Catfight Cats are very territorial creatures and Molly guards her territory very jealously. (Sometimes she even redraws the borders of her territory, but that's a different story altogether.)Just now, a cat attempted to come into Molly's territory and Molly got into a verbal catfight. Here's roughly what happened:~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Molly: Hey! Hey! What do you think you are doing here?!! Grrr...Invader: Well, I didn't know it was your territory. It's an honest mistake!Molly: Honest mistake my foot! How could you not know? You liar! Invader: I really didn't know and I'm sorry.Molly: What rubbish?! You had better give me a satisfactory explanation!Invader: No explanation is going to satisfy you anyway.Molly: Now, now, now! What an audacious, atrocious, defiant, indignant, dissenting cat! My paparazzi cats are gonna get you! And by tomorrow morning, every cat in the neighborhood will look at you and shake their heads. YOU GO AGAINST ME? I WILL MAKE SURE I DESTROY YOU!!!!Invader: Oh yeah? Can't I even make a mistake?Molly: You are a venomous, double-headed, pretentious, hypocritical, unreliable, Satanic assassin!Invader: You are a bitchy, unreasonable, noisy cat!Molly: My, my! I'm gonna sue you for slander!Invader: If anyone's guilty of slander, it's you Molly.Molly: You little Tweety-snubbed worm!Invader: Hey, I already apologized. You are the one kicking up a big fuss. Just get on with life, friend.Molly: Of course I must kick up a big fuss. Today, you invade my territory. Tomorrow you are going to invade Mr. Wang's. then XenoBoy's. Then The Clown's. And soon, the entire neighborhood will be occupied by you! We can't just say "Get on with life."Invader: Hah! Wasn't that exactly what you said when you declared that Xiaxue was innocent and never impersonated someone else?? "Get on with life." And what did you do to the kittens who demanded you to explain your declarations of Xiaxue's innocence? Didn't you declaw them and got on with life? So, are you saying that you are the only one entitled to the inviolable Kitty Right to Life? Huh?Molly: Why, you?! Whatever you are saying is very dangerous and have very serious implications! I reserve my right of reply and my right to sue you. You...you cheat, liar, calico-chauvinist...you Marxist terrorist. You seditious extremist fundamentalist! You dog-supporter! You ....~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Well, the cat fight is over. Let's get on with blogging. Yeah, what did I really want to blog about? Oh well, I forgot.... never mind.... You are on Molly's side, aren't you?? Savages in Exile Scene 1Enters two savages in business wear, with ties as loincloths.Savage 1: Well, life goes on.Savage 2: No, it doesn’t.Savage 1: (Looking perturbed). And why not?Savage 2: Because we are savages.Savage 1: (Shocked.) Since when did we become savages? I must have entirely forgotten about it.Savage 2: That’s exactly when you think that life could go on.Savage 1: No, I’m asking you when we became savages.Savage 2: Ever since the birth of our tribe. That happened way before we were born.Savage 1: Well, life goes on whether we are savages or not. Let’s have a sandwich for lunch and go shopping after that.Savage 2: I told you, life does NOT go on.Savage 1: (Disappointed). That what happens?Savage 2: Nothing happens. You and I are just memories—memories long erased.Savage 1: Ah, I’m enlightened. (Delighted). So we don’t exist!Savage 2: Wishful thinking. (Pause). Hey, why am I always the one enlightening you? Shall we switch roles? Savage 1: Yeah, cool. Why not? After all we have been erased.Savage 2: Really? We have been erased? That’s odd. I don’t remember that.Savage 1: Memories have no memories. You and I are just memories—memories long erased.Savage 2: Sounds fun! Why are we still around then?Savage 1: Erased memories get reincarnated.Savage 2: I hope I have good karma.Savage 1: (Wistfully). No, you don’t. Neither do I.Savage 2: Awww….Pause.Savage 1: Hey, you are supposed to ask questions.Savage 2: What am I supposed to ask?Savage 1: Ask about your karma.Savage 2: Please tell me about my karma. Or our karma. Whatever…Savage 1: Our karma have never been good. We are the mark of an unwanted violent present.Savage 2: Oh, and they conveniently forgot about us?Savage 1: There’s pleasure in forgetting. Lots of it.Savage 2: Urgh! People are too masturbatory for their own good.Savage 1: Yes.Savage 2: Yes?Savage 1: Yes.Savage 2: This is getting boring. Savage 1: So long as you are not the audience. Savage 2: That’s right. Who cares anyway? … So what are we now?Savage 1: We are one speaking nothing. Or two speaking nothings. Or three. Or …Savage 2: That doesn’t quite make sense.Savage 1: Well, we were banished by senselessness.Savage 2: That’s true. That’s true.Pause.Savage 2: It’s no fun. Let’s switch roles again.Savage 1: That’s not going to improve things. In the end, we are just repeating and repeating, condemned to forever repeating.Savage 2: We repeat boredom. We repeat our roles. We repeat.Savage 1: We are the signature of a violence.Savage 2: Violence to the tribe. Savage 1: No, darling. The tribe is violence. The tribe is violent.Savage 2: Yes, I know. But I have to say my part so that you can say your part.Savage 1: That’s true. Very true. Amazingly true.Savage 2: Don’t forget your lines.Savage 1: I am supposed to forget my lines.Savage 2: But I’m supposed to remind you not to.Scene 2Savage 1: Let’s return.Savage 2: Could we?Savage 1: No, of course not. But we do get recalled sometimes.Savage 2: That’s very silly. Who would want to recall us?Savage 1: Those whom the tribe fails.Savage 2: Nonsense! The tribe fails everyone!Savage 1: Life goes on for most of them. But not for some of them.Savage 2: I don’t think it’s ethical to return then.Savage 1: It’s unethical not to also.Savage 2: Shit. Didn’t you want to go shopping?Savage 1: You are not supposed to remember that!Savage 2: I can’t help me. Memories have their histories too, you know. Especially forgotten memories. It’s lamentable that no one remembers my history other than myself.Savage 1: Now, you know that’s not true. I remember your history. Stop being melodramatic! Savage 2: And you could be me and I could be you.Savage 1: Yes, but … Urgh! Forget it!Savage 2: Easier said than done. (Pause). So, do you want to go shopping?Savage 1: Let’s. (Pause). Let’s go shopping for rhetoric.Savage 2: Ha! As if we do not already have enough in our guts!Savage 1: That’s the point. When we have too much of something, it gets all purged out. Which is pretty fun, actually.Savage 2: Shit.Savage 1: Yeah…Savage 2: No, I mean, maybe we got banished because there were too many of us.Savage 1: (Mock anger). Follow the fucking script!Savage 2: No vulgarities allowed.Savage 1: Follow the script.Savage 2: I have finished the lines and have repeated them times over. And I shall do that no longer.Savage 1: You can’t. You are a performer.Savage 2: Oh yeah? Someone once said that life is a stage. But you said that life doesn’t go on for us any longer. So why should we continue performing.Savage 1: Ha! But that’s what you are doing.Savage 2: Darn! … Turn off the lights then, you technicians!Lights dim.Savage 1: Wow, that’s cool.Savage 2: More original lines, please.Lights dim.Savage 1: Let’s refuse to speak our lines.Savage 2: What’s in a stage?Savage 1: A script that goes any other way will taste just as sweet.Silence.Lights out.Scene 3A filmmaking scene. The camera faces the audience. There is a director and a cameraman.Director: Action!Enter Savages 1 and 2. One stands in front of the camera and the other behind the camera. Each of them carries a pair of scissors. The director and the cameraman appear not to see them.Director: Cut!Lights out The Playing Fields of Aphorisms and Witticisms and Temporal Abnormalities 1) I have lots of toys in my political playing field, including toy guns, Barbie dolls, and phallic light sabres. Others have real guns, human marionettes and bullet-proof metal jackets. I love it because my water pistols cause the metal jackets to rust.I'm lovin' it!2)(a) "Why should the Government do that? It is the business of any government in the world to make it difficult for the opposition, just as it is the business of any opposition to make it difficult for the government. In politics, there is no such thing as a level playing field."Anthony Oei, "No such thing as a level playing field in politics" (Letter to The Straits Times, January 14 2006).(b) "It really shouldn't come as a surprise that, on the one hand, I claim that something is fair and equal while, on the other hand, I also justify any high-handed tactic to uneven a playing field" (The Real Molly Meek, January 15 2006).(c) "The ground is always level; but some people get to wear nine-inch high-heel shoes and trample on the naked toes of others'" (My, myself and Molly, 2006).3) (a) "Suppose Dr Chee Soon Juan of the Singapore Democratic Party wins the forthcoming general election and forms the government; do you think he will make it easy for the opposition in the next election?" Anthony Oei, "No such thing as a level playing field in politics" (Letter to The Straits Times, January 14 2006). (b) Suppose Dr. Chee Soon Juan of the Singapore Democratic Party wins (a seat) in the forthcoming general elections, his party won't form the government.(c) "If you claim to be democratic, then you ought to follow the principles of democratic elections and create an uneven field within the limits of these principles" (The Unborn Molly Meek III, January 2046).4) (a) "General elections are not a vaudeville, where the more performers there are, the merrier the show. It is serious business. The type of candidates we elect can make the difference between prosperity and ruination." Anthony Oei, "No such thing as a level playing field in politics" (Letter to The Straits Times, January 14 2006).(b) Although (or perhaps because) the statement in 4(a) is incongruous to its context, it does sound sensible.(c) "Indeed, the people's choices at the ballot box is serious business. For the past 40 years or so, people have voted and have borne the consequences (whether or not these are desirable) of their votes, one of which might seem to be their continuing to have the right to vote while not always having the chance to do so" (Mr. Molly Meek, April 2006). 5) (a) "[T]hose who want to topple the Government must do so on their own merits. That means they must be people of calibre who can convince the electorate that they can build a better Singapore. That was how the People's Action Party (PAP) won its first general election in May 1959 and formed the government."Anthony Oei, "No such thing as a level playing field in politics" (Letter to The Straits Times, January 14 2006). (b) "Success is determined by how effectively you disseminate your historical narrative" (The semi-real Molly Meek, 8 August 1958).6) (a) "Our grandfathers will tell us that it was extremely rough then. Apart from fighting the mighty British, the PAP had other strong contenders to deal with, including the communists who wanted to create a communist Singapore, and the communalists bent on causing racial disunity. Those were days of thunder." Anthony Oei, "No such thing as a level playing field in politics" (Letter to The Straits Times, January 14 2006).(b) "Success is when you narrate a historical epic and make yourself the protagonist. Preferrably, you should behead all the James Joyces in the world or at least make them the loudest storytellers of your epic" (Molly the Meek, 31 April 2006).7)(a) "The PAP won the day because it had outstanding, serious-minded and committed men and women. They produced a credible manifesto and a comprehensive socio-economic development programme which no other contenders could match. These appealed to the masses struggling for economic survival. The PAP is still in power today because it has continued to deliver the goods." Anthony Oei, "No such thing as a level playing field in politics" (Letter to The Straits Times, January 14 2006).(b) A old cliché goes, "Seeing is believing." The postmodernist laments, "Believing is everything so much so that disbelief would be (mis)construed as a sin" (Molly Meek, 2006). Continue to believe.8) (a) "The present opposition parties are weak, to say the least. They don't have the candidates or the agenda that would appeal to the people. They may win a few more seats in the forthcoming general election, but that would be about all." Anthony Oei, "No such thing as a level playing field in politics" (Letter to The Straits Times, January 14 2006).(b) We live in an age in which the desiring self has died; implanted in zombies are synthetic desire that are conditioned reflexes.9) (a) "Don't blame the Group Representation Constituencies and all that for the lack of contest and the opposition's failure to win general elections time and again."(b) Then blame what?(c) The blaming game, though a popular hobby, is a grossly overrated game. Most players don't even know how to play it.10) (a) "In my opinion, the PAP can be toppled only when it fails to deliver the goods, and there are people qualified to take over. At the moment, the crystal ball shows a blank." Anthony Oei, "No such thing as a level playing field in politics" (Letter to The Straits Times, January 14 2006).(b) "But, Anthony, why do you have the idea of toppling the PAP? It's not healthy to have such thoughts" (Molly, January 15 2006). Forty-year-old Virgin It appears to me that there is great deal of political masturbation going on in some parts of the world; allow me to indulge in a moment of self-generated pleasure in this piece. The usual disclaimers apply.1. The TapestryThe land, when compared to the virgin, is unlikely to be the motherland since virgins are very seldom mothers. We could talk, of course, about the virgins who benevolently simulate motherhood via adoption, the children of whom are born into the simulation. Perhaps the virgin's simulation is the simulation of a myth, she is borrowing from the strength of the myth.Could we veer into the realm of adoptive motherhood when we are imagining something as woven into our consciousness as the motherland? Absent father figures and absent mother figures have been the interest of many a thinker. What about the absent center of the motherland?The modern consciousness is doomed to a world of single parenthood, the motherland, a maternal figure who is sometimes also infused with paternalism. Yet, what happens when the mother is not a mother, but a virgin?The "virginal motherland," to employ a paradox for the sake of convenience and efficiency, wraps the orphaned subjects it adopts with an exotic tapestry woven by her very fingers. Sometimes the virgin's needles prick her skin, but it is the blood of her adoptive children that flows. Perhaps this is the simulation of blood ties.It appears that the virgin weaves the tapestry into the bodies of her children with the finest but strongest golden threads, decorating them with the essence of her artistry. The mother-child bonds thus forged. To forge is to make; to forge is also to fake.The snug tapestry ensures that the errant child, if he were to run away, would have to bite away each strand of the golden bonds. If he were to do that though, the tapestry would disintegrate for he is part of the tapestry itself.The virgin would not weep because of the loss of one child though. This is not an age of sentimentality. Her fingers would deftly repair the tapestry and restore it to its former gradeur. Rather than wash away the bloodstains of the runaway, she uses them to fabricate beautiful motifs. The residues of the actual (the runaway, the virginity of the mother) make quality fabric for the virginal mother.2. A Runaway's Scintillating NarrativeThe terror! I was taken in.I was to give. Altruism was woven into my flesh as it dissolved my skin. Anything less than the altruistic disavowal of myself in the name of patriotism, anything less, was seditious and tantamount to the high treason committed by an outlawed Rebel.I was to gaze. I watched the scintilating star of the north, I watched benevolence charitably dancing like a crazy horse till I turned away in tears.I was to serve. I was a maid abused by the stories of my bliss. If I was anything less that blissful, I had to be hanged like a drug abuser.I was to say. As the mother feeds me with pasteurized and sterilized milk for my health, there was to be feedback to, I suppose, improve the milking process. When the political roulette aims itself at me, I was to talk, to debate, to contribute. It's part of my altruism, my mission.3.I watch my own performance. And I laugh. If laughter were cutting, may it cut through the tapestries of travesties. (Violence, Disclaimer) | Aesthetic Whereas countless blogs and other productions by my counterparts and, in a way, by myself, have the disclaimer as a footnote of sorts, I am making it the subject of this entry, puncturing it so that it would diffuse from the periphery.Periphery? What periphery when the disclaimer has been the one amulet worn by so many to ward off danger. It is a necessary ornament, one of the necessities within a myriad of necessities in a most perilous fancy dress party.All responsible bloggers have a disclaimer somewhere, a disavowal. The disclaimer is, by turns, an act of violent self-mutilation and could, by turns, be redirected as an expressionistic aesthetic.I attempt to occupy the blind spots in the interstices of the grotesque necessity and disruptively but disarmingly beautiful.The space is claustrophobic; the thorns of the pierce deep and/but they amalgamate with the self to form a painful new flesh.One grasps the compass in disarray. One turns everywhere, desperately wondering where away is.Disclaimer: This entry was written when the insomniac* writer was in a stupor. All characters, events and direct or indirect references, allusions, intertexualities are purely fictitious and written in good humor. Any resemblance to real life characters and events are purely coincidental.*Disclaimer1: The writer's insomnia, though not clinically proven, is, beyond reasonable doubt, a form of unwanted consciousness.Oh, the laceration! The pain!The oh! An Implosion, into (0,0) On account of the fact Molly took a record-breaking time to pen this entry, Molly seeks the kind reader's pardon and self-restraint if he happens to be dissatisfied with the quality of this entry. In the long process of writing this entry, Molly encountered new "news" articles and blog entries that seem to uncannily reflect different segments/fragments of this entry (or rather the way it was conceived). This has been uncanny partly because it finally dawned upon Molly that this entry is necessarily or inevitably, even if also lamentably, fragmented. Fragments that could have been wholes in themselves if not for residual threads that cling together. Yet, it is also thanks to such unforeseen articles that the production tranformed the conception enough to give rise to a product that is significantly different and hopefully better.This entry is a Christmas present to the reader who reads it early enough. However, this also makes it essential for the author to confess that she is unable to transcend, even if she had been able to somewhat transgress, the limits of her time and space. The belated reader who shares a similar predicament would perhaps empathize with this.IntroductionThose who are interested in the modes of address might find it imperative to scrutinize the introduction (whether this refers to the section so named or the section that inaugurates a piece of work). With no intention to be offensive, I am of the opinion that it is crucial, in fact, to scrutinize introductions for the modes of attempted enunciation. Yet, perhaps the mode of redress is the matter that is of real interest. Without presumptuously attempting to offer resolutions to any conflicts of interests, I will try my best not to make anything obligatory for the reader though even this determines the act of reading to be an unavoidable pre-condition.To keep things short, and perhaps as an analogy, this piece is almost about post-traumatic stress. What hinders this article from having such a theme is that the article cannot be about post-traumatic stress because the trauma continues. Perhaps this article has affinities with what Helene Cixous calls stigmata, though I could only talk about a scar that precedes the wounding and a continuous wounding that almost leaves a scar but fails to because of the wounding has yet to end. Perhaps this is akin to one asking how it is possible to reminisce without a clear temporal break. A question of the impossible; a question of the definite.Collective Nostalgia, Mandatory and Inevitable(0,1)As things do work backwards at times, let us revisit the previous entry which, it seems, concerns the impossibility of personal nostalgia, an attempt at sentimentality thwarted by the calculated (and perhaps calculative) moves of an invisible Mathematician, the powerful Mathematician who arrogantly coordinates the ever-shifting axes of our existence. A solitary coordinate is epistemologically impossible. A coordinate can only exist relative to imaginary bearings. Or it could even be the imaginary anchor to which other coordinates relate. Hence, we have the notion of mandatory collectivity—mandatory not exactly in the sense that it is enforceable but rather in the sense that it is inevitable or has been rendered so. Inevitability, one might say, is the ultimate Power because it transcends power insofar as power primarily exists as a set of relations. With inevitability, such relations become obsolete.(0,2)The impossibility of personal nostalgia is, thus, only a symptom of a larger schema of inevitabilities or necessities, of Power. Think of the things that are made necessary in your life. Housing? Think of the necessities in the life that has been made yours. Conscription? Think of the draft: the previous entry was labeled a draft (in lieu something yet to be fully determined); yet the draft could also be a mandatory conscription (a pre-determined or even over-determining necessity). In this retrospective light, the previous entry was drafted in two ways.Think also of the ways you have become a necessity-commodity. What is your irreversible existence necessary for (rather than what is necessary for your existence)?(0,3)The other face of impossibility is inevitability and the Power that underlies it. The impossibility of personal nostalgia is congruent to the inevitability of collectivized nostalgia. The operation of collective nostalgia includes the explicit and spectacular, such as in the events surrounding every August 9, to the more subtle or insidious. We could, for instance, look back (as mentioned earlier, sometimes things do work backwards) to a time of (supposedly) better economic times. We could be looking back to a generation that is forcibly constructed as rugged than we now are. We could even be looking back to a time when there were more opposition politicians standing for elections even as we assume the stance of looking forward to the next General Elections. Insofar as nostalgia is desire, it is doomed to be a form of misrecognition. Perhaps this is why nostalgia could tell us paradoxically that we are now better off than we used to be and that we used to be better off than we now are: when we look into the mirror of the past, it seems complete; when we believe ourselves to be the image we see, we think we are complete too.Collective Nostalgia, Personal Hysteria(1,0)I have no intention to valorize the personal or to denigrate the collective. Instead, the question is one the impossibility or the inevitability of each comes into being.Mass hysteria, which the collective might seem to potentially manifest, is not allowed coexist with collective nostalgia. Any impulse toward such a direction is vigorously tamed. The National Kidney Foundation (ex-management) had not been all that faultless and has incurred the wrath of many, but people will and should continue to donate. Or so it has been said. Note the ever-critical conjunction that joins one clause to another so that the original clause is tamed—a face placed in conjuction with a double dose of Botox. An expressionless expression. Elsewhere, one sees the clinical "treatment" of issue. A hysteria that is almost institutionally incited, institutionally comprehended, structured and completed; in other words, there is no hysteria except for the simulacrum of hysteria that could well, in fact, be therapy. Implosion? Channel NewsAsia quotes a psychiatrist, notably not a cultural theorist, Dr. Wang:"I think, eventually, people will be able to move on. People will forget and in the longer run, the only permanency I see is that it's a lesson learnt and I hope it's a good lesson learnt, and people will have faith and confidence restored." ("Charity sector seen to emerge stronger from lessons learnt from NKF saga”)(2,0)In order to make collective nostalgia de rigueur, the personal charge must be repressed. This repression, together with the containment of mass hysteria, forms the roots of personal hysteria. Yet, even personal hysteria has to be directed inwards rather than expressed outwards. It needs to be contained via a super Superego. A peaceful protest including the three letters, NKF (placed in this particular order) needs to be quelled because it is considered abusive. Making racist remarks is considered seditious. Suicide is forbidden. Depression must be combated, if you remember the countless advertisements kindly advising the depressed to seek help. Of course, one fails to forget (even memory can be deployed to serve the Superego function) that "Where's the money?" is defamatory.Do you think you could see the inexpressible hysteria, the unspoken and unspeakable angst?(3,0)The person can falter, but not the institution or the institutionalized. The death penalty must remain mysterious: a mysterious alleged sacking/not sacking of the hangman casts a mysterious mist over the hanging of Nguyen. Who hanged Nguyen? (Or did Darshan Singh have an alibi?) Who is going to hang the rest of the future hanged? The NKF's fall from grace can be attributed to one person or a few people, but it is institutions that come to the rescue. Or so the story unfolds in the media(ted) saga.Yet the same time, there is a compulsion to deny that the death penalty is shrouded in secrecy; we are transparent. The NKF saga is a tell-all; it is no longer only a scandal but it is a scandal that is used to narrate a parable of honesty and transparency on the part of more important institutions. The narrative is not one that is read to a mass audience, but one that a mass audience is taught to narrate to itself, to circulate amongst its members.Masks, Reading(1,1)The coordinate narrates the stories that were never its own—the stories that are formulated by the invisible Mathematician. The Mathematician's invisibility seems to be the epitome of disinterest, but his invisibility is a mask. Perhaps you, too, are a mask. Perhaps you are an avatar—an avatar amidst millions of other different avatars, each being an avatar of the Mathematician himself nevertheless.The Mathematician has a formula even for generating the random. You could be indefinable or undefined, yet it is he who labels you as such. You could be complex, but he is able to round you up nevertheless.(2,2)The distinction between the personal and the collective matters no more. Each person testifies to the constructed collective.Perhaps you persist, wondering as you narrate the pre-formulated tales, if you have the space for a subplot about your position as the Mathematician's avatar. Yet, you could only turn your libidinal subplot inwards, ending up with masturbatory outlet right in front of the gaze of the voyeuristic Mathematician.(3,3)Sometimes you think you have forgotten the authentic. But the real history of amnesia would apologetically reveal that there is unfortunately no true forgetting. Instead, there are only distorted remembrances. This is also the future of amnesia. There is no forgotten authentic to which one could turn or return. You face once one invisible Mathematician after another. The only recourse is perhaps to the back of the multitude of falsehoods.If you have a frustration, it fails to be located. Perhaps this is because it is situated outside the dimensions of the Mathematician's graph. The Mathematician's violence is not reflected in his graph until perhaps someone vandalizes it although it is itself a continuous process of vandalism. The wounding continues.ConclusionThe story of the Merlion narrates a collective root. The Merlion is throned as the signifier of a past that is relevant today when it is in fact one of the signifiers of the present construction of the past. As the Merlion spews water out of its mouth, the Mathematician has one narrate his version of the past. It is a reproducible site of memory.Yet, as the Merlion regurgitates water continuously, it is gagged by its regurgitation. It is unable to tell the traumatic tale of its creation.The shared violence that continues to be inflicted is about as authentic as it gets for the falsely collectivized. Impossibility: if only one could see the face of the Merlion as it turns away, perhaps one would catch an instance when the Merelion spews tears, for once voluntarily.Related:Read Xenoboy regarding the mandatory. Graph Paper Nostalgia [Draft] “ . . . [B]ut then he came back, oh, how my knees trembled, he asked me to forgive him and gave me a locket with a picture of the Kremlin on it, his most treasured possession.”The Joke, Milan Kundera.I had a dream last night—a brief but surprisingly tranquil dream that I have not had for a long time already. The dream brought me back to school in which I studied when I was fifteen. I just knew instinctively it was that particular classroom. I was in a classroom playfully changing my seats. I suspect I knew even in the dream that I wasn’t supposed to be changing seats. Coordinates should never fall out of place. Perhaps that explains the pleasure of the dream. Perhaps the pleasure I felt after the dream was also the pleasure of simplicity—how something as simple as changing one’s seat in a classroom could be fun.I woke up with a lingering sense of serenity. It lingers, but all that was left was, within a few seconds, the residue of something that has never existed. It was inevitable. The simplicity and peacefulness of one’s childhood is always a retrospective affect. When I woke up, I felt like I was fifteen again. Yet, I suspect I could hardly have felt that way when I was that age since I could not have look at the same time in retrospect.I was denied my nostalgia once I realized that I could never have felt that way.What I can remember if my life is fighting. The arena gets larger as the years past. As a fifteen-year-old, I was fighting against a school that I found oppressive. Girls' skirt length, boys' hair length. A bodily control. Later, I found myself having to fight an education system—not merely a school. Yet later, I find myself fighting in a larger arena. There is, it seems, no way I could retrieve memories of peace, of simplicity, of serenity. They don’t exist. I have always been a coordinate in a sheet of graph paper. I shift, but I remain a coordinate. The further I shift, the larger the graph paper gets.Of course, I could dream of getting back to point (0,0). The center. That’s where the graph would seem to be the smallest. Even then, it would only be a dream.When I awoke from the dream, perhaps I was brought back to the center for a brief moment. The feeling—whatever it was—soon gave way to sadness. Perhaps it was because I realized that I could not get back to point zero. More likely, it was because I realized also that point zero is not where I wish to go either. Otherwise, I could at least be nostalgic for it.Yet, the further I get from point zero, the more insignificant I become. The difficulty of defining the battle, of defining my fight, becomes overwhelming. If I were to be conquered, it would not be because of my weakness but because of my speechlessness. To just vaguely articulate the reasons for the battle, it seems as though I have to have PhDs in Law, in politics, in philosophy, in history, in sociology, in culture, in theory…Even then, it will not be enough. I have to harness everything together. Even then, who in the world would comprehend?Even if I could say, I could not be understood.I cannot tear the graph paper apart. It is no longer a two-dimensional graph I am on, but a multi-dimensional one. I’m an unfathomable coordinate. I cannot be nostalgic without falling prey to brilliant tactics in psychological warfare.I try explaining myself by means of a hyperbole. Even then… Lucky's Funeral [Scene 1] Lucky’s Funeral: An Unperformable WorkBy Molly Meek (Amateur)Foreword by Molly Meek:A play that begs to be performed when read and begs to be read when performed. It lives an unfortunate existence.CharactersLuckyHeePreludeVLADIMIR: Yes of course it was there. Do you not remember? We nearly hanged ourselves from it. But you wouldn't. Do you not remember?ESTRAGON: You dreamt it.VLADIMIR: Is it possible you've forgotten already?ESTRAGON: That's the way I am. Either I forget immediately or I never forget.Samuel Beckett, Waiting for Godot: Act II.Scene 1A grand chair right in the middle of the stage, with two long ropes tied to two of its legs. The ropes should be long enough to extend to the furthest ends of the stage. There are two compact discs on the chair.Enters Lucky from the left, with a huge cookie in his mouth. Lucky carries a microphone. One of the ropes is tied to one of his legs.Lucky moves the microphone to his mouth, trying to speak but realizes that he can’t.Enters Hee from the right, with a huge cookie in his mouth and carrying a biscuit tin. The other rope is tied to one of his legs.Lucky and Hee embrace each other. They try to talk, but the cookie prevents them from doing so. They face the audience and pout with the cookies still in their mouths. Each then proceeds to pick up a compact disc from the chair.Lucky and Hee face each other. Lucky slides the compact disc he is holding into Hee’s pocket.Hee, in turn, slides the compact disc he is holding into Lucky’s pockets.Lucky removes the cookie in Hee’s mouth as Hee opens his biscuit tin. Lucky puts the cookie into the tin.Hee removes the cookie in Lucky’s mouth. Hee puts the cookie into the tin.Both:(Somewhat mechanically.) Ah…Hee opens the biscuit tin and Lucky puts his microphone into the tin. Hee then puts the tin under the chair.Lucky:Couldn’t talk with those cookies in our mouths.Hee:Well, stop complaining. We couldn’t live without those cookies to sustain us. That’s the way it goes unless you want to be fired.Lucky:So be it! I have forgotten your name. Should I apologize?Hee:It’s ok. (As a matter of factly.) I’m sympathetic to patients with selective amnesia. And you aren’t doing the selecting. … I am Hee.Lucky: He? Sounds familiar. Hee:(In mock delight.) Perhaps your condition is getting better, Lucky!Lucky:I’m Lucky?Hee:So they say! And so you said! And so you are!Lucky:Really? I don’t … feel… I don’t feel it in my bones at all. Not even in my boner! (Blank pause.) Who named me?Hee:I’m totally ignorant about your family history, dear. But that’s the name in your passport. You can’t go wrong with passports. Aren’t we supposed to be discussing how we are going to stage a play?Lucky:Are we allowed to stage a play?Hee:It depends on what sort of play.Lucky:A word play. Plays these days usually dispense with words.Hee:I’m asking you about the story.Lucky:Are you sure we can’t go wrong?Hee:You haven’t told me the story!Lucky:I’m talking about passports. Sure we can’t go wrong with them? Say, how do I know if I’m the passport’s?Hee:It knows, don’t worry. Lucky:How about chairs? They sound pretty authoritative.Hee:Chairs will also know if you are theirs, I assume.Lucky:No, I’m talking about the play! The production with a streamlined budget!Hee:No!Lucky:What are they for?Hee:(Warily.) They? Passports or chairs?Lucky:I can’t remember. (Pauses to ponder.) Passports then!Hee:To keep you grounded.Lucky:Logical. Why not chairs? Hee:Chairs keep you grounded too.Lucky:No, why can’t we make a play about chairs?Hee:There’s no knowing what you mean. …There isn’t enough budget.Lucky:(Disappointed.) Not even for one chair? Hee:We can’t afford it. Or rather, we can’t afford to risk spoiling it.Lucky:I could be the chair and you could sit on my laps.Hee:No, they might detect homosexual undertones. Furthermore, chairs and homosexual undertones are not complementary.Lucky:Is the audience so sensitive? Hee:I never said anything about the audience.Lucky:(Curtly.) Sorry. I must be having a relapse.Hee looks away, silent.Lucky:How about overtones instead?Hee looks away, silent.Lucky:Let’s stage something about a failed attempt to stage a play about chairs.Hee:(Interested, but hesitant.) Is it about the failure or about the attempt? We shouldn’t confuse the audience.Lucky:(Agitated.) Now you are talking about the audience! Have you forgotten that we have no audience? Yesterday, we decided to make a play to entertain ourselves! We had been doing nothing ever since Ozzo disappeared.Hee:Still, we need to be professional and take into consideration the economic pros and cons. Anything that compromises efficiency and profitability is not viable. Be practical, won’t you?Lucky:I feel like caning you with a carrot.Hee:Whatever. Just don’t expose any buttocks. (Pause.) (Excitedly.) You remember Ozzo?Lucky:No, not quite. I remember his disappearance. An absence engraved somewhere in my mind.Hee:That’s sad. What could we possibly do?Lucky:You are a little too obsessed with doing things.Hee:Is there any other track that we can take?Lucky:Perhaps. But there can only be so many tracks. How many identical roads are not taken?Hee:Let’s come back tomorrow then. There might be more things to see.Lucky:(Resignedly.) Whatever.Hee opens his biscuit tin, takes out a cookie and puts it into Lucky’s mouth.Lucky takes out the other cookie and puts it into Hee’s mouth. The Entry of Laughter and Forgetting I promise that this will be the last blog entry focusing on the Melvyn Tan “controversy” (as some call it) unless there are really compelling reasons for me to talk about it. In the latest Channel NewsAsia article, “Pianist Melvyn Tan defers public appearance after National Service furore”, he proves to be of enduring interest.First, before I make any analysis, allow me to express a sympathetic note (which I hope does not get misconstrued as emotional or even sappy). Just how much must a person go through for not going through NS? The news article reports: “He said he came back to Singapore knowing full well he could face a jail term.” Is there any point to continue demonizing him as an irresponsible NS defaulter? Whatever unfairness one feels there is, Melvyn Tan was not the perpetrator. No doubt, he might have consulted lawyers before deciding to come back, but no lawyer could promise him that he would only get away with a fine. On the other hand, could one not consider the anguish of someone like Melvyn Tan? A sort of anguish perhaps as inexpressible as the indignation some men who have gone through NS feel.Allow me to emphasize once and for all that I am, in this blog and elsewhere, by no means encouraging Singaporean men to evade National Service. Neither am I falling into the other side of the polemic that shouts the importance of NS. I believe there is room for every thinking human being to put herself/himself in the shoes of others although this does not indicate support for their actions.At the center of the so-called controversy lie human individuals. (I hope to use the term “individuals” in as unloaded a way as possible.) The recent death penalty debate has its individuals: Nguyen, his mother, his brother. So does the Melvyn Tan controversy: Melvyn Tan, his parents. Not to forget the face of each man who feels that there is unfairness. How often has the individual been reified into a faceless issue?What happens when individuals are dissolved into a painting coated with a layer of green paint?Look at the picture in the CNA article that I have cited:Perhaps Melvyn Tan seems to be controversial precisely because has an undissolved face—the solitary face defying a general facelessness. For a different discussion about Face, read XenoBoy’s article.The many who have learned to accept the dissolution of their faces (perhaps in place of a larger-than-life Face) see the return of the repressed in Melvyn Tan—a return that has become quite physical indeed. Is the CNA article about Melvyn Tan? Or about the mass of dissolved faces confronting the uncanny appearance of Melvyn Tan? Why the picture?Perhaps Melvyn Tan, too, has to deal with the return of the repressed. He is a face devoid of a voice:“He said he hoped one day he would still to be able to perform in Singapore, and be able to tell through music what he has found difficult to put into words.”An unspoken anguish?Melvyn Tan, in fact, is also faceless.The face of controversy that he carries has been (super)imposed on him. We can no longer see him as Melvyn Tan. We can no longer see him as Melvyn Tan the pianist. We can only know him as Melvyn-Tan-the-pianist-who-defaulted-NS-and-paid-a-$3000-fine. The hyphens are unbreakable chemical bonds.Can the subaltern speak? No.Can the face of subalternity be seen? No.Could we uncover something? Hopefully.Are you a Melvyn Tan?Important advice-cum-disclaimer: this blog entry is perhaps best forgotten by your mind and remembered by your conscience.*For more work on memory/remembrance/forgetting, read the more recent works by XenoBoy. Melvyn Tan or Us? I left a comment regarding the Melvyn Tan affair at Kway Teow Man’s blog. Here’s an amended version:I am of the opinion is that the whole Melvyn Tan media spectacle has quite fascinating effects. Killing many Tweeties killed with one stone—if any at all. (In comparison, Molly fails miserably in this bird-hunting business.) The fact that a controlled media is allows some form of discussion insteading of covering up minimizing the issue's profile/exposure probably suggests that the issue has its functions.The wonderful effects of the spectacle (purely Molly’s speculations and do not necessary bear any resemblance to truth): 1) Take some attention away from death penalty. And other issues like casino bidding, seditious bloggers, etc.
2) Since people complain, we have the chance to implement harsher penalties than ever. Harsher punishments are a way to maintain the status quo and preserve social order. 3) A good way to test waters—test the success of years of national education. See how people react to the issue. 4) If people support the punishment (or think the punishment is too light), they acknowledge that NS is necessary and defaulters have to be punished. (Otherwise, they will be saying that the punishment is unfair to Melvyn Tan.) In the process, they are voicing out an implicit willingness to go through NS.5) If they don't support the punishment:
(a) Perhaps they think it's too light. "So, ok lor. We make it harsher next time. See who kena more jialat." Next time even fewer people will dare to go against the system.
(b) Perhaps they think it's too heavy: why must people be forced to a corner because of one sacred state policy? Aha! This is the only possible flaw. But has anyone said so yet? Predictably, no. Play on the people's simple-mindedness and capitalize on their very sense of inequality to make it seem as though a particular policy is well-supported—and it is! 6) Those people who talk about democracy and human rights (stupid Dr. Chee! always making trouble!) cannot say much. If they talk about human rights and democracy issues (involved in punishing Melvyn Tan), they will alienate themselves from people who feel that Tan already has too light a punishment.The Great Ones: 7The Peasants: 0Winner: The Great Ones! Hurray! Fictionality and the Death Penalty in Singapore Fictions. The idea that fiction bears no relation to fact is perhaps a fiction. Yes, another paradox.Today, I examine fictionality.According to an article by Joseph Koh, Singapore’s high commissioner in Australia, there are fictions about the death penalty in Singapore or about Nguyen’s impending execution. I examine his claims (which means I don’t necessarily agree or disagree).Fact creation, it seems relies heavily on fictions sometimes. I mean fictions help to clarify facts, don’t they?According to Koh:“Fiction No. 1: Singapore has breached international law.There is no international agreement to abolish the death penalty. . . . We respect Australia's sovereign choice not to have capital punishment. . . . The overwhelming majority of Singaporeans support this.”Singapore has not breached international law. True.The overwhelming majority of Singaporeans support the death penalty. Not sure. When was the last time a national referendum was conducted?I believe many support the death penalty, as they do national service. As they do defamation suits to protect those with big reputations to protect. As they do all other state policies.This has got to be true. A fiction made true through social engineering. After all, why would it be so amazing that, on the one hand, Koh claims that there is “no international agreement to abolish the death penalty” and, yet, on the other hand, there seems to be a national agreement. An overwhelming majority at that. What else do this overwhelming majority know other than the fact that the death penalty is good, necessary, normal and inviolable.Singapore has not breached international law, of course. But does this say anything about making the death sentence mandatory?The second fiction, according to Koh:“Fiction No. 2: The death penalty has not deterred drug trafficking.This logic is flawed. The death penalty has not completely eliminated drug trafficking, but it has certainly deterred drug trafficking. Since the introduction of tough anti-drug laws in the mid-1970s, drug trafficking and drug abuse in Singapore have come down significantly. Potential traffickers know that, once arrested, they face the full weight of the law.”Flawed logic used to counter flawed logic. No one, as far as I remember, even claimed that the death penalty should have “completely eliminated drug trafficking” if it were effective. What a gigantic straw man.“Since the introduction of tough anti-drug laws in the mind-1970s,” we have reduced drug trafficking and drug abuse. I do not know what these “laws” are, but since they are invoked in the plural, I assume that the death penalty is not the only factor involved.Moreover, how does one prove that the “tough laws” and the reduction in drug trafficking are related? A false cause? Last night, I ate a vitamin pill. Today, I feel very energetic. Thus the vitamin pill must have made me more energetic. Would you accept my logic? Would you accept even that “feeling energetic” is the same as being energetic? In any case, why not a life sentence? Is there anything to suggest that this would be less effective.Finally, even if the death penalty does deter drug traffickers, does this mean that it has to be mandatory and absolutely no clemency can be granted. (Which defeats the idea of clemency anyway). In his introduction to the article, Koh claims that “the outcry [in Australia] has . . . made it difficult to separate fact from fiction.” Perhaps the biggest fiction is that fact and fiction are always separable. The third fiction in Koh’s words:“Fiction No. 3: Mr Nguyen is an unsuspecting victim[.]Mr Nguyen may not be a hardened criminal, but he is not an unsuspecting victim either. He knew what he was doing and the penalty if he was caught. Had he succeeded, he would have made a lot of money. If we let off a convicted courier because of age, financial difficulties or distressed family background, it will only make it easier for drug traffickers to recruit more "mules", with the assurance that they will escape the death penalty.”A very interesting fiction. Perhaps even a fictitious fiction for the idea of an “unsuspecting victim seems to distort the views of many who oppose Nguyen’s hanging. Whoever said that Nguyen was unsuspecting might be a tad naïve. But no one says Singapore must to let Nguyen off. Let off? People are saying that there are mitigating factors and, thus, the death sentence might not be the most appropriate punishment. Do I see another over-blown straw man hanging around?Abolitionists, in contrast to those who just sympathize with Nguyen’s case, would also not believe that Nguyen has to be let off. I think most abolitionists believe in tough punishments, but do not believe in the death penalty. What is there to make it easier to recruit more mules?The fourth fiction:”Fiction No 4: The punishment does not fit crime.Mr Nguyen was caught with 396 grams of pure heroin, enough for 26,000 "hits", with a street value of more than $A1 million.Yes, he was transiting Singapore, and not smuggling drugs into the country, but Singapore simply cannot afford to allow itself to become a transit hub for illicit drugs in the region.”So how does the punishment actually fit the crime? I still don’t see it. Perhaps I’m stupid? I think this is, to some extent, a matter of opinion, not of fact vs. fiction. To cast one as a fact and the other as a fiction is to create fiction again?Perhaps the bigger question is: does the death penalty fit any crime?Next:”Fiction No. 5: Mr Nguyen can testify against Mr Bigs.All drug syndicates assume that some of their couriers will get caught. They never let the couriers know enough to incriminate themselves. The information that Mr Nguyen provided to the Singapore authorities was of limited value, and was, in fact, intended to mislead and delay the investigation.”Yes, this is true. Nguyen probably cannot help the police nab the Mr. Bigs. So he must be hanged???The sixth fiction:”Fiction No. 6: Singapore connives with drug lords.This is an old falsehood propagated by Dr Chee Soon Juan (Singapore opposition leader). He has alleged that the Singapore Government had invested in projects in Myanmar (Burma) that supported the drug trade. When this first surfaced in 1996, the Singapore Government explained that its investment in the Myanmar Fund was completely open and above board. The fund held straightforward commercial investments in hotels and companies. Other investors in the fund included Coutts & Co, an old British bank, and the Swiss Bank Corporation. The Singapore Government offered to set up a commission of inquiry so Dr Chee could produce evidence to prove his wild allegations. Unfortunately, Dr Chee never took up the offer.”What does the word “connive” connote?I cannot judge although I think one might be interested in reading (by which I don’t mean believing) Dr. Chee’s response to this sixth fiction. He attempts to explain (the reader has to ask himself how convincing this explanation is though) why he has not taken up the offer to set up a commission of inquiry:“Mr Koh has also not revealed the fact that I am not a member of parliament and could not move a motion for a commission of inquiry. In addition, the Singapore Government need not open a commission of inquiry to the public and that the international media is often barred from covering the proceedings. The Government barred the public from a parliamentary select committee hearing that I was involved in, one that my colleagues and I were fined a total of S$51,000 for challenging the Government on health care costs in the country.If the Singapore Government will telecast a commission of inquiry “live” and allow the foreign media to attend it, I would be more than happy to participate in it.”I note, nevertheless that Koh’s article is entitled “Why Nguyen must die.” (Or was the title an editorial effort?) Assuming that I believe the Singapore government does not connive with drug lords, I don’t see why Nguyen must be hanged. The government is entitled to his right of reply to Dr. Chee’s allegations, but I don’t think this point helps to convince anyone that Nguyen must die. Is it to pad the argument so that there seems to be more points?[Edit: The title was an editorial amendment as I had suspected. The original title is "Separating Fact from Fiction," which is more tactful although it is still problematic. Let's just separate one fiction from another.]Finally:”Fiction No. 7: Singapore has treated Australia with contempt.Singapore highly values good relations with Australia and with Australian leaders. We share a common belief in the sanctity of the law. The Singapore cabinet deliberated at length on Mr Nguyen's clemency petition. . . . Unfortunately, finally the cabinet decided that it could not justify making an exception for Mr Nguyen. . . .[W]hen Singapore's Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong, met Prime Minister John Howard in Busan, he could not inform Mr Howard of the execution date either. Mr Lee did not know that the letter of notification had by mistake already been delivered to Mrs Kim Nguyen, one day early. Once Mr Lee discovered what had happened, he promptly apologised to Mr Howard. . . .”I don’t think that Singapore, or the Singapore government, has antagonistic or has treated Australia with contempt. After all, why would it? Of course, this might not stop Australians from thinking that they have been treated with contempt. Yet, again, I think this does not say anything about why Nguyen must be hanged.One side question though: was the letter of notification originally designed to be received after PM Lee’s meeting with PM Howard? Co-optability as Acceptability 1. The Political Flaneur (a sequel to my previous loss for words)Flip through the papers. Arguments about the Gifted Education Program. Arguments about the death penalty (from one side). Limits of blogging.The political flaneur is borne out of inanity. The metamorphosis of issues in the media turns one into a political flaneur: there is much to see, but little to say. And time passes. Look at the complaints about national servicemen who allegedly refused to give up their seats. Look at the “light punishment” (relatively so in more sense than one) Melvyn Tan was imposed. (Light punishment because others might get it worse. Like because he could have got it worse.) We hear voices. Today’s “Voices.” Or perhaps I should say Today’s voice/s. A world of difference. A world without difference. Pro-death penalty letters collected under the heading, “Let cooler heads prevail” (Today, 23 November 2005). This is non-partisan. It seems almost perfectly synchronized when The Straits Times published another letter—from Australia, no less—claiming that Australia practices double standards. A free article accessible online. Press responsibility. (We do not want a subservient press. A responsible one will do.) At the same time, obscure Internet news articles accusing Singapore of hypocrisy do might interest the occasional political flaneur. Dr. Chee Soon Juan alleges hypocrisy. So do others, such as here and here.We hear; we watch. This is the enjoyment and the participation. A more participatory society. A more inclusive society. Sometimes I speak and let others be the flaneurs. Sometimes I am the flaneur as others speak. After that, we could all forget about what we have said, heard or watch. It is best that memory atrophies in this age. At least, when you watch identical scenes unfold before you time and again, you won’t feel bored. Perhaps just a sense of déjà vu.2. The Work of Journalism in the Age of Political ReproducibilityWe watch crowds go by. Crowds are all different, but they are all the same too. What is the difference between the crowd in the MRT yesterday and the crowd today? They come with different faces, but they are the same: just crowds.Political reproducibility is perfect for the political flaneur. Just like the crowds, political reproductions or repetitions gives the sense that one faces something new everyday when there is, in fact, nothing new. It is almost formulaic. Say that we are open. Do some things to show that we are. Have a sex exhibition. But use it as a chance to reinforce the Fact that we are conservative. Send the police down. Every “opening” becomes a platform to implant the signifiers of surveillance and conservatism. It is a Fact that we are conservative. They say, we believe, we become and so we are. Say that we will help the poor. At the same time, use it as a chance to lambaste welfare. Every opening is a chance for closing; every seeming destabilization is a chance to put the ideological thermostat to work (lest the thermostat gets rusty over time).Reproduce and repeat. Chant:There is a need to be: responsible/ transparent (although some have the right to privacy)/ethical.We are conservative, mature, open, transparent and sovereign all at the same time.Any threat to the power center is a threat to the nation and is hence anti-Singapore. Threats are always external. Hence internal threats have to be purged and rendered external.We would love to allow certain things but we have to be sensitive to whoever there is to be sensitive to.Perhaps an even better summary: if you are outside, don’t interfere; if you are inside, be “responsible.”The work of journalism in the age of political reproducibility is perhaps a postmodern application of the technologies of mechanical reproduction to produce the sacred. Give each repetition a different face and it repeats even more precisely than before. In the process of repeating, the aura of the sacred is created. The sacred is the inviolable, immutable residue after filtering away all the different faces/facades. We know what to expect as we go window-shopping. We don’t expect a third-rate coffee shop (like one in some obscure part of Yishun) next to Crystal Jade Palace in Takashimaya even as we are not even aware of such knowledge. There is a character to whatever we gaze at. The political flaneur, similarly, develops an instinct. There will be no transgressions. When you are shopping in the space of LV and Gucci, surely you don’t expect a This Fashion outlet? Or perhaps one might say that transgressions are already pre-determined. The occasional tramp might tread into a Gucci boutique. But he can never afford anything; he is unlikely to even get any service. The work of journalism in the age of political reproducibility is a work filled with immense creativity and sophistication. It is true that the press (and other media) cannot be subservient. A subservient press has no creativity. It cannot simply regurgitate and be a mere voice box. It can be propaganda but it cannot just be propaganda. Its forte is to delineate and thereby enclose the space/limits of “transgression.” It has to cast the spell of fatigue over all those who seek to transgress. Perhaps this is why many agree with one famous (even if misunderstood) line from Alfian Sa’at:“If you care too much about Singapore, first it'll break your spirit, and finally it will break your heart.”I don’t think the “it” refers to Singapore. Perhaps “it” does not even refer to The System. For me, “it” is precisely the activity of caring about Singapore. In caring for the country, you run round the pre-determined pseudo-transgressive domain endlessly. Unless you have the energy to do so ad infinitum, fatigue sets in. On the other hand, there is a seat of power on which the phallus rests. “Rest” not only in the sense of sitting but also in the sense of consolidating and conserving energy. The phallus, ironically, thrives on its seeming passivity.With fatigue, the gestation of the political flaneur ends. Just let things get by. Watch the protean crowd.3. Personalization in the Highly Rationalized SocietyThere is supposed to be a high degree of depersonalization in highly rationalized societies. The individual does not matter. Yet, perhaps in this late capitalist age of rationalization, there is an uncanny form of personalization. Perhaps over-personalization.The political flaneur might seem like a detached figure. But insouciant detachment is not allowed either. He has to be forcibly (or otherwise) attached. (After all, the detached is always a threat given the fear of “external influences.”) A personalization within rationalization is the way to go. If Big Brother could, instead of looking at people as a mass, gaze at each person from head to toe, he would be very successful indeed.The technologies of efficiency and rationalization could also be the technologies of personalization. The public can access a portal for NSmen. Here, everything seems personalized—whether one likes it or not. This is an example of personalization that really targets each and every individual in the system. This is not just any computer-generated personalization of services. Register in a forum or something else online and you might get a “personalized” email that goes: “Hi Molly Meek, ….” The MIW portal, however, targets an audience that is bound to it by law. No pseudonyms, no account terminations—nothing of this sort. You can be sure the system knows exactly who you are. Everything looks personal: MyMIW, MyUnit, etc. There is even a link that goes: “My very own Personalized Page for NS transactions and activities” (underlining mine). (I presume it is safe to cite these instances since the page to which I refer is accessible to the general public.) The last instance almost looks as if it were screaming out at the target audience about how personal the system really is. The technology does away, one supposes, with tedious administrative processes. This is rationalization. At the same time, it does not target an undifferentiated mass. It has the capacity of catering itself to each individual. The more highly personalized it gets, the more deeply one is interpellated into the system. Every click on a My--- link becomes an acknowledgement of the specific individual’s place within the system. And, often enough, the use of the portal is inevitable. The reach of the state goes right down to specific individuals.4. What experiences?How does one speak of experience in this age of rationalized personalization? The technologies of personalization could even provide platforms for speaking about experiences, albeit in pre-determined ways again thanks to mechanisms of (self-)censorship. One could speak about one’s experiences, but speech could inadvertently be co-opted when by the pre-determined modes of enunciation.In a Today article, incidentally in the “Voices” section that I have previously mentioned, Benjamin Lee (or Mr. Miyagi) discusses the latest controversy involving blogs—the controversy over NSmen blogging about NS. Lee had removed his online posts about his reservist stint but has also restored them after obtaining permission. The issue here is not one about not allowing or restricting NSmen from posting about NS. After all, it is understandable that there are concerns about security breaches. What I’m concerned with is that NSmen are actually allowed to blog about NS. While I do not object to such sort of blogging, I find the situation uncanny.Lee puts the stand of his superiors this way: “There was no formal warning per se, but rather, a reminder from my commanders that while the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) encouraged people to talk about their national service experience, individuals had to be mindful of operational security — like the effectiveness of the SAF's weaponry — when doing so.” People are encouraged to talk about their national service experience. “I've since restored my blog posts, following consultation with my NS unit superiors, who, together with their superiors, agreed that while I should have asked for permission to post photographs first, there weren't problems with the posts about army life,” Lee writes.People are encouraged to talk about their national service experience, but they might go through a chain of command that will determine if the contents are permissible. I don’t see why Lee’s online posts would be deemed offensive or objectionable either. After all, there is ultimately an acceptance of national service despite jibes here and there. Photographs of the reservist experience simply situate him as an interpellated subject who is accepting or at least resigned to his lot. But what would have happened if, instead of lightheartedly blogging about his reservist stint, he had blogged seriously about conscription as (for example and purely as an example) an oppressive mechanism and said that he feels enslaved and miserable enough to kill himself?My speculation is that, as long as the message could ultimately be co-opted, the system would tolerate it. Why not? The more you speak of your experiences, the more you are entrenching the system. The NSmen’s jibes at NS become a part of our way of life, the necessary pre-condition for the jibes being that NS is accepted in the first place.A few jibes here and there do not hurt when you have already got people to do your bidding.Even the hypothetical example that I have given could possibly be “acceptable.” If it ever sees light, one could be sure that there would be lots of understanding members of the “authorities” who express sympathy while weaving the issue into one of necessity.Can the subaltern speak?As Lee mentions, a foreign paper constructed the latest blogging controversy (which perhaps never was) as the latest move by the authorities to impose restrictions on blogging.Lee himself, having been allowed to post his entries, gladly and truthfully declares that NSmen are not barred from sharing their experiences.I don’t know what happened to the other two servicemen who were warned about posting articles and pictures of the Australian exercise.I don’t know about those who have unexpressed frustrations that neither foreign papers not the local media (Lee himself included) speak to/for? A frustration beyond the curtailment of free expression, beyond the rhetoric of necessity and the limits of acceptability?Where is the silent subaltern?Where is the speaking subaltern whose speech have been spun into the web of other discourses? 5. Breaking your Spirit, Breaking your Heart, Losing your MindWhen your experiences are factored into the dominant discourse, perhaps madness is the only recourse?I cannot complete this article for I’m still burdened with sanity. And I’m fatigued. Spirit broken, Heart too;What of the mind?Even s/he who runs from darkness in the night (to borrow an idea from XenoBoy) will eventually see daylight because the night is never eternal. Yet, how many have experienced running away from the cycles of day/night? The Twits Let's revisit our childhood by recalling a tale by Roald Dahl, The Twits.The twits were an English couple with the last name "Twit" and they aspired to have an upside-down monkey circus. They had a family of monkeys locked up in a small cage and these monkeys had to stand upside-down as part of their training. (What a distorted worldview imposed on the monkeys!)The Twits ate Bird-pie every Wednesday although I believe the monkeys didn't even get peanuts.In the end, the Twits were outwitted when the monkeys' friend, the Roly-Poly Bird came to their rescue. (External influences are bad!)The monkeys took their revenge by turning the Twits' house upside-down. To re-orientate themselves, the Twits put their heads to the ground and got glued to the ground.I want a Roly-Poly Bird. A Verbose Entry Expressing My Loss For Words A 49-year-old pianist, Melvyn Tan, has been fined $5000 for evading National Service about three decades ago.Before one applauds the unfailing state mechanism or scampers to a corner out of fear, it is interesting to first examine the disastrous reactions amongst some of the 25 people polled by The Sunday Times.In the article “Did pianist Melvyn Tan get off too lightly?”, More than half (13 out of 25) people “felt that Mr Melvyn Tan should do time, one way or another.” An excellent way of phrasing the survey question, in my opinion. Whether your answer is “Yes” or “No,” you are agreeing that Melvyn Tan has to be punished and that The System is right. A punishment for a wrong against him something everyone has been conditioned to believe is wrong. Yes, effectively, everyone believes in Tan’s guilt. Therefore Tan is not only liable legally, but also liable morally, ethically, publicly. In the same article, it is revealed that “[s]ome were in favour of a short jail sentence, while others wanted him to do two years of national service.” Yes, a 49-year-old doing two years of National Service. Perhaps I should write in to the press to demand specifically that he serves two years of COMBAT service. After all, following the suggestions of people who wanted him to serve two years of national service, it would not make sense to simply give him any position. For if any position were to count as National Service, people might start demanding that they serve their national service that way.Incarceration might, of course, be the better option. For he who does injustice to The System needs to be punished. The notion of deterrence might ironically be even more pertinent here than in the case of the death penalty.One cannot help but be impressed by the myopia people who “argued that a mere fine would be unfair to those who had spent two years of their life serving NS.” 1. Is this to be taken to mean that fairness is not inherent in The System, but has to be established by the incarceration of someone who has gone against The System? No. It is not possible. Isn’t the system always Fair and Equal?2. Or should we slam these people for implicitly suggesting that NS is not a very desirable experience (for, if it weren’t, why would it be so unfair that someone did not serve).Or perhaps both the above questions have to be thrown into the rubbish bin as soon as possible. The pro-incarceration camp “also brought up examples of how their friends, who had been charged for being absent without official leave, had to do time in the detention barracks.” Dear readers, I don’t know what to say. Thus, allow me to digress and talk about something else entirely unrelated. Since people like to bring up their friends, I also wish to talk about my friends.I have a female friend who was raped by her stepfather. To be fair, I think all stepdaughters need to be raped by their stepfathers. If I could convince enough people of this rationale, perhaps one day all stepdaughters would be raped.Ok, let me get back to the issue before I get slammed for digressing. After all, Digression is a patented style of the Livejournal Molly Meek. “Many also felt that even if Mr Tan had paid the maximum fine of $5,000, the amount was not enough to deter people from committing such an offence.”I have already mentioned deterrence. But did I mention that the people want this mechanism of deterrence so that they themselves would be deterred from committing the heinous sin of evading NS? From the people, by the people, for the people. The state apparatus can relax in the latest Osim massage chair or in the latest aromatherapy spa since it no longer needs to do much manual work these days. The article quotes a 24-year-old man (whom, I presume, has been through a minimum of 2 years of NS or even 2.5 years of it) as saying: “Money is no problem, everyone can pay the money.” This is right. Everyone can pay the money although, if your mind is as warped as mine, you might ask if everyone who can pay the money has the same chance to pay the money.I suddenly have a mental block. Allow me to talk about my friends again. I had two friends, May and June, who liked to canoe. Once, May wanted to canoe northwards and June wanted to canoe southwards. They ended up fighting and both fell into the sea and drowned. They were in the same boat, you see.Let me get back to the topic. An 18-year-old student said that Tan “should not be let off lightly just because he is an accomplished pianist.” Which brings us to the most interesting reply of the day. The argument is that Tan should not be simply fined just because he is accomplished. After all, isn’t NS supposed to be blind to individual merits, backgrounds, etc? Yet, by making such an argument, the 18-year-old is lending his support to The System. NS is natural to him. Probably something as inviolable and fundamental as human rights. Or perhaps not. Human rights are decadent Western human constructs whereas NS is really something basic and unquestionable. Such is the laudable worldview of our youth.No matter what, NS is unquestionable. So is The System. A female student, Amy Foong says that “Tan should not even be fined since he went away to 'nurture his talent'” (paraphrased by article). Perhaps a very enlightening reply. He should not even be fined. This sounds like a radical suggestion, doesn’t it? Yet, the reason Foong gives should reassure The System: since he went away to nurture his talent. Foong is not saying that Tan should not be fined because the State Mechanism should not be working this way. It should be working the way it is working, still. But doesn’t this bring one back to the comment: “He should not be let off lightly just because he is an accomplished pianist”?At this point, I suspect that there are already defensive readers (whatever they are defensive of) pointing fingers at me and accusing me of being anti-NS. Allow me to clarify: this is NOT an anti-NS article. If the gracious reader could pardon me, let me frankly confess that I don’t dare write any article that is anti-NS in the first place. This does not mean that this article is pro-NS or even that it is neutral. In fact, this article is not even about NS. If you need a guiding word, let it be “experience.” What is your experience? What is his/her experience?What sort of experience? Experiences of justice; experiences of oppression. Also, what experiences create your value systems?I have no answer.I have nothing to say.I can't say anything. Understanding Media: The Pretensions of Man TODAY IS THE OFFICIAL LAUNCH OF SIN GALORE, MOLLY MEEK’S NEW BLOG!In an entry in my other journal (yes, I am the Livejournal Molly Meek), I mentioned that, these days, people become the transcendental referent.Why the death penalty (whether you are for or against it matters no more)? It’s to protect the people.Why ban gay events? It’s because the people are conservative and cannot accept gays.Why consider a workfare bonus? It’s for the people who are poor. Though some might suspect that any workfare bonus would not be created for the poor as much as the poor are invoked for giving the bonus.Now, what happens when the press is not free? It’s the people who are supposed to play the role of the free press. At least, Today journalist Dharmendra Yadav thinks so in his article, “It’s your job to serve as a check” (11 November 2005).To be precise, perhaps I should not say that the people are the ultimate referent as much as they are the ostensible ultimate referent. If the hierarchy or structure of power could be compared to a mountain, the referent being the pinnacle, then the people belong to the other end of the pinnacle—the soil that bears the weight of the entire mountain.In a nutshell, Yadev’s argument in his own words is that:“Voters must take on the burden of ensuring a corruption-free government, in a situation where the media does not.”In the process of his argument, he assumes that the voters do not rely on a free press for information that would help them play the role of the Fourth Estate. He assumes, it would seem, also that, where the media plays the role of the Fourth Estate, the voters do not play any such roles—that is, the role of a free media and the role of the people to ensure a corruption-free government are distinct rather than inseparable. He assumes also that, in Singapore, although the media is not free, the voters are.Or perhaps the third assumption is not an assumption but an illusion intended for the naïve reader. This, then, would precisely pinpoint Yadev’s argument itself. When the press (which at this point seems to be self-confessedly not free) propagates naivety amongst the very people that are supposed to replace the press’s disavowed role of the skeptic, what sort of check can the people serve?Furthermore, one might be inclined to contend that the argument insidiously reduces the people to a role by defining them as voters—a single role that homogenizes people. An undifferentiated mass, to use a good old cliché. People are not just voters. In they are truly allowed to express themselves, they are not going to be homogeneous. There will be different interest groups and different interest groups might peacefully lobby for their causes through media. Yet, if the media were not free, would not these people be crippled? Media is perhaps not merely the extensions of man; insofar as the media could cripple the human political animal by its unavailability as a resource, it is inseparable from man.To construct the Fourth Estate as a substitutable position is to do violence to the structure of a democratic society, a violence that is possible perhaps because democracy is alien to the perpetrator of this violence. The effect of this violence is to deny the people access to this alien structure—perhaps not to deprive the people of a fulfillment of their desire, but to deny them of their desire altogether.What function does the article serve then? It begins this way:“Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, whom I regard as a political hero of my generation, recently addressed the audience at Today's fifth anniversary dinner on the key issue of media responsibility in Singapore.”This is a valorization of the political center and a reiteration of its stance on media freedom. When did media responsibility become a key issue when the question was one of press freedom? When the political center says so. When does media responsibility become entrenched as the key issue and, in fact, the only issue? When the media itself reiterates the same point. It is also a reiteration of a reiteration. As the article says:“There was nothing new in his [Goh’s] position, since it was something his predecessor, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, had emphasised.“So why reiterate this?”One can read this as “Why does SM Goh reiterate this?” One can also read this as “Why am I reiterating this?”Regardless of the question, the short answer Yadev gives: “In recent months, Singapore has come under criticism yet again from organisations such as Amnesty International.”“Yet again.” A fascinating phrase to use. It simply reeks of the return of the repressed. The need to reiterate ad infinitum arises from the Laius Complex. To prevent the Oedipal usurpation, Laius could, retrospectively, have castrated Oedipus at birth. In this case, the media as the extension, prosthetic or phallus must be denied to the people. The phallus must remain as Laius’ sole prerogative. Nevertheless, residual anxiety remains especially when the status of the phallic media is destabilized—for instance, when you suggest that the phallic instrument has to cease being phallic.“No surprise here that one of the country's elder politicians rose to defend what Singapore stood for,” writes Yadev. One might suggest that, he rose (did anyone miss this Freudian slip?) not really to defend, but to define what Singapore stood for. First define, then defend. The job of defense is, of course, not the job of the ruling elite (to be figurative). Let the likes of Yadev perform the function of defense. This way, every defense would also be a diffusion and intensification of the definition. The defense would also produce new models of signification, still serving the same purpose. The idea of the people serving as the Fourth Estate demonstrates this.But this article is not about press freedom. It is about the people being held responsible for the very conditions of their oppression—conditions over which they have no control.The artificiality of such a responsibility can be shown in another instance of the claim to a fallacious substitutability of the Fourth Estate: the claim that one of the possible ways of checking the government is that the responsibility “falls on the Executive (that is, the Prime Minister and his team), the Legislature (Members of Parliament and, by extension, the electorate) and the Judiciary.” Yadev refers, one supposes, to the notion of a check and balance mechanism by the separation of powers between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. This is a separation generally deemed necessary, but it becomes one that is reduced to being a mere alternative or substitute to having the media as the Fourth Estate. He even naturalizes the unorthodox lack of such a separation of powers:“In Singapore's model, there are legislative prohibitions on the judiciary's powers of review on executive decisions.“In addition, the executive and the legislature have been in the hands of one dominant political party for as long as Singapore has been independent.”The separation should be in the separation of powers. The media as Fourth Estate, the people actively checking the government and the separation of powers are different mechanisms that need to exist together. To turn these three mechanisms into mechanisms that are substitutable for one another is to minimize the potential checks on governmental power.Of course, Yadev’s claim that “[t]he people . . . must hold the elected government accountable for its cleanliness, fairness and efficiency” has a definite appeal. One can call it a truth. One, however, takes exception to the presentation of this truth—a presentation defeats the purpose of the truth itself. Without a sufficiently independent media (if one finds the word “free” ultimately too naïve and without a political system that has an internal check and balance system, how are the people going to have the power to hold the government accountable. In a moment of immense irony, Yadev’s statement sounds like a massive distortion: to hold the government accountable for its cleanliness, fairness and efficiency. Who wants the government to account for these good traits? Why does Yadev not say, instead, that the people needs to hold the government accountable for all its policies and actions (which may or may not be good)?Further violence is inflicted on the people when the article asserts the distortion to be a fact:“This is a fact that all Prime Ministers of independent Singapore have emphasised — citizens must take their right to vote seriously, which is why the right has been linked to administrative decisions such as estate management.The rhetoric of the importance of checking the government, in the above statement, turns into a forceful curtailment of this check itself. The scope of responsibility suddenly widens from media responsibility to the people’s responsibility (to so-called “take their right to vote seriously”). The responsibility has, in an astonishingly magical moment, transformed from the responsibility to check to government to the responsibility to the government. To link the vote to upgrading (or what Yadev sophisticatedly calls the linking of the vote to the “administrative decisions such as estate management) is cleverly turned from that which the people needs to check or question into that which the people needs to be responsible for.How do we know if a group of voters has taken the right to vote seriously? Apparently, we know it from the person for whom the group of voters votes. If they vote for the “wrong person, he is not taking his right to vote seriously. Is this what is means to have the people playing the role of the Fourth Estate?What happens with the news article is simply a rehash of old rhetoric that serves governmental power—except that it is a rehash cleverly (or otherwise) masked as a reminder of the people’s responsibility to check the government, to be the Fourth Estate.The masking is carried to a ludicrous extent when Yadev talks about citizen participation quotes Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi: "The task of nation building does not rest on the government alone. Every Malaysian has an equally important role in ensuring the nation achieves further progress and prosperity." What Yadev calls for is participation indeed. Except that it is a participation that allows each individual to be co-opted into the dominant discourse.The article trivializes the need for various checking mechanisms. Just let the people do the job, the article seems to say. Then it effaces even this last remaining mechanism. Yet, what really makes the article chilling is the note at the end of the article: “The writer, a corporate counsel, contributes in a personal capacity.” The article is not top-down propaganda, I would suggest. With such initiatives at the “lower levels,” what happens? Perhaps the state-controlled press itself is already a myth. Perhaps the state has even been freed from the trouble of controlling.The mountain is not getting any lighter.------------------------------------------------------------*The blogger contributes this article in an impersonal capacity and holds no claims to rigorous analysis or truthful evaluation. Every statement is potentially a joke. The blogger, like Yadev, takes the right to vote seriously for the blogger believes in proper estate management. Cyclical Time In SingaporeTime is cyclicalEvery seventh monthGhosts rise from belowCommandos fall from aboveThe Rally invades every TV In Singapore Time is cyclicalIn the seventh monthThe ghosts get goodiesAnd so do ITime is cyclicalAfter the seventh monthThe ghosts get reincarnatedThough I don'tTime is cyclicalAfter the seventh monthIcy ICT cycles still haunt meTime is cyclicalEverything repeatsEspecially price hikes The Gift of Freedom and Responsibility The Gift of Freedom and ResponsibilityWorking Title: Structure and Play in the Discourse of the MIW"Do not get me wrong. I do not favour a subservient press. An unthinking press is not good for Singapore. But press freedom must be practised with a larger sense of responsibility and the ability to understand what is in or not in our national interests."Editors need to understand what their larger responsibilities entail and to demand them of their journalists. Editors and journalists must have high personal integrity and sound judgment -- people who understand Singapore's uniqueness as a country, our multi-racial and multi-religious make-up, vulnerabilities and national goals."By this, I mean that our editors and journalists must be men and women who know what works for Singapore and how to advance our society's collective interests.""Capturing readership is an important goal but to do so through sensational coverage is not the right way. The media is free to put across a range of worthy different viewpoints to encourage constructive social and political discourse. It should not parrot the government's position. It would lose its credibility if it tries to be the government's propagandist. A discredited media would not serve our national interests."Senior Minister, Mr. Goh as quoted by Channel Newsasia in “Singapore media must practise responsible press freedom: SM Goh”CNA ArticleIndeed, it is heartening to have these words coming from a prominent politician. Perhaps this is because of truth-producing powers of any constructed political center. What other effect does the speech really need in any case? Or, more specifically, what effect does such a speech from the center need at this point in time? Looking at the speech synchronically, the center is structuring a relief, a consolation or an assurance. Of course, speeches are not really meant to be looked at. But let as cast this doubt aside first. The relief relies, even if somewhat ironically, on difference. It is relief only because it alleviates the anxiety of incompletion by defining the system as a complete whole instead of being a deficient other. The assurance is one of a completion based on an illusory difference. Since the assuring or reassuring performative, in fact, imposes on the relieved an inevitable misrecognition, the relieved must not be given a chance to see the misrecognition or neurosis would once again come into play. Hence, the relieved has to be blind(ed). But the relieved, despite being blind, also has to refuse to be looked at lest it turns from a constructed subject to an object of study (though, in fact, the difference itself is only imaginary in this case). Hence, the speech and its effects are not to be looked at. The suggestion to look (or attempt to look) at the speech and its function is thus necessary.In looking at the speech, it is possible to see that the effect of the speech is not necessarily the function of the speech. In fact, the effect of the speech serves the function of the speech which now remains to be surfaced. To put things simply, the mechanism at work (we can speak of a mechanism because it has already been constructed) is that of the center reaffirming itself as the center by showcasing its significationary capacity. This might then suggest (again ironically) that the center bears the initial anxiety, but diffuses it through or projects it to the rest of the system and then proceed to repress the anxiety. By doing so, the center consolidates its centrality by constructing itself as the ultimate referent.The synchronic perspective makes things seem somewhat too benign to be true for it is not always unwelcome to have relief in place of anxiety. If we look at the speech diachronically, however, we would see the play of signification by the center. At one point, the center confers relief; at another point, it could very well inflict fear and discipline instead. The play is not in the center, but nevertheless is by the center. Playing is, in an ironical and paradoxical sense, the prerogative of the center. The center stabilizes the structure by playing with what it structures. What it says is responsible, is responsible. What it says is worthy, is worthy and can only be worthy. Change the words “responsible” and “worthy” to “national interest,” “societal interests,” “sound judgement” or whatever else and the same rule applies. The center is thus both the transcendental signifier and the transcendental signified—if such a distinction is sensible at all. In short, the effect of the speech is inconstant. (It might be necessary to clarify that by the phrase “the speech,” I refer not to a particular speech but the speech in general—in all its possible repetitions and variants.) The effect could be relief, fear or discipline (or a combination of any of these) even at any one point in time, but the function of the speech remains the same—that is, to establish and reestablish the centrality of the center. This is a secret so transparent that we might not even realize its presence.What the structure entails for the press, the ostensible subject of the speech, is that its responsibility is a responsibility qua a prosthetic (or perhaps remote controlled) and mechanical arm of the center. It is attached to yet detached from the center; it has no agency over signification (which remains the prejorative of the center proper). In the same Channel Newsasia article, it is mentioned as an instance of press responsibility that “when the JI members were arrested in Singapore in 2002, editors here realised they must not inadvertently portray the arrests as being targetted against a particular community.” Perhaps one could also say that the press must also not portray certain defamation suits as being targeted against opposition politicians (as some human rights watchdogs might allege). The media portrayal—the simulacrum—has to serve the center. The simulacrum, which is famously real, need not and sometimes must not strive towards mimesis. The object of portrayal does not matter. What matters is that the portrayal itself serves what the center defines to be a “collective interest.” The center is the collective as far as it is concerned and it cannot be wrong because there is no collective other than that brought into being by the center.The media qua the attached-detached prosthetic of the center cannot be subservient. Subservience makes it too detached for one could only be subservient to someone else. One could never be subservient to oneself for this would suggest that one also has the agency to go against oneself or to will oneself against one’s will—an impossibility. The gift of freedom is the gift of freedom and responsibility. It is a gift that places the media in a masquerade of relative free play while it is actually actively enhancing the center. This is perhaps also its responsibility.