. (Of course, this will never happen, not even in the few parallel dimensions hovering close to us)

In certain countries, there is the legislative requirement for casinos to ensure that gamblers who have been gambling for some time are asked if they should stop. While mostly this becomes obligatory lip-service, such measures may be well enacted in Singapore's proposed casinos as well.

Conclusion

The imposition of the artificial tariff is ill-conceived and self-discriminatory. The go-ahead for the casino has and will breed some discontent among certain portions of the community. I suggest that the tariff, as an obvious source of reverse discrimination will only serve to breed more resentment and discontent among the citizens. This commentator would also like to suggest that the government, even if it chooses to adopt a purely economical utilitarian approach, should perhaps look a bit beyond immediate economic benefits, and consider the long term economical repercussions which may result from breeding resentment within their own local populace. While Singaporeans are renowned as an apathetic, passive sort, the fact that there has been much public debate and even groups such as FACTS suggests that this is perhaps an unprecedented issue, in the sense of stirring awareness in normally servile Singaporeans. If implementation of the casinos is a must, at least drop the ill-conceived tariff.

*This commentator also wishes to acknowledge that, perhaps somewhat ironically, the imposition of the tariffs may in part be due to acquiescing those who adopt an anti-casino stance. In a way, the measure can be also taken to 'show' the anti-casino persons that 'potentially vulnerable' persons are taken care of (by denying them easy access to the casino).

**Do also note that I do not actually wish to form the 'BARD'. I just thought that it was an amusing acronym. This is a semi-satirical article -so please pardon the harsh tone in certain portions of the essay as well. Cheers.

An alternate Framework to Monogamous Marriage

2005-04-18T22:34:00.000+08:00

*In case you are wondering this article is satirical in nature, partly due to the reason is a constraint of time and effort prevents me from offering a better researched framework.
*It can/will only work in a world where all adults are financially independent
*I do not advocate it
*It is an advancement of frameworks proposed by real academics whose names elude me at the moment

So if the very essence of monogamy is unnatural and its purpose undermined, why are we still practicing (or at least, pretending, to practice monogamy?) Of course it is still very much the norm and there are still many traditional families that harness its beneficial arrangements, but at the rate contemporary society is progressing, we may perhaps better off exploring viable alternatives to monogamy. Are there any other plausible “social structures” that could work, which emphasises on individual liberty but is not completely self centered and protects the crucial interests of childbirth and child nurturing?

Here is a simplified version of a framework I envision for the (not-so) near future which requires a few structures in place (ie they complement each other and should be read as one entirety rather than individually)

The crux would be the focus on the 'children contracts' (admittedly a more pleasant term should be coined for it) as opposed to a marriage and the inclusion of recognition of the rights of homosexual's right to children. Such a framework takes care of homosexual rights, the right to children, the right not to have children, the right to choice of one or multiple partners, and also the issue of population regeneration.

Liberal culture

Borrowing heavily from the hippies, there are no constraints or limitations towards absolute sexual liberation. Rather than staying committed to a single partner, everyone may have consensual sexual relations with anyone else without falling foul of the law. When a child is born, they can either be sent to a 'nurture agency' or be cared for under terms of a 'child contract'.

Children Contracts

Rather than instituting the union of two individuals (ie marriage), a legal agreement is reached between two parties upon conception of a child. A contract determining the terms of the child's welfare such as how the child is taken care of and how much each of them must contribute to his upkeep are agreed upon. These give both parties the freedom to move on to other partners if they desire, without the implications of divorce. They can also opt to stick together, and on their decision to have another child, simply go through another contract.

Genetic Agencies

Rather than marrying and raising a family, perhaps it is possible that there are “genetic agencies” which collect both male sperm and female eggs. Any persons of legal age may be obliged to deposit genetic material.*

Naturally, genetic data will be identifiable but confidential. When a donor wants a baby, he will select a donor of the opposite sex's egg or sperm to create the baby. He will have to get the consent of the other party and as such it is usually the case that the two parties will know each other.

If both parties are agreeable, they sign a contract on which terms such as how the child is taken care of (see above) and how much each of them must contribute to his upkeep are agreed upon. The genetic material is processed by completely artificial means and is an 'artificial' version of the Child Contract above.

Additionally, an 'opt-in' clause will permit a person to allow his genetic material to be used 'publicly'. In other words, the genetic material will be on a list which is open to potential 'genetic donees', those who may not have individual consenting partners.

This again is superior to a monogamous institution because minority lifestyles and rights are not infringed upon.(eg, homosexual couples and individuals). Provided they qualify, they are entitled to be a donee of genetic material and consequently parent to a child.

In addition to the 'child contract', a genetic bank would mean that 'superior' genetic material can be harnessed and propagated to ensure high quality children.*

*Obligation to donate genetic material may be deemed to infringe on individual liberty but it is a small price to pay for the amount of liberty gained in other ways.

Nurture Agencies

To complement these factories, nurture agencies could be implemented. These agencies will have specialists trained in the art of bringing up, teaching and caring for children. Thus if a baby is conceived, and neither parent has time or is willing to take care of him/her, he can be designated to these private or state-run nurture agencies. Hey, wait a minute, this sounds a bit like those child care agencies. However, in the future, the bleak outlook for monogamous marriages would mean that rather than merely having 'part time' agencies, 'full time' agencies who will be the children's nurturers will be essential (not unlike an orphanage). This will eliminate any possible chance of child abuse, neglect, slavery or abandonment.

These nurture agencies should be State run agencies and/or private institutions. The agency will have the responsibility of nurturing the child until he is self-sufficient. The accrued costs will be supported in turn by higher tax rates. In turn, the taxes will be spread out fairly among the populace, rather than having a disproportionate burden on parents in the current monogamy system (parents expenditure on children as compared to swinging single lifestyles)

Undoubted, this 'alternatate' framework has a somewhat hedonistic tendency.

It may seem inferior to a traditional monogamous marriage (one provider, one nurturer) structure, but i wouldn't say the same for a dual-provider marriage.

In such a framework, everyone, including the minorities, are taken care of and afforded equal treatment.

Those who prefer a traditional marriage framework,ie people predisposed to one life partner do not have their lifestyles compromised in such a framework. They can simply stick together, and adopt the 'Child contracts' whenever they have children. This requirement is necessary for the welfare of the child. There is no corresponding divorce proceedings, since this framework is envisioned for a future whereby all individuals are self-sustaining, making such a concept obsolete.

People predisposed to a childless lifestyle do not totally shirk their responsibilities of propogation by their obligations to donating their genetic material.

People who want to have children but are unable to for physiological or otherwise reasons are likewise able to bring up a child.

Monogamy

2005-04-13T20:52:00.000+08:00

In today's world it is perhaps the norm to have just one partner in marriage. However, this has not been the case in times past. Ancient chinese emperors had hundreds of concubines. Indeed, just a few generations back, our great-grandparents usually had more than a single wife. In modern day, Islamic law still permits a man to have four wives.

So why is monogamy the standard practice in society today? Is monogamy the 'natural' way of life for humans? Certainly, in the animal kingdom, only a small percentage of animals practice monogamy, and it is because of practicality rather than fidelity that they do so.

But what about us humans? It is a cultural and societal norm that we are attuned towards a marriage involving 2 parties and thus we may think it is the 'natural order' of things. But if so, why is there a prevalence of adultery? If commitment to a life partner is 'in the natural order of things', there will hardly be the not-so secret temptation of extra-maritial sexual relationships.

It is of course common knowledge between the sexes it is man who have more inclination to commit adultery. This is due to the inherent nature of the sex, where sperm production is cheap and his primal instinct is to spread his seed (and genetic material) to as many as possible. In contrast, women are the ones who have a finite fertility period. Furthermore, they are the ones who will bear the child should they be impregnated, along with the responsibility of nurturing them. Naturally, they are more inclined to be picky or choosy about who they develop sexual relationships with.

*Sidetrack: For people who have always pondered the age-old paradox of 'how is it possible that more men than women are having illicit sex? Shouldn't the numbers be the same?' should always consider the Village Bicycle Theorem.

Similarly it is also common knowledge that attractive individuals get more interest sexually. However, while attractive females will choose only the 'cream of the crop', attractive males will take advantage of their superiority to spread their seed around as much as possible. Thus, an attractive male will not only 'get the girl' but he will get all the girls.

So where does that leave the mediocre males? Thats right. They get nothing. Winner takes all. That is why the Emperor gets all the Concubines and the peasants toil in the fields with scant reward. Perhaps this is also why monogamy was introduced.

Our contemporary society is hardly like those of days past. These days, we champion democracy, equality. While actual equality is an impossibility, laws and norms strive toward such a structure. To be fair to all the men and women, the law of marriage decrees that each person is only entitled to one partner. Monogamous marriage is a contract between two individuals, an institution incorporated in response to the modern social climate. Which is all well and good for the previously mediocre men and women, since they are now handed a better chance in an even playing field. Rather than the Alpha Male getting all the babes, theoretically he is only entitled to one. Therefore everyone has an 'equal' chance to each stake their claim on a partner.

Of course, the genetic quality of our species will be compromised, but this is partially negated because a monogamous relationship structure is a very ideal environment in to nurture a child. Nature (genetic) and Nurture are equally important in a child's development. One partner, the breadwinner, brings in the dough. The other partner, the nurturer, takes care of the children, giving them the love that is so essential in the developing years of a child. The ideal family.

However, the emphasis towards materialism has perhaps cast serious doubt on this once great medium to raise a child. These days, it is not enough for one parent to be working. Usually, both parties are out working, leaving the child to the attention of a third party, usually a nanny or child care centre. Thus the very basis for this family structure is undermined. Rather than task specialisation, each contributing to an aspect of family life, there is an oversupply of providence and a consequent undersupply of nurture. The highly artificial nature of monogamy then becomes farcical. And this is not even considering the even uglier aspects of a divorce.

[Of course, this is an extreme pessimistic view. There are many successful marriages out there which do not fall within this bleak scenario]

*To be continued
*For purposes of this essay, issues of companionship are not considered. Drop a comment if you wish to hear my views on companionship issues.
*For purposes of this essay, Monagamy refers to a legally recognised marriage between two individuals of the opposite sex.

Postnote: Many thanks to HUICHIEH who shared an article by J.Morse, who takes a 'libertarian' perspective and argues that marriage is a natural and necessary social institution. I have read the article only after completion of this essay. Many points raised here already rebutts her myopic generalisations especially pertaining towards the 'spontataneous natural tendency of marriage' and the inability to differentiate between a legalised union between 2 parties and a union between 2 parties by pure informalised consent, ie non-married coupling. In addition her language reeks of putting forward points in favour of an idealistic hypothetical perfect marriage as opposed to a realistic marriage. I may attempt a counter-rebuttal to other points she raises in a future post (if I have the time).

Should marriage be recognised?

2005-04-10T08:07:00.000+08:00

As I have mentioned in the previous post the increasing influence of the homosexual community means that soon the voice of gay activists would be increasingly heard. One such right championed is the right to legally marry a person of the same sex. Indeed, in countries such as Holland, same-sex marriages are legally recognised, but generally even in 'Western' nations, this has been a highly taboo subject. (However, wrt aforementioned 'Western' nations, I do feel it is but a matter of time before 'homosexual marriages are recognised).

My opinion towards 'homosexual marriages' is similar to the reasoning found in the Anal Philosopher's rebuttal to Sullivan on Homosexual Marriage.

Of course, a demand for equal rights for homosexuals to be able to register their marriage allows me to again emphasise a fallacy of the concept towards 'equal rights'. If homosexuals start to demand the right for same-sex marriages, it will be only a matter of time before we start to accept bestial marriages, incestuous marriages, etc. The floodgates are open...

While most will think the idea of a 'bestial' marriage or an 'incestuous' marriage preposterous, please remember that it was only a while ago that 'homosexuality' was similarly a preposterous concept. And just a while before that, the idea of a non-domesticated female was similarly trashed upon.
This will lead to a never-ending 'fight for equality' which I have already demonstrated as idealistic and inherently flawed. Even if marriage is finally legally recognised between ANY two individuals, be it between man-woman, man-man, man-cow, or man-sister, there is still discrimination against asexuals and/or singles, since they have no one to 'marry'. Since marriage is a union between 2 individuals, there is no way that someone can marry himself...(that is not even conceptually possible, at least to me)

If equality is what everyone wants, why not just abandon the whole concept of marriage? Marriage has always been an artificial human instrument, and to facilitate equality, why not just forget about the whole doctrine of matrimony? It will be fair and equal to everyone, then. [This illustrates another fallacy of 'equality' treatment – to achieve equality, the best way is to take away any benefits or advantages which particular individuals/groups enjoy. How 'fair' or 'feasible' that is to the individual/group, is of course another story altogether. In this case a sizable number of people will be inconvenienced, to say the least]

Doing away with an age-old tradition which is such a norm in our society? Ludicrous? Perhaps not. While marriage works for a number of individuals, as I demonstrated there is an increasing number of people who are denied the rights accorded to married people. As I have also illustrated in a prior post, there is reason why a heterosexual relationship merits 'reward' from the government.

However, there is also evidence that the traditional framework of a marriage may no longer be the most suitable in today's societal environment, in particular the concept of monogamy (to be considered in next post).

Miss Foreign Talent Singapore

2005-04-02T03:04:00.000+08:00

Looking at the current batch of MSU (Miss Singapore Universe) finalists one cannot help but feel critical. I mean, it is easy to criticise others, of course, but just look at it this way – they are after all taking part in a beauty pageant – there is no point saying nice words about them if they are, quite simply, not nice. From present and past MSUs, it is easy to conclude that while most contestants may have nice, pleasant features suitable for the girl-next-door beauty, there is still much to be achieved in way of elegance and poise, to be able to exude confidence and to carry the responsibility of representing our country (or world).

There is also no need to feel insulted and tell me 'If u think they are ugly then look at yourself – you think you very good looking issit?' Nope, actually I don't. Perhaps that could be the decisive factor in why I have never taken part in any beauty pageants.

However, this is not the point of this post. Being a revolutionary of sorts in my own mind and no one else's, I thought of a great idea, inspired by our great gov, on how SG contestants can finally make an impact in the international version of the show. How about...we get foreign talent (FT) to represent us? Thats right, if we can get FT for all sorts of things including representing our badminton, football, and table tennis teams in major competitions, why not Miss Universe as well?

Of course, the criteria for such potential FT must be strict – they must simply be model material, full of elegance and poise, kind on the eye and good with the mouth (i mean articulately ...no other innuendo intentioned). Recruit about a dozen of them and throw in a few locals to appease critics who will predictably complain that this competition is 'no longer a local affair'. Importantly there must be 3 chinese, 1 malay, 1 indian, 1 eurasian token contestants taking part so that the racial ratio is kept as balanced as possible, just like in schools, etc, just the way our gov likes it. Of course, they will stand no chance against one of the foreign FT (since they are after all, specialised Ms Universes.)

With the FT representing us, we will finally have a chance of actually progressing up to the Last 4, but history suggests that going any further than that may just be beyond these FTs.

But at least the objective is set: Benefits include putting Singapore on the global awareness list again, so that they won't think we are from some province in China. Or it may just backfire, because they may be confused by the FT representing us who, due to their overseas roots, may not exactly be the most representative individual for our culture.

So what happens to the FT after the MSU pageant is over? Well, as they are all good lookers they will possibly contribute to the birth rate as well, since superficial Singaporean males will be more inclined to marry a pretty lass.

After weighing all the factors, I conclude that we should get FTs to represent us at Miss Universe!

How not to get HIV/AIDS

2005-03-28T08:10:00.000+08:00

There has been plans to introduce a law which will effectively criminalise HIV-infected persons who engage or intend to engage(how will they prove this???) in sexual acts with an uninfected person, irregardless of knowledge of their condition, effectively making it a strict liability offence.

I suggest the mere suggestion of enacting such a legislation is preposterous.

But of course, in SG where the concept of citizenry in addition to liberty is virtually non existent, it comes as no surprise that most (non-infected) persons support such a legislation.

Admittedly from a 'healthy individual's' point of view such a law is both beneficial and fair, especially towards HIV-infected individuals who knowingly engage in sexual promiscuity despite knowledge of their ailment.

Righteous non-infected persons will claim such a law will prevent irresponsible and selfish HIV-infected persons from 'spreading the plague', which is in effect true. So then, why isn't such a law appropriate?

Simply because such a law is a grossly disproportionate response to combat the spread of HIV. It is akin to executing old persons above a certain age because we have an ageing population problem. You may be lividly wondering how I could have the audacity to compare a HIV-infected person with a senior citizen. It may come as a unpleasant shock to 'normal' persons but amazingly, HIV-infected persons are persons as well. They are entitled not to be stigmatised nor discriminated against just because of their condition. They, like everyone else, have a right to life, as far as their failing immune systems will take them. It is not right to say that a HIV-infected person 'deserves his fate' because he had dangerous sexual habits, because this is being judgemental.

So how about just limiting the legislation to persons who, despite knowing of their condition, indulge and infect others by sexual contact? Again, this sounds like the next best plan, however, such a law will instead have a negative rather than positive impact, because this will make it better for persons NOT to go for HIV tests even if they suspect they are carriers, since without knowledge, they wont be caught by a legislation aimed at knowing transmitters.

Of course, SG-reans are used to protectionist and supposedly communitarian laws, which are much based on public policy rather than legal certainty. Should such a legislation be enacted it is probable that the prosecution will exercise its discretion, and use it as a weapon to target malicious infectors (such as rapists and knowing infectors). However, this again results in a want of legal certainty, something which imho is a crucial element of a true democracy.

So how should we be protected against these HIV infected persons? Rather than depending on the government to enact draconian laws, we can simply practice safe sexual habits. Thats right, no risky sex, a limited number (preferably one;)) of 'tried and tested' sexual partners, and taking the appropriate precaution. Another way is to practise safe drug-using habits, of which the safest method is not to abuse any drugs at all.

Queries

But what about HIV infectors who rape innocents?

There are already laws enacted to deal with rapists. As such, a law targeting potential HIV-infected rapists will overlap with a law targeting rapists.

What about the poor wives who are infected by their husbands who contracted HIV through having sex with prostitutes?

But why are the husbands having sex with prostitutes in the first place?

What about HIV-infected persons who purposely donate HIV-tainted blood?

There are measures in place to prevent HIV-infected persons from donating blood. Should such a measure fail, I suggest that the fault and blame should lie predominantly on the screening procedure/persons involved with the screening procedure.

rel="tag">HIV legislation in Singapore"

Equal Treatment

2005-03-25T09:51:00.000+08:00

[NB: I do not have anything against people of a different race, sex, sexuality, disability, etc, etc. I am criticising the 'Western' concept of 'discrimination' and 'equality'.]

As the concept of homosexuality gains increasing awareness and acceptance in many societies, it is but a matter of time that campaigning by gay activists bear fruit.. In some countries there is legislation to prevent discrimination on grounds of sexuality. What about SG? Is it possible that some day in the near future, a gay person can come on TV and openly introduce his same-sex spouse without being judged? Indeed, should SG take measures to recognise and protect such liberties?

The concept of equal treatment, like many other civil liberties (or rights), has always been an idealistic one. Indeed, in SG, the level of awareness of such concepts is astonishingly poor, not least due to the lack of liberties in a supposed democracy (imho public awareness and consciousness of civil liberties is as important as the liberties themselves-even if they are not formally protected - I don't see any concerted effort by the government to educate the public on such issues). Legislation enacted to prevent discrimination against a particular sex or race, even for 'liberal countries', is simple to enact but difficult to actually apply, and even harder for a layperson to understand or utilise.

The concept of equal treatment, synonymous with discrimination is itself a fallacy, since it is impossible to treat everyone equally, irregardless of laws and norms cultivated to achieve such an aim (as I have said it is a very idealistic concept). This is simply because, everyone is different. Everyone has different perspectives and ideologies. To enact such measures, rather than liberating, it is actually resulting in the converse, as it is forcing a 'rightful' attitude down individuals throats.

[Paragraph inserted more for illustratory purpose than declaration that The Women's Charter was drafted with non-discrimination in mind]The Women's Charter provides safeguards towards women's rights. However, such a charter is actually discriminatory against men, since it is drafted specifically for women's rights. Consequently the legislation can be used by women as 'a weapon' against men, who are afforded no analogous legislative protection. But one may be tempted to argue that women, as the weaker and fairer sex, need to have protection. By such an argument, you see the fallacy that this concept presents, since this implies that women ARE weaker and fairer (discriminatory and stereotypical). Also, the concept of democracy is undermined, since women are purportedly given additional protective measures to put them on equal footing with men. How does competition occur 'equally' when one party is bestowed with an additional legislative weapon/shield? It is like having men and women compete in the same race but giving women a 10 second headstart. Chivalrous, yes, but chivalry is hardly synonymous with 'equality'.

Maybe a more generalised gender discrimination legislation, one which applies both to men AND women, would be fairer? Maybe just a wee bit, but ultimately, men AND women are different. Such legislation enacted in US and EU use the concept of a 'comparator', ie, if a woman has XYZ statistics and a man has XYZ statistics, they are deemed equal and it is consequently illegal to choose the man over the woman simply (and vice versa) because of his/her gender . But what happens when u compare a pregnant woman with...a pregnant man? [Insert pregnant pause here]

It is conceivable that employers would prefer male employees rather than married female employees because of the possibility that they may require long maternity leave, thereby not facilitating optimal usage of company resources. Of course, social policy (encouraging motherhood) means that companies would hardly 'dare' to discriminate against women for reasons of maternity leave. But the point has always been made – men and women, ARE fundamentally different, no matter how you wish to treat them equally.

So lets say for reasons of public policy, anti-sexist legislation is enacted. That will only results in floodgates for anti-discriminatory legislation, such as grounds of race, age, disabilities etc, which, incidentally, give a disproportionate benefit to the minorities once they are enacted. It sounds all odsd and fair in theory but in practice, it is flawed. Those who really need such legislative protection are usually the ones who are unaware or unable to utilise such rights. However, as such legislation are frequently infamously used as 'a weapon' rather than to protect one's rights, the resulting legal process drains national resources. Also, corporations have to divert resources to comply with such legislation. For example, unless they can give ood justification, a Mandarin printing press has to employ someone who cannot speak Mandarin, or face a legal suit. Classified ads frequently advertising for 'mandarin speaking environment' and 'female working environment' will quickly fall foul of the law. As resources have to be diverted out to compliance rather than improving their service/goods – this translates to a loss to the economy – which translates to a loss to all of us. In other words, 'Equal Treatment' means subsidising a few select 'unfortunate individuals' at the cost of compromising on our collective welfare.

We all know that SG is a pragmatic nation, and we, pragmatic citizens, such compromise towards our excellence by taking such a welfarist approach is not something we are prepared for. Of course, it is easy to be charitable when its impact is so evenly spread out among the entire population, but I will demonstrate how such legislation can force compromise on an individual's part as well.

Especially so would be anti-discriminatory legislation against disabled persons. In US or EU, such legislation means that EVERY public facility AND/OR workplace has to be disabled-friendly, or risk the prospect of a lawsuit. So if your shop has a step that results in wheelchair bound customers being unable to access your shop, you are in breach of the law. Costs have to be incurred towards building a ramp for a potential disabled customer who may spend 0.05 of the amount spent on building the ramp. In the workplace, 'normal employees' have to compromise their work schedules to facilitate 'disabled' employees work. In other words, if 'disabled' persons are unable to take Night Shifts(eg for medical treatment at night) or lift heavy loads, then 'normal' people HAVE to cover the night shifts, AND lift the heavy loads, with no extra incentive at all. So if your workplace consists of a day and night shift and only you and a disabled person unable to take night shifts are working there, you would have to cover all the night shifts without complaint.

I suggest that such sacrifices will only be tolerated by a select few. Already, the simple act of giving up a seat in a train to older folk who need induces a sudden sleepiness in many people. Most people who champion such minority rights are either the minorities themselves or idealistic folk. Should every form of anti-discriminatory legislation surface, the 'normal' people will end up being the ones being discriminated against!

[What I am insinuating is that (especially applicable to homosexuals), do not expect the government or the people to treat you fairly or accept you for who you are just because it is 'fair' to do so. Neither should you expect any assistance or charity from the government to aid you in being recognised or accepted in society. The path to recognition and acceptance is an arduous one, but it is one which you must take on your (collective) own. Examples include making sure that there are no 'rotten-apples' who destroy the image of homosexuals by exhibiting poor behaviour in public]

Gay reporting

2005-03-16T08:43:00.000+08:00

The frivolous comments made by a health minister in Singapore has provoked massive outrage in the Singapore blogging community (and of course the gay activists). However, we all know that one of the golden rules of ST reporting is that anything said by the government, especially propaganda is instantly deemed reputable and hence publishable in the ST.

The allegation that gays contribute greatly to the rise in AIDS levels is not only unfounded but irresponsible and insensitive. One wonders if our leaders are really so bigoted and close-minded to issues such as homosexuality, in which case we should really query if such close-minded people are worthy enough to lead us especially since it is an oxymoron for such people to promote 'creativity' and 'critical thinking'.

But of course, the excellence of our ministers are hardly in doubt, since most of them are the elite from our population. Why then, did this aforementioned minister make such a comment regarding gays? And why did the ST media publish it?

While I reserve my opinion on homosexuality, as I am hardly qualified to cast judgment on how others choose to live their lives, I do wonder why homosexuality has suddenly blossomed into our society. Did they accede to the increasing gay population and awareness in the SG populace and thus show more recognition for it? I have never heard of the SG government acceding to public pressure before (amazing fact for a democracy), and this is no exception. Of course, the pragmatic SG government 'accepted' homosexuality because of purely economic reasons(US).

Homosexuality is still very taboo to a big part of the population. It is clear that both government and majority of the population still frown against homosexuality. Perhaps, there is a reason why there is still intolerance of homosexuals in our society. For most 'traditional' people, they feel that homosexuality is 'wrong' or 'immoral' or 'unnatural'.

What about the SG government? Are they similarly 'traditionalists' such that they cannot accept the idea of homosexuality?

I suggest that their antipathy, unlike citizens, are founded more on pragmatic reasons rather than 'traditional' reasons. As I mentioned earlier homosexuality was only tacitly acknowledged by the government a few years back, and this was due to political/economic rather than social pressure. However, the aversion to homosexuals is surely one which is analogous to the aversion to singles (yes, let us not forget that singles are very much discriminated against in SG as well). Simply because homosexuals, like singles, will not contribute to the economy as baby production factories unlike traditional heterosexual couples. As such, this will worsen the birth-rate situation in Singapore, and therefore the potential future of SG.

Such disparaging remarks provokes added antipathy toward homosexuality by adding fear (of AIDS) and anathema into the melting pot which already consists of disgust and bigotry. As such, anti-homosexuality resentment by the masses will increase, which the government hopes will translate as pro-heterosexuality- and hence more babies.

Voice of the Future

2005-03-10T08:38:00.000+08:00

Recently there has been a lot of discussion about the potential of blogs as a force to be reckoned with; both at present and in the future. Mostly, advocates emphasise that the relative ease of blogging, along with the difficulties for authorities to track and censure, ensures that blogging is a supremely potent 'weapon' for the individual.

While the potential of blogs as an unprecedented outlet for freedom of expression certainly has grounds for optimism, there are still a number of practical forces which will stunt or limit its 'capabilities'. Indeed, the points put forward towards as evidence of the potential of blogs can be similarly used as evidence against their potential.

The ability of an individual to establish an identity on the internet is of course not a new phenomenon. Back then, a little more effort was required to create a 'homepage'. While it caught on among more technically attuned individuals, the framework of a static home page was more suited for a corporate entity rather than an individual. Of course, when blogs made an appearance not only did it facilitate easy establishment of one's presence onto the internet, it created a whole new revolutionary 'community' within a community on the internet. With blogging, a great new chapter in the social revolution of the Internet was established.

Consequently, its relative ease of usage and access means that many people can easily jump on the bandwagon and share facets of their lives. This extends towards opinions on more 'sensitive' common topics such as socio-political issues. Right-wings fear that the lack of checks and balances with regard to the content of blogs will result in 'anarchy', as readers may be misled by 'inaccurate and inappropriate' news sources. They call for measures to be put in place to 'process' blog material, censoring it if necessary. Liberalists of course assert that this is a violation to civil liberties. They anticipate that the blogging revolution will indeed create a revolution of sorts, one where the oft-suppressed voice will be heard, where the underdogs stand on equal footing with the supremal powers. One where alternate non-mainstream viewpoints can be aired, digested and the consequent action taken, which will have profound repercussions on the socio-political climate.

I suggest that such optimism is unfounded, mainly on the premise that the very foundations of its supposed beneficial property (ease of use) is also its bane. When it is so easy for one to air one's views, there will be too many 'indian chiefs', all with their own thoughts and ideals, all lacking a focused direction and purpose. When there are so many differing agendas, ideals and opinions to sift through, a reader has to make best use of his limited resource of time to choose only those he thinks are 'worthy' of notice. Traditional mediums, with their 'professionalism' and procedural requirements, will still have primary influence simply due to reputation. Ultimately, individual blogs still represent individual ideals compared to traditional mediums which represent a collective, or rather, a more influential voice as compared to individual blogs. Indeed, the requirements to set up traditional mediums are the very 'checks and balances' which give these mediums credibility and influence, and also limit the number of such entities. In economical terms, this gives rise to an 'oligopoly' [Cf virtual monopoly in Singapore's situation] rather than 'perfect competition', which is certainly a qualify balance for a functioning democracy. No doubt, a democracy would normally impute that everyone should be entitled to their own opinions, but there is a reason why laws and norms are designed to curtail civil liberties in various aspects. Certain groups may wish to pursue their own 'unholy' agendas which as a matter of public policy is undesirable to the majority interest. The proliferation of blogs will merely result in 'perfect competition', with no individual blog making a large or significant impact. The only difference is that a decentralised collective impact will similarly not make a significant effect either, primarily because they are all attuned to different, individualistic causes, and the hill of difficulty to acquiring a common ground of support and reputation so as to have a voluminous and influential voice is a steep one.

As such, I suggest that any authoritative crackdown on political blogging will not be worth the resources devoted to it, as the difficulty of tracking is high and the 'risk' of allowing the sites to operate is negligible. Yes, there have been one-off cases whereby blog contents have caused drastic actions to be taken, such as exposing scandals, but these occur because they are further amplified by reports in traditional media. Additionally, these are rare occurences, which is why they are newsworthy and hence reported. Unless blogs can hold their own fort and exert as much influence as traditional media, they will always remain inferior and their voice, inconsequential in the wider scheme of things. Should the nature of blogging be left to evolve on its own natural path, without interference from both sides, the censors and the pro-activists, it will only lead to continued impotence. To be sharpened as a (socio-political) tool, there has to be conscious, organised effort taken on the part of the participants (bloggers, readers, blog service providers). I fail to see this happening. (See below for reasons why this is unlikely).

On the same front, using a blog to advance a socio-political agenda is only as good as any other traditional methods open to a citizen in a true democracy (eg peaceful protest, unions, human rights groups). Which is why it is actually can make a significant difference in a nation like Singapore, since there is hardly any scope for 'alternative' methods of getting one's voice heard.

As such while currently its 'natural impact' is weak, it is one which is of increasing importance and relevance to Singaporeans and therefore Singaporeans should 'wake up and take notice'. I suggest that there are ways to make blogging more consequential, more influential, more voluminous. Certain well contented blogs have a decent following, but so far there are none I have detected (in a Singaporean context) that have a voluminous voice AND an agenda, which gives a blog its necessary direction and purpose to make an 'impact'.

Someone has to take the role of a 'political blog' 'aggregator', someone who already has quite a fair bit of fame in the blogosphere. The aggregator will locate and provide links and descriptions to the various blogs out there, linking the sites, uniting them within a networked community and have an effective centralisation. Bloggers who wish to have a voice will have to band together, share ideals, find common ground, maybe even a common blog, to air their views, not unlike forming a political party, for there is strength and unity in numbers, and the influence will spread from there. Why not even a political party founded with its roots on a communion of bloggers? [Think K-mart vs small provision shops. There is no way small provision shops will triumph K-mart, also taking into account that the small provision shops cater only to a specific niche market (neighbourhood area).] While practically infeasible, should these provision shop owners band together to form a rival Supermarket, they will have more chance of competition. The icing is that the technical properties of the internet means that unity of bloggers is NOT as practically infeasible as would be in the real world.][But Query: Would a centralised nature make it more susceptible to censorship?]

'The Singapore Young People's Republic' is one example where a step has been taken in the right direction, only if there was more motivation and purpose in its implementation. While admirable one cannot help but think that a spur of youthful idealism is what made most of the 'contributors' inclined to 'enroll'. (There is virtually no participation from most of the parties, mostly done by one or two main parties, its founders). Such half-heartedness is understandable as participants have other obligations, compared to traditional mediums, in which those involved are usually employed in some capacity in the traditional mediums. For blogs to make an impact, one has to become a 'full-time' blogger (devoting sufficient resources, time and effort towards maintaining its content). Again this impracticality works especially against individual bloggers who treat blogs as a leisurely ancillary pursuit (which would encompass most people).

Of course, one must not forget that in our societal climate, there is tight governmental control. Should such an advent turn into a potential 'threat', there will be countermeasures taken. However, the technical framework of the internet means that it is now impossible for absolute censorship*, which again highlights the added importance of using the internet as a tool for freedom of speech in our context.

*Of course, the technical character of the internet actually allows for a theoretical possibility of the opposite, ie, absolute regulability.

So are blogs the revolutionary tool of the individual of the present and future? Indeed, it is a worthy tool, but perhaps not as potent as its supporters purport it to be, unless pro-active measures are taken to ensure it is so. Given our social climate, it would be prudent for would be activists to take action to harness this tool– before its too late.

Summary: The current individualistic regime of blog culture is weak due to its decentralised nature. For the phenomenon of blogging to be potent, active measures must be taken towards unity and localisation. In a restrictive socio-political climate such as Singapore's, active measures to ensure optimal exploitation of this tool may be well warranted.

Dick's Repression

2005-03-06T08:28:00.000+08:00

In this post I would like to review a 'revolutionary' blog, which some of you may be familar with.

Dick's Adventures
dickchan.blogspot.com
[Caution: contains material which may offend certain individuals]

This infamous blog in question has been the subject of many scathing comments and it is not hard to see why. Even browsing through the content cursorily, you would perhaps come to some conclusions:

This guy is sick.
This guy is a pervert
This guy is a voyeur (He is)
This guy is desperate
(bla bla)

However, judging by the hit counter below, it is evident that he does have an audience, quite a sizable one at that. Granted there are people who encountered the site through chance and were turned off by its content, never to return again forever and ever. However, it is certain that there are a number who enjoy his site. He clearly has a returning audience. With his style of writing, it is probably only decipherable by Singaporeans (and only some, at that). Perhaps his audience are limited to a specific demographic of 'sickos' and 'perverts' or rather, hormonal adolscents? While I acknowledge that not all Singaporeans are like that, the evidential success of such a site with a predominantly Singaporean audience surely points towards evidence that there is a deeply supressed voyeuristic and exhibitionistic tendencies in a proportion of Singaporeans (both male AND female).

He is a pioneer in the sense that he brings his voyeuristic tendencies and fantasies to the blogosphere in a 'Singaporean' context. (There are other blogs, especially extraterritorially, which offer sexual content but it is doubtful if there is similar content to that of dickchan.blogspot.com, ie, overlying theme of voyeurism.)

No doubt, the author is probably a hormonal teenager ravaged with testosterone, and using a blog as an outlet to express his fantasies. Sexual fantasies are part and parcel of a human's psyche, and there is nothing wrongwith having sexual thoughts, contrary to what authorities/prudes may say. However, the characteristic of the sexual fantasies (voyeuristic and exhibitionistic) is the worrying aspect. It is one thing to dream of having a sexual relationship with a beautiful girl. It is a totally different matter, when the dream is to sneak a peek at a beautiful girl's undergarments. It is evidence of a repressed mind, one that is probably conjured up in a repressive environment. Sex has become so taboo that in their minds, people are even afraid of fantasising about conventional sex. Sex has become so forbidden, so elusive that the result is there lustful desires of sex results in implications of 'guilt'. As such, 'scared' with the 'real thing', the mind is instead twisted into accepting sneak peeks at undergarments to be associative with sex. 'Cheap thrills' are gained from 'inadvertently exposed' undergarments. Of course, the site offers textual pornography and hence the normal problems which pornography can create when indulged in applies (eg difficulty to relate to opposite sex, to form relationships, to differentiate reality from fantasy).

[Query: Is peeking at a skirt really 'more enjoyable' than a sexual encounter, or a social relationship??]

But is it all just guys who are the disgusting repressed souls who 'use' the site to indulge in their own fantasies? Probably predominantly, but are there some girls who actually 'enjoy' the site too? There is a psychological aspect, (i forgot the specific term for it), that actually deals with behavioural patterns between two parties, how they subconciously react to each other, becoming accustomed to the opposite party's reaction and role-playing(reacting) in such a way as to 'fit' the relationship between them). The role-playing between the sexes is one that is most celebrated in common culture. If this is so, and if a sizable number of Singaporean guys have such a mentality, the result is that the only way that girls can 'appeal' to these deviants are to actually dress in such a way as to facilitate the deviants fantasies/mentalities. These girls will dress up provocatively, such as wearing hipster jeans and squatting to show their thongs, or wearing very short skirts and/or low cut blouses, and of course, dressing like 'kawaii' Japanese schoolgirls since Japanese 'underground' culture , which is popular with Singaporean guys, is one of which voyeurism plays a large part. Of course, the girls will deny wanting male attention, especially sneaky attempts to look at their undergarments, saying they have a right to wear what they want, and that males should not 'cross the border'. True, and fair enough. On the male's side of the coin, the thrill is the 'forbidden fruit' of the exposed flesh and/or undergarments; on the female's side, wearing revealing clothing and then coyly and trying to prevent 'unintentional' exposure is the thrill (or alternatively complaining about such behaviour). Therefore, the denial in itself is the higher state of consciousness overriding the more primal subconciousness of the female. In other words, when these females deny that they dress up (or down) for want of attention, but rather because of their own 'personal preference', it is the higher reasoning power overriding and deluding the baser instinct, because in their higher reasoning this is 'cheap' behaviour which they do not condone, and that their own 'choice' justifies their choice of clothing, when in actual fact they are just subconciously fulfilling the social role-play.

[NB: I know I am going to be 'killed' for the above paragraph, but in mitigation please note that this does NOT apply to all girls, only those attuned to a 'DickChan' mindset, and then only maybe.]

Both sides are drawn into this psychological role-playing, unfortunately perhaps not the most healthy one.

No doubt, every country has its fair share of sexual deviants, and indeed weirder and perhaps more disturbing sexual fetishes. However, Singapore is not as morally upright as the State-controlled media would like to suggest, and this is just one minor example used to illustrate that there is a possibility that a significant proportion of Singaporeans are actually sexually repressed.

Perhaps, a way to alleviate this problem would be to relieve the age old taboos about sex, so that sex is no longer kept under a repressed facade. Primary and Secondary school 'sex education' is a step in the right direction but it is by no means a complete remedy. What needs to be done is to actually portray sex as a healthy and natural thing between two individuals, even if its for pleasure rather than procreation. What needs to be done is not to automatically associate anything sexual in nature as 'sin' and consequently banned. One of the benefits of being a sentient being is the bonus of having sex for pleasure, unlike animals, who only have sex to breed offspring. As much as powers-that-be treat us as baby factories (chiding us for being unproductive ones, at that), we must also be responsible to OURSELVES before we can be responsible citizens. And that means not repressing ourselves from pleasurable activities if appropriate. Maybe rather than using fear and guilt by droning into us the myriad dangers such as STDs and social problems (caused by unwanted childs), a positive approach, one which highlights the dangers and encourages the steps to have responsible, enjoyable sex, would be ultimately more healthy, AND beneficial for all parties involved, since sexually liberated souls enjoy better mental health, and the government literally reaps the increased fruit of labours of mums-to-be, something they have been pathetically attempting.

*I am not encouraging illicit, casual sex per se. I am encouraging being more broad-minded towards sex, one where sex is not a taboo subject, one which can be discussed without silly giggling or reference to crude anatomical jokes. Where sex is a normal part and parcel of our lives.

Colonial Mentality

2005-03-03T05:10:00.000+08:00

Colonial mentality is a cultural notion of inferiority sometimes seen amongst populations previously subjugated and colonised by foreign entities.

Do we, as Singaporeans, suffer from colonial mentality? Does it afflict our subconciousness even today, years after the British left? Does it not only affect the people but the government as well? As a consequence does this result in a vicious cycle which only enhances our inferiority complex and exacerbates the pervasiveness of white bigotry?

While it seems that white colonialism has been driven out of our society, there is a suspicious element which infiltrates our society even today which hints of remnants of an inferiority complex from our colonial past. A subservience which stems even from the younger generation who had never experienced white dominance, perhaps in part due to the invasion of white culture and the subtle influence of their upbringing by parents brought up with a similar mentality.

While most Singaporeans will defensively* disagree with my assertation, I do not make such claims without any basis whatsoever. Neither do I conclusively assert that Singaporeans DO have a colonial mentality, I just point out factors which may point to such a finding (as I do always in all my posts).

*Definition: Constantly protecting oneself from criticism, exposure of one's shortcomings, or other real or perceived threats to the ego.

Of course, one of the most evidential forms of 'colonial mentality' is the perceived need to fake an accent whenever speaking to a white person. Suddenly, in the presence of a white person, all the singlish lingo is thrown out of window and an American twang is detected, even if the white person is actually British. But of course, it doesn't matter, as long as it is not our own 'inferior' Singaporean accent (not to be confused with Singlish).

Following American culture is widespread throughout the world, notably in Asian 'developing' or 'developed' countries, and indeed Americanism is something that afflicts our country, our embrace of American popular culture clearly evident in our various media. Not only is it limited to American white culture, but it has extended to American black culture as well, with hiphop wannabes increasingly ubiquitous on the streets. A cursory issue that I wish to point out here is the fact that many impressionable folk do not even understand the difference between different white cultures (eg UK and US), thinking them to be one general 'Western culture'. Of course that couldn't be further than the truth. However, one thing remains certain: As long as it is white/Western culture, it is 'cool' culture. As long as it is NOT our own culture, which is something to be ashamed of. Which is why all American produced shows are great and all locally produced ones suck (actually, they really do, but one can't help but feel that had the production been made overseas, it would have been lessly maligned).

I would also like to point out that the SPG phenomenon is in many ways the classic example of Colonial Mentality. SPGs who go for white men clearly are victims of colonial mentality, submitting themselves by mere virtue of colour. In their defense, they will maintain that white men are more 'gentlemanly' and know 'how to treat a lady'. Of course, not only does this reinforce evidence of their colonial mentality, it also makes local 'boys' look bad, since this is implication that local 'boys' are ungentelmanly and lack the social know-how to 'court' a lady. Local boys complain that these SPGs are all sluts and bitches and not worth their time, but again this is evidence of a deafeatist attitude and an inferiority complex, because deep down inside they feel that they cannot hold a candle to a white man. Yet again more colonial mentality. Ever wondered why there is no parallel phenomenon of SPB? Why there are no Singaporean men with white girls? Is it because white girls will never go out with Singaporean men, because they are racist? This would be the easiest conclusion to arrive to, but the predominant reason stems from an inherent inferiority complex in Singaporean men. It is common fact (not necessarily right or wrong) that men prefer to look for a partner 'downwards', a woman perhaps with lower educational level. A white woman, by virtue of her colour, is deemed 'superior', and therefore considered either out of his 'league' or out of his criteria of 'potential partners'.

Of course opposite of those who by virtue of their complex strive to emulate their colonial heroes, are the xenophobes who resent white people for the very reason of their colour. These people have no less 'colonial mentality' than they assume, because if it is by virtue of colour and stereotyping that they derive their distaste for white people, it merely represents that implicitly they 'acknowledge white dominance and resents them for that very fact'.

The disappointing aspect is that the public authorities, rather than striving to counter such mentalities, are actually similarly repressed and subjugated by a colonial mentality. Indeed, white people in locally produced TV dramas are always portrayed as the bosses, classy and well-spoken people. The foreign talent policy is one that takes the policy that foreign ang mos are naturally more talented than our local populace and should be afforded better opportunities than locals.

So how do we rid ourselves of such an unhealthy inferiority complex, if it even exists? It is not an easy task, and to do so one must consciously strive towards achieving this aim. Of course, mixing with whites will definitely help us get along better, but while doing so, we must consciously treat them as if we are treating a fellow non-white Singaporean, such as NOT faking an accent (There is a difference between speaking clearly and putting on a fake accent). Non offensive jokes with regard to a person's colour or race may be seemingly good icebreakers but they actually reinforce stereotypical thinking and hence colonial mentalities. We must realise that every individual is unique, is human, subject to similar desires, feelings and failings, regardless of colour, and thereby treating every person for what they are rather than for what we preconceive them to be.

It seems easy now in writing, but I dare say virtually every Singaporean has been at one time or another been too guilty of being too accommodating, to the extent of actually being subjugated to their will/culture, or too xenophobic, to the extent of generalising all white people as 'bad guys with bad intents'.

5 Great Things about Singapore 2

2005-02-27T03:03:00.000+08:00

1 Best Zoo, Best Night Safari, Best Birdpark

Singapore of course has the world renowned Zoo, Night Safari, and of course the Birdpark, places which make Singapore such a wonderful place to live in. Now, not only can we get to see monkeys in parliament*, we get to see them in natural habitats in an artificial zoo, something that defines the very essence of dramatic irony. Never mind that we only visit them once a year or once a decade, our primary school kids visit the places more frequently than us (twice a year or twice a decade). In fact, when I think of the parallel success of both Sg and its wonderful zoo, I reflect in wonderment and awe. This is because I think of the Zoo and all its animals in captivity, well taken care of, no fear of being hungry or thirsty, no fear of being liberated into the wild to fend for itself, I cant help but heave a contented sigh that I am living in Sg, where I am well taken care of, no fear of being hungry or thirsty, no fear of being liberated into the wild to fend for myself.

*Because I heard that when you pay peanuts you get monkeys. Just kidding, don't ISD me!

2 No uncertainty or indecisiveness

Of course, with such a wonderful government controlled by an extremely capable political party, there is no uncertainty for our country's future. Even when the time comes when every citizen is called upon to make a decision which could either make or break the country, we can be rest assured that such a weight is virtually lifted off our shoulders because there is no doubt who we will vote for and who will once again return to power. As such we will never make a wrong decision that we may live to regret in the future. Neither do we need to consider differing viewpoints, which may result in confusion or disillusionment. As I say something which may be quotable, 'If there is no other way then there is no wrong way'.

3 Finding Love is never easier

Unlike other countries whereby selfish governments leave their citizens in the lurch, expecting them to find their own life partners or dwell in the meaningless ether of solitarity, we have in place sound policies to ensure we are given a helping hand. To facilitate this process, we are even spared the effort of sifting through those which are not worthy of consideration. This is achieved by having 2 separate entities, SDU and SDS, so as to separate the elite mould from the averages. No where else in the world would you have everything laid out in a platter like Sg!

4 No gambling (at least for now)

Sinful gamblers are denied the chance to spread their vile habits and their negative contributions to society because gambling is banned in Sg. They are exiled to a cruise ship where they can sin away their lives and money.

No casinos, no betting shops. Hey wait a minute, I forgot about Singapore Pools. Oh and they are thinking of building a casino. Oh damn. What will happen to our once pristine society if it is stained by the presence of this vile institution of casinos? A mindnumbingly grand total of one of them, on a not obscure island off Singapore's coast. There is a high chance that its evil sphere of influence will spread like a sneaky plague across the bridge and engulf singapore in a wave of avarice, and stain our very souls with its inherent evil.

Although we certainly could do without the evils, even if this happens, Singapore would still be a great place to be in, because we now have one more place to go to during our weekends! Not to gamble, mind you! Thats evil! But just to 'look and see'.

5 We are entitled to cars!

Unlike other countries whereby buying and selling of cars only result in acquisition or relinquishment of the car, in Sg we actually get a wonderful certificate proclaiming our ENTITLEMENT to usage of the car. This saves us the hassle and dangers of being acquiring ownership to cars (So much responsibility!) and also makes it easier for us to get rid of it because we sure as hell don't want to be using them after 10 years because the exhaust will give out outdated quantities of carbon monoxides and other toxic substances which is not good for our health. Never mind that the piece of paper is more expensive than the car itself, it has the side benefit of regulating the number of cars on the road so that there will not be traffic jams, especially in the peak hour. Also never mind that public transports have human jams during peak hour. BO can be tolerated, but not exhaust.

Superficiality and the City

2005-02-23T23:11:00.000+08:00

Anyone who has watched Desperate Housewives, a popular American TV series, would know that the premise of the show is about how, beneath a seemingly normal and peaceful neighbourhood, there is a whole backlog of politicking, bitching, backstabbing and secrets which are not evident on a superficial front. A visit to Mysteria Lane (the title of the street where the protagonists reside) would give a would-be visitor an impression of a pleasant neighbourhood, one where the residents are always happy and rich and throw parties. These protagonists hide their troubles and secrets from their neighbours, such that in each of their eyes, their neighbours are seemingly perfect people, and consequently they feel inadequate at their own imperfection.

In short, on the surface it looks a wonderful place to live in, yet beneath this facade, their lives are not as perfect as it seems.

In many ways, I sometimes can't help but liken a comparison between the denizens of Mysteria Lane and the citizens of Singapore. On the surface, Singapore indeed looks the perfect place to live in. Spotlessly clean, mindlessly efficient, hearteningly safe, caring government... these are but a few examples a Singaporean can boast about when he proudly acclaims the wonderful place that he lives in.

The state controlled media plays a big part in instilling a fine sense of wellbeing in the nation. It maintains a front that Singapore is virtually a perfect place to live in, one that our children can grow up well educated, one that we can go out at night without being mugged, one that we can achieve happiness by being the best amongst our peers. It boasts the achievements of the nation and downplays or conveniently neglects to mention the various social ills that are plaguing the society, among them, the problem of illegal immigrants, the plight of homeless old folk and the shockingly high suicide levels, among a myriad others.

The competition between the housewives in DH is certainly not a foreign trait to Singaporeans. Desperate to keep up and look like 'successful housewives', these 'friends' do not share their troubles with each other. Instead, they put on a show that they are 'coping' and 'enjoying' their lives, competing to be 'superior' to another. Lets take an example: TaiTai, who has a son is studying 'in a premier JC in the Bishan-AngMoKio district' can proudly tell her 'mahjong kakis' that her son is an elite student. Of course, she will also conveniently neglect to mention that her son has stress related problems, and is currently seeing a shrink, To another 'mahjong kaki', LaoPo, it would seem that she is such a perfect parent. LaoPo then thinks back on her own lazy child who only manages to get mediocre grades in a 'neighbourhood' school. Not understanding why their own child is more stupid, and not wanting to accede that she is more incapable as a parent, she rails at her child, coercing him to work hard and get good grades. Consequently, this child develops low self esteem, and hangs out 'with the wrong crowd'. Of course, all these bleak realities will be covered up by LaoPo as well, as LaoPo may well 'lose even more face' should Taitai realise that not only is LaoPo's son stupid, he is a paikia (gangster), something which is a great stigma in our society. Showing weakness in public is a no-no. Everything must be to perfection.

The misfeasance of adhering to such a mentality is not to be blamed squarely an individual's Singaporean's shoulders. Our government encourages meritocracy but is perhaps overzealous in ensuring productivity in its citizens, resulting in a societal consciousness which is attuned to such facade and competition. One such example is the introduction of the School Ranking System, a bible to many a parent. The Ranking System of Primary Schools, for example, highlights the schools with the best academic output. Consequently many parents will resort to almost anything to get their kids into the best primary school to get a 'headstart'. However, these Ranking Systems are ultimately one-dimensional, as they fail to account for other critical factors, such as the 'Stress Level' of the school. So, this primary school may be absolutely elite as an academic institution, but it may not be quite as wonderful for a child's social development. Just because the Ranking Systems states that Elite Primary School is the best school academically doesn't automatically mean that it is the best overall environment for every child.

Similarly, just because the ST paints a wonderful picture of Singapore, doesn't mean that everything in Singapore is fine and dandy. Of course, when revolutionaries such as Royston Tan try to paint a true alternative picture of Singapore, they receive censure. We are denied the truth of the real situation. We are offered a rosy picture, one where we all live in a happy environment of litterless streets and airconditioned shopping malls, where all the social ills are swept under a carpet and disappear from our consciousness. Out of sight, out of mind.

No doubt, there are people who have never experienced the 'rough' side of Singapore before and consequently do not know the real picture of the situation. As their sources are entirely from a skewed perspective, the 'not so nice' aspects clouded from their view, they reason that there is no problem at all with society. Of course, this line of thinking is inherently defective in itself, since it would be naïve to think that a society can exist without a share of its problems. The problem is that these issues are either downplayed or concealed from public consciousness, leading to ignorance or apathy.

Then there will be another class of people who are 'vaguely aware' of the societal ills from alternative news sources. However, they cite that 'Singapore is still better than X, Y and Z country in many ways'. Again, this is another example of being sucked into the fallacy of 'comparative happiness', which is certainly not a positive characteristic of any individual or society especially when taken to obsessive levels, which may just be the case in Singapore's situation. Incidentally, when I raise issues about the repression of societal ills from our consciousness, I do not consider if X, Y or Z is worse or better off than us in this particular aspect. I only consider what these socials ills are, how bad they actually are in our particular country, and whether there are ways and means to combat it.

Perhaps if we were tourists on a transit stop to Singapore, we would see the first-class airport, the wide expressways, the splendorous cityscape, the impeccably clean streets, and we would think; what a paradise this city state is. But we live here. We know better. Or do we?

If the true picture of Singapore is incorporated into our social consciousness, will it shatter our egos, destroy our self belief? Or will it makes us stand up and take an active stance against combating such ills? Will we learn to appreciate what we already have instead of pining for what others have that we do not? Is it really so bad to realise that Singapore is not as perfect as it seems? That we are not as perfect as we'd like to believe?

Is it better to be 'Number 1 in the World' economically at the cost of our social lives? Is it really better to have new airconditioned generic food courts over grimy, smoky back-lane food stalls? Is it better to subscribe to the adage that 'ignorance is bliss' and an apathetic 'that is not my problem' stance, or to have transparent access important statistics of our society, such as our migration, suicide and divorce rates, so that we can reflect on the bleak reality and accordingly take counteractive measures so as to lower such rates?

Should we pull the wool over our own eyes and pretend that everything is fine and dandy, and delude ourselves? Should we 'rank' happiness by degree of 'superficial success'?

Perhaps not.

Final Summarised Response to Critique

2005-02-21T21:31:00.000+08:00

I shall share a bit of my personal experiences here (something that I try to refrain from doing, and rightly so), mainly invoked by HUICHIEH's and Olorin's assertation that perhaps there is a bit of 'personal issues' involved.

For reasons of security (and my own peace of mind), it is not possible for me to divulge my unit nor my rank. I do have a personal take on the SAF and for good reason. I won't go so far that I would go to the extent of betrayal or for that matter even 'chao keng' (I am PES A and have no intention of downgrading just for the sake of it). What happened during those days are over, and I do not wish to elaborate what happened as it is no longer consequential. All I will maintain is that while I proposed 'The 3 Mentalities', the irony is that for a good part of my army life I actually did not fall into any 'The 3 Mentalities', though I exited it with a Type 2 mentality, because I realised that there was no viable alternative other than the 3 Mentalities that I just proposed. HUICHIEH states that I generalise Type 2s without consideration for the fact that certain Type 2s 'could question (internally) all the time while recognizing there are inherent limits to what can and cannot be done or be changed in the short run.' I still maintain that such 'internal questioning' is still considered Type 2, unless one explicitly questioning the reasons during that time, which is tantamount to questioning a superior's command, which is not prudent as it may end one up in serious trouble (which I learnt). I would elaborate more but in the spirit of national security I feel it is not prudent to publish such facts in such an open environment.

What I can say is that it left me was a feeling of disillusionment, resentment, frustration, disappointment and betrayal (probably more extreme than most people, I hasten to add). Just as Olorin recognises the positive attitudes that many conscripts and reservists take, with himself as one good example, what I have taken notice is that there is a good number of people who can otherwise contribute so much to Singapore who feel negatively, with myself as one good example. And to make it clear it is not SAF but conscription that is the issue (whereas HUICHIEH focuses mainly on SAF's capabilities in general), although of course SAF and conscription are inextricably linked.

These 'negative' people, intolerant of such 'BS' (again, i qualify that what is BS to some may be Gold to others) may choose an escape route, migration. Quitter, whiner? No point stigmatising them. No matter how righteous souls feel that such people are detestable, many of these people are people we need because there is an evident lack of talent in Singapore. They may not be cut out for military life but it may be a totally different matter in Singapore civilian society. We need talent, we do not need to scare them away. Just as we are attracting foreign talent, we should not scare away our local talent.

I am not stating that SAF or conscription is absolutely useless. What I am saying is that there is a possibility that its importance may be overrated, and/or disproportionate to the sacrifices we make as a result of conscription. Definitely, there will be a risk, a trade off. But we are already risking disillusioning our talents who may be inclined not to stay on in Singapore and contribute to the economy. The trade-off for having conscription could be more costly than beneficial, both individually and collectively. Even if the qualification that the importance of conscription is overrated is rebuttable, it is not an automatic result that the scales will tilt back toward conscription's benefits rather than conscription costs. Where exactly does the scale lie? I cannot say for sure, but I offer a suggestion that perhaps it could way more in favour of Costs rather than Benefits.

Another issue I feel the need to address is the concept of 'security', and the expectation for me to offer 'revolutionary alternatives' to conscription. While the manner of my writing was perhaps suggestory I have repeatedly qualified in my statements that I am focusing on the 'perils' of conscription. The 'alternatives' I suggest are actually suggestions of lessening or eliminating the need for a conscripted force. Note that I encompass a wider definition of 'security' than that of pure military strength alone. Imho, economic, poltical and social circumstances play a big part in security as well. As HUICHIEH pointed out in one the earlier sections of his critique, social awareness of our defense situation indeed contributes to national security as well.

Let me give an analogy by way of a household. If there were people in the house, intruders would be deterred. Therefore it would be prudent to have people in the house (military force). Someone could choose to stay at home (volunteer). If no one wants to stay at home, then some will have to be grounded (conscription). A security alarm could be installed (technology). Or we could hire a security guard (mercenary). These are the military aspects of security.

Now, no doubt, if the house was located in a safe neighbourhood, we would similarly feel more secure (surrounding circumstances). If we did not depend on our neigbour for our groceries, we will feel more secure (self sustenance). If we did not continually pick petty quarrels with our neighbour, we would also feel that much more secure (diplomacy). These are non military aspects of security (there are more which I did not cover).

Gist of the 5 posts

Conscription has its benefits for the individual and the society. However, one cannot neglect to recognise that the costs for the individual and for collective society may weigh more than the benefits.

The essence of the posts were to weigh up the costs, and weigh down the benefits of conscription.

Most of the 'Counter-Critique' and 'Counter-Counter-Critique' can be found here.

A critique to the 5 Posts on Conscription

2005-02-20T01:23:00.000+08:00

HUICHIEH and Olorin offers a very detailed and analytical critique on my 5 parter on Conscription.

Critique on Parts 1-3
Part 4
Part 5

Do read it for a more complete and rounded picture of this issue.

Also see The Singapore Commentator's comment.

What I wish to say is best quoted from The Singapore Commentator, who aptly states

Nevertheless, the value of analyses like those in the above posts is that they lay out the issues involved so that policy makers can try to maximise the positives and minimise the negatives, while individuals can be made aware of the issues, arrive at their own conclusions and preferences, and act — write, analyse, advocate, vote etc. — accordingly.