All good things must come to an end I think the title says it all: blogging activity will cease on this blog soon. No, it’s not because I’m disillusioned with blogging, the state of Singapore’s blogosphere, the state of Singaporean netizens, or the government. Neither is it because I’ve been “asked” by _________ (fill in the blank with a government security organization) to cease blogging. Lots of things have changed since I started this blog in 2006. I graduated with my first degree, started on and am about to complete my second degree, got a job, got a house, got married, developed new interests and most importantly, grew older. It’s not that I’m no longer interested in blogging. It’s just that this blog reflects a chapter of my life and I think it’s time to bring that chapter to an end. Looking back, I’ve dealt with many topics and issues on this blog, and in a fairly disorganized way. It’s going to be a huge mess to reorganize everything on this blog considering how much content there is, so I’m just going to stop updating this blog and start anew. Over the next few months, I’ll most likely roll out a series of specialized blogs based on personal interests. There are a few interests I’ve been pursuing and I would like to blog about them in separate, specialized blogs. If you haven’t realised, I’m not turning in my blogging badge but rather, I’m taking my blogging activity in another direction. This blog will be preserved. There are entries that people still read and comment on, and I want to keep the conversation going. So, comments are still enabled on this blog, and the content will be available for as long as I can afford a web server, but for fresh content, you’ll need to look somewhere else. Once I’m done with reorganization, I’ll update this blog one last time with the locations of the new blogs. It’s been a great ride since 2006, but it’s time for some fresh air. Media Literacy in Asia: New Developments There will be an upcoming conference in June by the International Communication Association, and as part of the conference, there are a series of preconferences, of which this one about media literacy in Asia seems pretty interesting: http://www.icahdq.org/conferences/2010/preconference/cam.asp Note that a registration fee is needed if you are interested to attend. Chickening your way out of bilingualism It’s been a while since I’ve blogged, and it’s not because that I’ve been served with a gag order or something; it’s simply just that I’ve been busy doing loads of other things. I should be writing a little more often now. There’s been quite a huge uproar over Education Minister Ng Eng Hen’s proposal to reduce the weightage of the mother tongue component in the PSLE. It seems to me that one of Ng’s priorities as education minister is to figure out how to reform mother tongue education in Singapore, and I’m most definitely against his current line of thought, which is to make the education path easier for students who are weak in their mother tongue. The reason for me opposing his current line of thought is simple. Education is one of Singapore’s core competencies as a nation, and we cannot let education standards slide. Sure, I recognise the fact that some students have a genuine issue with bilingualism, but that doesn’t mean opening a backdoor for everyone because of a minority of students. Besides, if we have a problem, shouldn’t we solve the problem rather than changing the problem to make the problem easier or removing the problem altogether? I’m wondering if MM Lee is privately rolling his eyes at Ng’s proposed ideas. When Singapore became independent, how many Singaporeans could speak and write English? English education was forced onto Singaporeans in order to get Singapore to succeed. Imagine if Singapore had decided to abandon learning English because Singaporeans felt that it was difficult to learn. Besides, I think we shouldn’t be going soft on students. They have to learn that nothing in life is easy. If something is tough, then we should strive to be tougher. Imagine if your boss hands you a difficult task and you tell your boss it’s too difficult for you. Do you think he’ll make the task easier for you? I don’t think so. It’s either you find out how to do it, or he’ll get someone else to do it. If we don’t find out how to effectively teach our children to be bilingual, other countries will find out how to do it for their own children, and guess who loses? Migrant workers should not be denied the right to know their rights This is a pretty interesting blog entry from a Today journalist about the evil things rogue employers of migrant workers do to those they hire. Some of the ridiculous terms in the contracts, according to that entry, include: A $100 fine for raising one’s voice at the employer. A $500 fine plus a trip to the police station for not surrendering passport to employer. Worker to be liable for legal, transport and administrative costs to the employer if the worker files a complaint against the employer, which can amount to $300 a day. Apparently, many employers seize information booklets prepared by the manpower ministry containing information about rights accorded to migrant workers when they have a chance to in order to prevent migrant workers from being informed of their rights. If such practices are true, then I think it is necessary that the manpower ministry do more to ensure fairer standards for migrant workers. The easiest way is to make it mandatory for employers of migrant workers to attend a short talk about the rights of migrant workers within a week of arrival to prevent rogue employers from denying information by seizing information booklets. You can seize booklets, but you can’t seize information that’s already in the mind. And, the manpower ministry doesn’t have to send an officer to give the talk. Local NGOs that work with migrant workers can be tapped on to give the talk. Migrant workers have their rights too, they should not be denied the right to know their rights. Poor Jack Neo Sure, Jack Neo did have an affair, and that’s not socially acceptable for a married man. However, is he the perpetrator or is he the victim? My belief is that to a large extent, he’s more of a victim. That 22-year-old Wendy Chong actually had the gall to turn up at Neo’s home to apparently demand meeting Neo’s wife. And wow, she actually alerted the media to a meeting between Neo, Neo’s wife and herself. I can think of plenty of impolite terms to describe such a woman but let’s just say that I think the actions of Wendy Chong indicates that she’s not completely innocent. I do believe that Neo was psychologically vulnerable at the point in time when he started the affair for whatever reason, and he just fell into a honey trap. Even if Neo wasn’t psychologically vulnerable at that time, the fact that Neo tried to end the affair showed that he came to his senses, but guess what, the spotlight is on his moment of indiscretion rather than his moment of discretion. Well done, Singapore newspapers! My personal convictions aside, I just hope that the entire Singapore shut up about this topic, especially the mass media. His dirty linen has been hung out to dry for all and sundry, and what other lurid details do ordinary citizens need to know? If anyone wants lurid stuff for kicks, just go to google.com and do a search. I assure that you’ll find much better stuff out there. Right now, I’m glad that there’s at least a silver lining: Neo’s wife has been very calm and gracious about the matter, and I really applaud her for that. Seriously, this whole affair is the domain of Neo and his wife, so the rest of Singapore should stop sticking their fingers into the pie of someone else. Do we really need to devote more attention to his affair and put their marriage at further risk? If at all possible, Neo’s wife should issue a statement to the media and tell the kaypoh Singaporeans to shut up. Random thoughts on public housing The topic of public housing seems to be really hot these days. There was a news report about skyrocketing cash over valuation, and the Law Minister weighed in on how he thinks permanent residents are not to blame for skyrocketing prices. The Minister for National Development, Mah Bow Tan, seems to be reassuring Singaporeans pretty often these days that the prices of HDB flats will be affordable. Public housing has always been at the heart of Singapore politics. Right from the early days of independence, the PAP has always used public housing as one of its key offensives against rival political parties, and public housing has always been to be a reliable ally at the ballot box. Food, jobs and shelter are the basic necessities of life, and if the ruling political party that cannot provide these adequately, it can almost be assured of decimation at the ballot box. Whether public housing can continue as a reliable ally for the PAP in the next election remains to be seen. Skyrocketing HDB prices are causing lots of concerns, especially among the young and newly married. While Mah has constantly assured Singaporeans that public housing are, and will remain, affordable, my chats with peers indicates a general consensus that HDB flats are too expensive. There seems to be a disconnect between what the PAP thinks and what the average person on the street deems as affordable public housing. I think the other political parties are going to have a field day at the next elections with the issue of increasingly costly public housing. If I don’t recall wrongly, Chiam See Tong said he intends to contest in a GRC in the next election, and it is mouthwatering to imagine him going to Tampines GRC, the turf of Mah, who, as a political rookie, lost to Chiam. Mah now seems to be one of the more politically vulnerable ministers with the on-going concerns about public housing prices. I do think that the government should try and hold public housing prices steady. Right now, it seems that there’s a vicious cycle of greed going through the public housing open market. Sellers are trying their luck as to how cut throat they can be, and those who desperately need a roof over the head simply have no choice but to give in. Of late, I have been seeing fliers and posters by property agents advertising up to $50,000 cash over valuation in my area, Jurong West, by so-called “serious and immediate” buyers who are PRs or new citizens. I do understand that these folks need a roof over the head too, and it is an urgent need since they’re already here in Singapore. The problem is that when such high cash over valuations are blatantly advertised and newspapers continually publish pieces of news on record home prices, many who own a HDB flat will think that this is the norm. As some people say, “If you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth”. So, the vicious cycle of greed will continually perpetuate as people believe the values of their homes will rise indefinitely. And, most people should know the danger of believing that housing or stock prices will rise indefinitely: a bubble. I leave it to the economics experts to discuss this because I’m no expert on bubbles, but the rate of increase of public housing prices seems abnormal to me. I’m a little lucky, having bought my place at the tail end of the post SARS property market slump/start of the current property market boom. In a short span of less than three years, prices of flats in my area have almost doubled, and I doubt that salaries have increased that much (at least mine hasn’t). Ok, enough rambling. What I really want to say is that I hope the government tries to keep public housing prices steady. I do think it’s time for some form of intervention in the public housing market, especially when elections could be round the corner. The reliable public housing political ally seems to have developed an Achilles heel, and it would be a good idea to do something about that heel. Tackling the Malay-Muslim underclass issue The moment I thought about writing on the topic of the Malay-Muslim underclass issue after reading this article by Zul Othman in TODAYonline, I knew that I’m going to have to walk the tightrope really carefully. Some people might not take kindly to someone of an ethnic group commenting on the problems of another. So, before I continue, I would like to clarify that what follows are comments based on the standpoint of an outsider, and if my observations are wrong, I am more than happy to stand corrected. In his article, Zul Othman notes the many problems of the Malay-Muslim underclass, such as “the high number of Malay-Muslims in drug rehabilitation centres and prisons, or rampant youth delinquency, promiscuity and teen pregnancies.” A social worker who was interviewed for the article said despite their best efforts, there are just too many families to help and too few resources available to help everyone. I guess the problem is pretty much overwhelming, but I do think the situation is going to get worse in the future, unless something can be done about the size of the families of the Malay-Muslim underclass. It is my personal observation that, relative to other Singaporean ethnic groups, Malay families tend to be much bigger, and it is going to be much more difficult to give necessary parental guidance to a large number of children, especially for the poorer families where the parents probably have to spend most of their time working to make ends meet in the family. I’ve talked to Malay-Muslim friends about the relatively large size of their families, and hearing their explanation, I appreciate why Malay-Muslims value large families. However, from a pragmatic outsider standpoint, it seems to me that having many kids is likely to result in insufficient parental supervision, and that is a probable reason as to why the Malay-Muslim community is currently experiencing such issues. I personally see no reason why the Malays should lag other ethnic groups in areas such as education. I think the biggest problem really is that resources within the Malay-Muslim underclass family have been stretched too thin, thus hindering the development of the children in these families to their fullest potential. A generation ago, the Chinese folks had pretty large families too, but it appears there was a paradigm shift (largely helped by the stop at two policy) and Chinese families tend to be very much smaller nowadays, so each child gets more resources to develop his/her potential. If there is one thing that must be done now, it is to encourage the Malay-Muslim underclass to have a more manageable family size. All things being equal, a smaller number of kids will mean that each child will get more resources and attention, which may reduce the number of delinquent youths. In fact, it’s not just the Malay-Muslim underclass that should keep family size manageable; everyone who’s intending to start families should give some thought about what’s a manageable family size. And personally, I think three kids, plus minus one, is a nice number. Why Singaporeans need to generate more babies The most common reasons cited by Singaporeans for not wanting to have more children are that they are too busy with building a career and that it is expensive to raise kids in Singapore. It is clear that economic realities of living in modern day Singapore makes couples think a lot more about having kids. However, the other costs of a low national fertility rate to the native Singaporean is much higher. The main reason is simple. Low birth rates means that the government will continue to be more liberal in allowing foreigners to come here as PRs or citizens. And, unlike the times of our forefathers, Singapore today is unlikely to allow the naturalization the peasant, the construction worker or the cleaning lady. The Singapore government wants talents, or in the absence of talent, rich people. The natural result is that native Singaporeans get squeezed in the job markets and the housing markets. Young Singaporeans like myself are now squeezed particularly hard in the housing markets because these PRs or new citizens come in either not knowing the local real estate market or having too much cash to burn, start offering high prices for property, driving property prices upwards. As for the employment landscape, that doesn’t need much explaining; it’s a demand and supply problem. It’s not just the jobs and ever rising property prices. Later on, the kids of native Singaporeans are going to face fiercer competition for good Singaporean schools. Parents will have to end up forking more money for tuition classes and other enrichment classes to improve the odds of their kids getting into a good school. The PRs and new citizens will probably do the same thing too, so the only winners will be tuition teachers. I am not against a liberal immigration policy, nor is this blog entry intended to engender any form of discrimination against PRs or new citizens. In fact, I like a more diverse Singapore, but the speed at which we are allowing immigration in order to counter low birth rates is certainly detrimental to native Singaporeans, especially those on the lower rungs of the education ladder or the workforce, and the best solution is to bring Singapore’s fertility levels back up. So, if you want your kid to have a better chance of going into a good school in future, to have more affordable HDB flats and to get good jobs, do him or her a favour by giving your kid a few more brothers and sisters. The thin line between education and propaganda Reading what Law Minister K Shanmugam is proposing for our education system, the alarm bells went off in my head. He’s proposing to educate Singapore students about politics, and while he has added a disclaimer that he is not in favour of championing a political system over another, it seems to me that ultimately, the aim is to influence students to think that the liberal democracy practised in Europe and America is not applicable to a city-state such as Singapore. Part of Shanmugam’s remarks can be found here: http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_467653.html. For the full story, you’ll need to buy a copy of the Straits Times. Please leave political education out of the mainstream education system. The reason why I say this is simply because no matter how well meant the intentions are, I believe that it will turn into political propaganda, and putting politics into the classroom is very dangerous. I’m sure the PAP leaders know this very well from Singapore’s experience with communism and Chinese schools a few decades ago. I firmly believe that sensitive topics such as politics and religion should be left out of the mainstream education system. And besides, engaging in political education is a double edged sword. The PAP seems to be getting unsettled and nervous at how younger and better educated Singaporeans are embracing the liberal democratic style of governance in other countries. The way to tackle this is not political education, but rather to understand the reasons behind such a trend and address those reasons. Otherwise, the PAP is risking a backlash of magnitude that is unpredictable, especially if people perceive the education effort to be propaganda and increase their resistance to the political status quo. Political education in schools is not the magic bullet to resolving dissatisfaction by younger Singaporeans with the current style of governance. This approach is fraught with huge political risks and openly hands other political parties a loaded gun to shoot the PAP with, especially when it’s so poorly disguised. HDB flats and the illusion of wealth The escalating prices of HDB flats is in the spotlight once again with MM Lee’s remarks about HDB flats increasing in price since independence, and that the upward climb will continue into the future. The Singapore government, from time to time, uses the rising prices of HDB flats as an indicator of the rising affluence of Singaporeans. Most Singaporeans own at least one piece of property, the HDB flat, and with the increasing prices of HDB flats, the implication is that Singaporeans are becoming more and more affluent. I personally think the rising prices of HDB flats across the board is merely an illusion of wealth for the owner. The reason is pretty simple. The flat is worthless in actual monetary terms unless it is exchanged for cash, i.e. sold. Paper value isn’t exactly real money. The best part is that, most Singaporeans only own ONE HDB flat. If they sell their HDB flat, they’ll need another one to stay in. If the price of HDB flats keeps climbing upwards, even if you make a profit from selling, because of the fact that you have to buy another flat to get a roof over the head, most of that profit will vaporise because you have to pay a high price for a new flat. If people keep on believing that their flats are worth lots of money, the logical result is that there will be an upward spiral in flat prices. How sustainable this upward spiral is, that’s anybody’s guess. With an upward spiral of flat prices, the biggest winners are not the people who own HDB flats, but the government and property agents. I personally do not see a solution for this upward spiral of prices, other than trying to contain the speed of the increase. The reason is because it is politically suicidal to force down the prices of HDB flats after years of telling Singaporeans that their flats are valuable assets. Furthermore, with all the upgrading schemes that’s going on that are being marketed as flat value enhancers, even an old HDB flat will not be cheap. Cheap public housing is not possible in Singapore anymore. This is why the ministers are very judicious in their choice of words these days, describing HDB flats as “affordable”. If you own one HDB flat that’s worth a few hundred thousand dollars, you are not wealthy at all, especially when most flats are around the same price. You are only wealthy if you can make someone cough out 600 to 700 thousand dollars for your flat and then buy one for 300 to 400 thousand dollars. What are the odds of that happening? An update on future blog updates I will be updating this blog much less frequently for the next year ,as I will be preparing for my Chinese customary wedding and dinner banquet, which is scheduled for December 2010. For long time readers, you should already know that I’ve been legally married more than two years ago, but my wife and I have held back our customary wedding because we weren’t financially ready to bear the high costs of a banquet back then. I wouldn’t say that I’m now completely financially comfortable, but at least it’s not so bad. I’ll be updating a new blog I’ve set up specially for my Chinese customary wedding more frequently than this blog, so if you want to keep in touch with what’s happening in my life, head on over to the new blog, which primarily chronicles the steps towards holding a Chinese customary wedding, as well as the heartaches and happy moments that occur in between. Sexism in newspapers I first came across this story about 22 people caught in Malaysia for indulging in a sex orgy on the Straits Times’ website. The headline of the Straits Times version of the story is “3 women caught at sex orgy”. After I read the story, I found out that the three women were Malaysian, and they were caught for prostituting themselves to 19 Bangladeshi men in a sex orgy. I got annoyed after learning the whole story because I couldn’t understand why the focus was on the women. The headline was plainly sexist. Later, I realised the story was attributed to The Star, a Malaysian newspaper. So, I went to search for the original story that appeared on The Star, and the headline, “Three women caught at sex orgy with 19 foreigners”, was a little better than the Straits Times, although it was still sexist because the headline explicitly mentioned the word ‘women’ but not ‘men’. I don’t understand why the focus of the story had to be on the women. The Bangladeshi men are equally guilty of committing the offence. Why can’t the headline be gender neutral, such as “22 people caught for sex orgy”?. The fact of the matter is that there were 22 people involved in the act, so why did the papers decide to highlight the role of the women in the offence? In fact, the newspapers should highlight the alleged pimp and mastermind of the orgy, a 56 year-old man. Sheesh. I can’t speak for the Malaysian papers, but I think the Straits Times editors should have had more sense to change the headline for re-publication. Our One-Party Democracy The title of this entry was copied word for word from the headline of Thomas Friedman’s op-ed column on the New York Times a few days back, and the reason for borrowing his headline word for word is because it aptly describes the situation here in Singapore too, although there are definitely some differences. In his column, Friedman acknowledged that a one-party autocracy by an enlightened group of leaders can have enormous benefits for citizens, and he used China as a shining example of the advantages of having a one-party autocracy, contrasting it with the currently dysfunctional (at least in my opinion) two-party democracy in America where the smaller party is constantly obstructing progress for the sake of obstruction while the bigger party is trying to create progress for the country, hence the term one-party democracy. Actually, the one party democracy Friedman describes is not exactly unworkable. The problem in the United States now is that the Democratic Party is not dominant enough to completely ignore the Republicans. In Singapore, we have a one-party democracy that provides the same benefits as a one-party autocracy as stated by Friedman. Singapore does not have a problem with policy obstructionism simply because the Other is simply too weak to provide any decent challenge. Does this then mean that a one-party democracy, Singapore style, is the ideal form of governance? Actually, I think so, provided that voters can cause the political pendulum to swing the other way when the need arises, for example, like what has happened in Japan recently. The only dangers in the Singapore-styled one party democracy are acts behind the shadows that are against the values of democracy. Don’t be mistaken, though. There are great benefits of Singapore’s one-party democracy, but I still believe that the two dominant party democracy of the United States is still slightly better. However, after further contemplation, it really doesn’t matter whether it’s one-party, two-party, multi-party democracy, or even a monarchy, for so long as those in power use their positions to create a better life for everyone in society. At the end of the day, perhaps it’s pointless to argue over which style of governance is best, for everything is moot if those in power possess narrow, selfish interests. The short supply of empathy in Singapore While I’ve been ranting about the Straits Times pretty often of late, being the most decent English newspaper on this island, I have no choice but to read it for local news, and this piece of news about a man jailed for pitching and living in illegal tent was rather disturbing to me. I do not know the complete facts of the case, but assuming the newspaper report is accurate, this man pitched a canvas tent at East Coast Park in 2007 without a valid license, and he lived there for a month before being discovered and apprehended by park rangers who presumably handed him over to the police, and then the attorney-general’s chambers decided to proceed with the case, resulting in the fine which became a 4 day jail term because of inability to pay the fine. The reason for this man living in a tent is apparently homelessness and unemployment. And in that month he lived outdoors, he claimed he seldom ate, subsisting on food that friends would bring from time to time. I believe these information should have been given to the police, who would have in turn passed it on to the AGC. While I understand that this man has indeed broken a law and legal prosecution is completely justified, surely some empathy could have been shown in deciding whether to charge this person. The justice system worked flawlessly in this case, but what this person needs is not a fine nor jailing; what he needs is social assistance to deal with the source of his transgression of the law. The justice system is not the antidote to this problem. This is not the way to build a more inclusive and gracious society. And yes, a more inclusive and gracious society needs a greater supply of empathy, and of course, the participation of the justice system too. It’s a sad story to read. Tolerance versus understanding This year’s National Day Rally speech is interesting because of the amount of time devoted to the topic of racial and religious pluralism in Singapore. There is no doubt that many people are still concerned about the state of the economy, and the prime minister would do well to dwell on that issue at length, but instead, a choice was made to devote a considerable amount of time on the issues of race and religion, issues which have not been publicly dealt with by the head of our government for a good number of years. I am most certainly pleased that the prime minister has chosen to discuss the topic candidly and respectfully. Racial and religious harmony can never be taken for granted, and it is necessary to bring this topic onto the public agenda from time to time, lest we forget the painful lessons of our history. However, the content was pretty much predictable, toeing established government lines on race and religion, but well, what else can we expect from this occasional flogging of a dead horse? The prime minister has outlined the various government efforts to maintain race and religious harmony in Singapore in terms of the punitive legislative measures, behind the scenes efforts to engage religious leaders and mediation efforts to amicably resolve conflicts, nipping potential flash points in the bud. However, I think what is more important is to cultivate a sense of understanding in Singaporeans with regards to race and religion, and not just mere tolerance. Tolerance in my opinion, especially in the context of race and religion, simply means suppressing one’s objections or discomfort. A person can be racially tolerant, but it does not mean that person is not a racist. I am willing to bet to my last dollar that there are racists and religious extremists in Singapore who do not express their feelings outwardly because they don’t want to be thrown into jail under Singapore’s strict racial and religious harmony laws. These people can be said to be tolerant, but is this a satisfactory outcome? What will happen if the strong mandate of the state vanishes? What we need is to engender understanding rather than tolerance. Easier said than done. It’s really about getting the individual to step out of their comfort zones. A person who always surrounds himself or herself with people of the same race or the same religion is very much less likely to be understanding of other races and religion. The association with people of similar traits is likely to result in the narrowing of one’s thought and thus resulting in diminished racial and religious understanding ability. Forcing people to mix together, especially adults, isn’t a very good idea. It’s easier to do so with children, though. I remember I went to a government primary school, and many of my current friends from other races were made from back then. We played together, laughed together and were punished by our teachers together. At least for me, I didn’t care about race or religion; all I knew was that it was fun to be with everyone, regardless of race and religion. I think the best starting point for racial and religious understanding is during childhood, and the government has to try and make sure that children experience racial and religious plurality at a young age, no matter which schools they are in. I generally don’t support government propaganda and ‘brainwashing’, but I am willing to make an exception for the sake of developing of religious and racial understanding. Consultation on human rights in ASEAN There will be a public consultation workshop on human rights in ASEAN this Saturday at the Novotel Hotel, and it looks like a pretty interesting event for anyone interested in human rights issues in this region. Details of the workshop can be found here (PDF document). Do give the details PDF file a read. Pretty interesting stuff. And if you would like to go, the sign up link is here. Just when I thought I was done ranting about ST I ranted about Straits Times a couple of days ago over the quality of their content, and today I just had to see something to make me rant again. This time, it’s not even about quality of content; it’s about their atrocious quality of writing and editing. Bad content, bad writing and editing. Can our flagship English newspaper sink any lower? Here’s the problematic lead paragraph (original article here): WHILE most offenders appeal in the hope of lowering their sentences, 18-year-old Danny Koh Jia Gui asked an appeal judge to be jailed and caned instead of having to undergo reformative training. The confusing part is in bold. The sentence construction conveys the meaning that Koh had asked for the jailing and caning of the judge instead of asking for the judge to jail and cane Koh. The copy editor was obviously SLEEPING on the job. If I were the copy editor, I would have rewritten the lead paragraph as follows: While most offenders appeal in the hope of lowering their sentences, 18-year-old Danny Koh Jia Gui asked an appeal judge to impose a jail sentence and caning instead of reformative training. The rewritten paragraph has the same number of words with much greater clarity in meaning. Sigh. Update: I just realised the Straits Time put up a rewritten story, and the original that I read was posted up yesterday, but a new version put up today. It seems like they have quality control problems, but as always, they try to secretly change the story and hope nobody notices instead of admitting they screwed up. The first version I read: The second version A convenient excuse for racial stereotyping I read this article on the Straits Times blog after seeing a friend share it on Facebook, and boy I was totally floored and flabbergasted by its content. In short, the author, Luke T Johnson (he’s apparently assistant to the editor), attempted to make the case that racial stereotyping is not always bad. In his words, racial stereotyping can “prove useful, even life-saving”. In order to make such distasteful content palatable, he placed a few paragraphs of disclaimers upfront before narrating in detail a single incident which he was robbed by a Hispanic and two African-Americans, concluding that he would have avoided being robbed if he had done some racial stereotyping. The icing on the cake? Trying to link his incident with the recent Gates-Crowley incident. Total bullshit. It’s bad enough that the Straits Times is often derided as State’s Times, but with this latest piece, I can’t help but wonder if the ST is continuing on its downward devolution into BS Times. Racial stereotyping for the purpose of fear-mongering and perpetuating irrational hate among people can never be justified. One can find murderers, rapists, robbers, burglars, thieves, con men and other kinds of criminals in any racial group. Therefore, what good reason is there to engage in racial stereotyping? Johnson claims that the danger in harbouring racial stereotypes is the possible degeneration of such thinking into “twisted ideologies” but he conveniently drops the discussion of whether racial stereotyping is logical to begin with so as to be able to make his bullshit claim about racial stereotyping being potentially useful. You know, crime is potentially useful too. Burglary is potentially useful because it will make people double bolt their doors, triple lock their windows and install burglar alarms. Shoplifting is potentially useful too. It will make shop owners install security cameras, anti-theft alarm systems and hire security guards, boosting the economy and the labour market. Robbery is also extremely useful to deter people from showing off their expensive Rolexes and Tiffanies. Allowing robbery would be much more effective than throwing money at PR or advertising agencies to come up with a campaign. I rest my case. Comment on Tammy number 2 on porn cousin of YouTube? by Jackie I found your site on del.icio.us today and really liked it.. i bookmarked it and will be back to check it out some more later .. Comment on Racism in Singapore by mimi Hi there. Its interesting to read this thread. I would really like to read more of the POV of everyone but it get really really long and tiring to absorb.My apologies. I am a Malay Singaporean living overseas for more than 9 years. I have to say that Racism is everywhere we go. Its just what type of racism are we talking about. I am lucky that I was never in a situation where I felt my colour was an issue in Singapore but I had in my time overseas been discriminated once while backpacking. Even my Polish husband was discriminated once, which I found ironic in the past because as Asians we always have this stereotype that White people are untouchable, but they are not. On both occasions we were so affected that it took days to get over the shake. In Singapore, I heard many stories where my people have issues getting a job they are qualified for due to the inability to speak Mandarin or their hijabs seemed to be an issue in the job place. Here in Australia, I see waitress in an Italian cafe wearing a hijab, a surf life saver in a hijab which i find very exciting. But then again, I also get very pissed when a friend made a film in Singapore where the main language was not Mandarin, thus immediately was refused support of advertising by the Singapore Government. I believe the refusal of support is due the fact it was in shot in a Chinese Dialect. So, basically, not only Malays are being discriminated. Everyone is. I also have an Indian friend and her father had to screamed at the Head of school, threatened to write to the newspaper in NUS just to let her do her medical degree. Before, she was not offered the place as the quota was full, although she did so well in her scores. Her dad’s persistence to ensure his daughters’ right and dreams actually paid off and now she is a doctor- still a slave to the government of course. I feel this race quota thingy was something that came about to make sure that we have an equal mix of race. It came about as a good intention but sometimes the quota itself acts a racist mechanism yet not at the same time. Its a catch 22, you cant buy that dream flat in Clementi as the Indian quota is filled that month or you cant study to be a lawyer because NUS only allows 2 Malays that year?! At the end of the day. Its a dead end conversation. We are going nowhere. Racism continues as long as humanity survives, unfortunately. I believe colour is not an issue, its the right attitude facing life that matters. And it definitely starts from home. good luck to all. Comment on A private blog is like a virgin whore by Liddy Good points, nice informations … I will bookmark it. Comment on A private blog is like a virgin whore by Baldur Sorry for Off-Topic but: What wordpress theme are you using? It’s looking awesome, please write it in the comments, I’d love to get the theme too. Comment on From iron fist to velvet gloves to boxing gloves by The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Weekly Roundup: Week 28 [...] at Tze Char stalls? - Chemical Generation Singapore: NEWater and New Security - Hear Ye! Hear Ye!: From iron fist to velvet gloves to boxing gloves - TOC: Singapore to have one of the highest defence budget in the world in 2009 - Diary of A [...] Comment on From iron fist to velvet gloves to boxing gloves by sandalman Pardon me if I bring up old material; I haven’t been reading the papers. The idea of Mr Lee going the whole nine yards sure is a nice thought, but I do not think he would do so, when it would spark an outrage among his conservative colleagues. Surely a far more concrete thing that Mr Lee can point to instead as part of his legacy is the economy. I do not think Mr Lee is a closet progressivist who is greatly motivated to liberalise the country, but even if he is, the half-past-six measures that have been implemented so far show only too well what the conservative men in white have managed to agree upon. Imho, I suspect that these changes are a form of damage control, and were implemented to stem a rising brain drain. Comment on From iron fist to velvet gloves to boxing gloves by bacteria What talking u? Lee Kuan Yew still runs the country. LHL dun even have the power to choose the color the shirt he wears. Comment on From iron fist to velvet gloves to boxing gloves by The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Daily SG: 8 Jul 2009 [...] Discourse - Chemical Generation Singapore: NEWater and New Security - Hear Ye! Hear Ye!: From iron fist to velvet gloves to boxing gloves - Diary of A Singaporean Mind: GDP Growth as Progress in Singapore… - Littlespeck: The crisis [...] From iron fist to velvet gloves to boxing gloves Ever since changes to Singapore’s political system was announced a few months back, I’ve been thinking about why the Lee Hsien Loong government has decided to do all these when it is obvious there’s little tangible gain to the PAP from taking a small, liberal step towards reforming our political system. Reactions that followed the announcements of increasing the number of NCMPs, reducing the size of GRCs, increasing the number of single seat constituencies and permanently entrenching the NMP scheme as part of the Singapore political space were drawn along familiar battle lines, with the more belligerent cyberspace facing off against the cheerleading mainstream media. I believe that most arguments for and against these changes have been exhausted, so I’m not going to comment about that. What piqued my curiosity regarding these announcements was the purpose behind them, and I came up with two possible explanations. It’s either the PAP has come to realise that being too politically dominant is is potentially threatening to their own political survival or Lee Hsien Loong is starting to move his chess pieces to secure his legacy in future annals. The more I think about it, the more I am inclined to believe the latter reason is more plausible. Singapore’s first post independence Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, is most remembered for his iron fisted style of governance. In his drive to move Singapore from Third World to First World, Lee adopted a ‘my way or the highway approach’, and while this approach has had admirers, with the more recent ones being the Chinese Communist Party cadres, it has left a bitter taste in the mouths of many Singaporeans. After Lee Kuan Yew came Goh Chok Tong, a leader with a softer personality but with the previous Prime Minister still sitting in Parliament and Cabinet as Senior Minister, and wielding extremely strong influence to boot, there was little Goh could do, so he built his legacy as a Prime Minister by masking the entrenched iron fisted style of governance with a velvet glove. It seems that Lee Hsien Loong has decided against being a carbon copy of Goh and wants to carve out his own unique legacy. My guess is that the announced political changes are part of his plan to cushion the entrenched iron fisted style of governance, changing not just the look but lowering the pain of being punched by an iron fist. I believe there’re probably more changes afoot as Lee Hsien Loong continues to think about his place in future history books. The real question I would like to see answered in the coming years is whether Lee Hsien Loong is willing to stop at donning boxing gloves, or would he be willing to replace the iron first with a gentle fist? Well, maybe he should go the whole nine yards. If everything ends up being upended by the end of Lee Hsien Loong’s tenure, his successor is going to have a difficult time. Comment on The way forward by AWH Keep it going if only sporadically. Fair comment is always needed. Comment on Do we “lack” resources? by kk man power is the giant in universe so we should use it for a better way The meaning of death I’m supposed to be working hard on my Masters thesis, but for the past week, I’ve been spending some time pondering the meaning of death because my wife’s co-supervisor at MIT, Professor David Schauer, suddenly passed away. I’ve not had the chance to know him very well, but the few times I’ve met him and talked to him, it’s clear as day to me that he’s a wonderful person. He’s soft-spoken, patient, kind and caring towards people. He was due to spend a year in Singapore in a few months, and I was looking forward to knowing him better and showing him around Singapore. His departure came as a shock to me, although I’m definitely not as badly affected as my wife and the other members of his lab. However, it did make me ponder the meaning of death, a topic in the deepest recesses of my mind in recent times. And, I think I’ve decided what death means to me. Death is not the mourning of demise, but a celebration of having lived life. When it’s my turn to leave, I hope people who still remember me will smile, and for those who have to shed tears, let it be tears of joy.