Moving on I'm moving on. Thanks for all of your support. I hope to see you again at my new blog. It will offer a wider variety of content; a cleaner, more concise writing style; and, most importantly, a fresh beginning.Until later, then. Climate Change and Choice “In making any law, our chiefs must always consider three things: the effect of their decision on peace; the effect on the natural world; and the effect on seven generations in the future… It is time to move beyond "calls to action" and well-meaning agendas. The forces that are injuring our Mother the Earth are not waiting to create subcommittees, to set dates for meetings, to set budgets… We need no greater challenge than that.”Carol Jacobs, Cayuga Bear Clan Mother, Presentation to the United Nations, 1995 Seven generations from now, the people of Earth will look back on Copenhagen. The next four days will decide how it will be remembered. I do not pretend to know enough about the issues at hand, nor will I stoop to releasing smoke instead of light. But I do think that we are the generation that will decide the future of Earth. Every group is composed of individuals joined by a common factor, be it space, time, ideology, or otherwise. The human race is united by its link to the Earth. We are born on Earth, we live on Earth, and we die on Earth. Food is grown or raised from the earth, directly or otherwise, be it crops or grain for food animals or fish. What happens to Earth happens to we who live on it. While the Earth has tried to compensate for what we have done to it, from deforestation to unchecked industrial pollution to the widespread use of fossil fuels, it can only do so much. Science has given the human race the ability to mould the world to its vision, to overcome the challenges imposed by our physical limitations and difficult terrain. The science of the past, while facilitating human development, has also defeated the Earth’s attempts to regulate itself. Forests in Brazil and Indonesia and elsewhere have been cut down for the cause of growth and profits, for money and consumer goods earned at the price of mere oxygen. It takes long months and ideal conditions for a tree to reach maturity, and a few minutes to cut one down. The effects of environment destruction are not localized, nor do they come without consequences. Deforestation and overgrazing removes the trees and plants whose roots hold topsoil in place. Without the trees, the topsoil is quickly removed by erosion. The soil that is left dries into a fine powder. With neither flora nor terra to lock moisture into the soil, drought follows soon after. Without the shade of green life, the sun is free to heat the air above the dry earth. This heated air produces a region of high air pressure. This superheated, highly pressurised region of air seeks to release the energy it holds; it does this by moving to an area of lower air pressure. This is what is known as wind, and the wind carries with it anything it can pick up. Such as the dry soil. The end result is a dust storm. When these storms pass over farms, they turn the land infertile, forcing the farmers to pack up and go elsewhere to make a living. But dust storms can travel thousands of kilometres, sometimes even crossing entire oceans, so the farmers have to move a long way if they want to remain in the agriculture business. However, everywhere they do the farmers will have to compete with other bankrupt out-of-town former farmers for jobs, in addition to the local unemployed, youths just entering the workforce, and other out-of-towners looking for jobs. As supply of labour outstrips demand for labour, wages are depressed as potential workers demand less and less money to gain employment, and bosses offer less and less money to workers to cut costs, because as fewer people can afford the goods and services the companies produce, the bosses need to reduce prices to retain customers. This escalates into an economic recession. Some of those who cannot find a job turn to crime just to stay alive. Fiction? No. The story of the Dirty Thirties and the American Dust Bowl. And the narrative continues. The government attempts to solve this crisis. And fails. The people become disillusioned with the organs of state. A radical emerges, seeing a chance at last to spread his message. At first he recruits from the poor and disillusioned, who seen in him a way to redemption. The government blocks peaceful methods at change. The group turns to violence. They claim to fight for freedom, justice, and prosperity. The world calls them terrorists. Fiction? Not quite. So far, my research has not unearthed any terrorist groups whose origins are a direct result of adverse climate change. But there are plenty of terrorist groups whose early history is described above: a confluence of inept government, radicalisation, opportunism from social ills, repression, violence. The world still remembers their names: the Irish Republican Army, Umkhonto we Sizwe, al-Qaeda. Here is an alternative narrative. The dust storms have stripped the country of its most fertile land. The nation, for the first time in history, is unable to feed itself. It attempts to import food from elsewhere. But its trading partners are unable to provide enough, and the protectionist policies of the world’s most productive nations stop the country from procuring enough food for all. Appeals to the United Nations are met with endless debates and stalemates. The state comes to believe that the developed world wishes to squeeze every last dollar from its coffers, and turns away from international assistance. In desperation, the government mobilizes the military, and moves to seize its neighbour’s farmland. Fiction? For now. Likely? Well, is it? The Native Americans almost seem to have this scenario in mind when the tradition of the three considerations was entrenched. Their culture is one intrinsically linked with the Earth, in recognition of the fact that everyone is dependent on the Earth, and at the same time have the power to unwittingly harm themselves by harming the world. The United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen stands a chance to prevent all this. The Earth we live on, the peace humanity is striving for, and the fate of the next seven generations, are at stake. But I am not going to hold my breath. I do not intend to wait for COP15 to decide what would happen next. Climate change will be defined at the level of humans and their friends and families. Much has been said on the effects of heavy industry on the environment, but not as much on the industry itself. All industries and businesses, at their heart, strive to define and meet human needs. Cars meet the human need for fast transportation. Ranchers meet the human need for food. Oil meets the human need for energy for heat and light and then electricity. What can we do at the level of individuals? There is, of course, the reduction of one’s carbon footprint. It is a necessary step towards reduction of carbon emissions, which leads to adverse climate change. But more than that, it is time to evaluate our wants and needs; to discard, delay, and downscale what is left; how we can meet our wants and needs; and to change ourselves to meet them. And, to keep in mind the effect of our decisions on peace, the natural world, and the next seven generations. Let’s take nutrition. Humans need so much calories, proteins, vitamins, minerals, and fats, depending on metabolism and activity level. We can eat less than we need, and thereby weaken ourselves – but that deprives us of operating at our maximum capacity. We can eat more than we need, and expose ourselves to the dangers of obesity – high blood pressure, increased risk of heart attacks, and so on. We need to determine how much we need as individuals, and stick to it. Remember that we do not need the food so much as the nutrition it provides. A potato salad is as filling as a hamburger, but they provide different amounts of nutrition, and have different effects on the environment. Choosing to consume organic food from sustainable sources is the best option for the human race, from a nutritional and environmental standpoint. I hesitate to advocate a vegetarian or vegan diet, because it is simply not possible for all peoples: rural villages in the Third World, for example, rely on fishing and hunting as their primary source of protein. The Native Americans did just that, in fact, even as they embraced agriculture. Now let’s look at transport. Take five people who work in the same company and live in the same area. All of them own cars, and drive to work as individuals. While everybody needs to go to work, the average car can hold five people. By carpooling, all of them get to go to work, while cutting down their carbon emissions for transport by four-fifths. Having four other cars is unnecessary in this case, and can be ruled out. Or they could just take public transportation instead of personal vehicles; this further reduces individual carbon emissions, because one vehicle is ferrying dozens of people instead of just one or two or five. Everything mentioned above is defined by how one meets one’s needs and wants. More than that: how one defines one’s needs and wants. I may want the very latest in technology, such as a computer. But I do not need the latest computer when less advanced ones will suffice. So far, and for the forseeable future, I need only the ability to type on a word processor, a decent Internet connection and browser, the ability to watch videos online, and I’ll be satisfied. Yes, I want the ability to play the latest games, watch and burn DVDs, edit photographs, fire up a webcam, and store gigabytes or terabytes of music and video. But I do not need them, do I? I am not a professional photographer or videographer, nor do I have an extensive music or video or game collection. These wants are at the bottom of my list of considerations when it comes to choosing a computer, if I remember them or choose not to par them. So I have been using the same computer since 2005. This same computer has been in my family since 2002. Yes, it is perhaps one of the oldest longest-serving computers in existence in a technologically-developed country. But it works. And, really, that’s all I need. The effects of climate change is long-term and widespread. But while the causes of climate change have been pinned on such factors like heavy industry and deforestation, these activities were done by humans to meet human needs and wants. By examining needs and wants, and consciously choosing to meet one’s actual needs and wants in the most environmentally-friendly way possible, we as individuals could reduce our impact on the environment without resort to or waiting for governments and scientists to pave the way. We can make a difference as individuals. We can take active steps towards halting climate change without having to wait for governments or other organisations to show the way, simply by looking within, shaving away what is unnecessary, and making the best possible choice. Politics of Fear On November 29, the Swiss have put an end to the minaret controversy. They have voted to ban all future minarets by amending the federal constitution. This is greatly disappointing, yet unsurprising. The Egerkinger Committee, a group composed of members of the SVP and Federal Democratic Union (FDU), alleges that minarets are a symbol of political Islam. It backs this up by quoting excerpts of a speech made in 1997 by the Mayor of Istanbul (now Turkish Prime Minister), Recep Tayyip Erdogan. That excerpt went "Mosques are our barracks, domes our helmets, minarets our bayonets, believers our soldiers. This holy army guards my religion". Perhaps as an afterthought, it says that minarets are not necessary and do not serve any religious purpose. (Source)Let's engage in a little exercise: start an initiative to ban all church spires and bell towers in Switzerland. Such structures do not serve any religious purpose, and are in fact a symbol of growing Christian political power. By banning bell towers and church spires, we will be safeguarding Switzerland from the horrors of Christian rule.I can imagine what would happen next: the Swiss will take to the streets, the federal government will oppose the measure, the major religious bodies will call for a stop to any initiative, and any serious attempts to pass this referendum would be soundly defeated.The right-wingers may not have espoused a stronger moral position, but they have run a far better political campaign, relying on their favourite tool, the politics of fear. The enduring image of the controversy is a poster portraying minarets as missiles, poised on the Swiss flag, with a woman wearing an abaya and niqab in the foreground. Groups opposed to the campaign did not succeed in producing a meme, a symbol, as powerful or as widely known as that poster. The federal government, religious bodies, NGOs and legal experts talked about Swiss core values, impact on foreign relations, questionable compatibility with international and local laws, and equality and freedom of religion. The right-wingers spoke about growing Islamisation of Europe, oppression of women by Islamists, and to a smaller degree the loss of the Swiss identity to Islam.When asked to choose between affirming one's beliefs on one's identity and beliefs, and abstract notions of laws and foreign relations and religious equality; when asked to choose between what one holds dear and what one does not necessarily interact with on a concrete basis, it has been my experience that humans almost invariably choose the former. This, I would think, is why the politics of fear is so useful: you are essentially asking the people to re-affirm their current notions of self. In an era where Islam is intertwined with terrorism, Europe is facing a growing and increasingly prominent Muslim and Muslim immigration population. With the coming of the new and the unknown comes a fear of the unknown. On a visceral level, the unknown is uncertain, and humans tend towards certainty and stability, and the greater the unknowns, the greater the perception of a threat to life and identity. In this case, Islam is seen as the threat to life and identity through reports of Islamist terrorists and right-wing propaganda. Instead of addressing the fear of the unknown, the right-wingers chose to play upon it by acting to exclude the new and unknown from the lives of the people. I would imagine that rejection and returning to the status quo is by far easier than integrating the new and changing one's beliefs accordingly.But while it is easier, it is not necessarily better. Choosing to live in fear is choosing to live with a mental disability. It is choosing to live without developing one's capacity for growth. Choosing to reject the other, the out-group, is choosing to deny their humanity, and to deny opportunities for partnership and mutual development. It is also choosing to offend the out-group and giving them a kind of moral basis for sanctions against you. I will not be surprised if radical Muslims would decry Switzerland's actions as part of a grand Crusader-Jewish-Zionist conspiracy. The FDU, the other party that supported the SVP in the controversy, is after all a proudly Christian evangelist party. A vicious cycle of extremism may soon be forthcoming. This is the end result of resorting to the politics of fear.All is not lost yet. It is time for the Swiss people to re-affirm perhaps the greatest strength of democracy: its ability to correct itself. The Constitution may have been changed, but that amendment may yet be struck down. The time has come for Muslims to reach out to the people of Switzerland, and demonstrate that they are no threat. The time has come for the federal government to enact high-profile activities and create prominent inter-religious organisations, to demonstrate faith and desirability in religious integration. The time has come to face the fear of Islam, the fear of the unknown. Only after that fear has been addressed in the national psyche can this affront to Islam be erased.The Muslim of the 21st century is the Jew of the 20th. The image of the immoral, materialistic money-lender has given way to the fanatic who seeks to convert the world through sword and fire or die trying. For the actions of propagandists and the visibility of certain high-profile Jews, the Jew was seen as the cause of the world's economic woes, from Tsarist Russia to the Weimar Republic and beyond. For the actions of right-wingers and terrorists, the Muslim is now seen as the embodiment of terror around the world. Must it take another Holocaust before we choose to see with clear eyes? Would that even work this time?Addendum: Something very interesting has caught my eye. This picture shows the results of the vote on the minaret controversy. This picture suggests that the further east one goes in Switzerland, the greater the opposition to minarets. Currently, I am unable to determine why this is so. But it seems that this can be determined through analysis of demographics (religion and foreigners in particular), the economy (the SVP claim to represent the interests of farmers, who make up a significant portion of the economy), presence of international bodies and corporations (note that Geneva, the headquarters of many international organisations, presented the greatest opposition), and language and foreign relations (the French-speaking cantons opposed the ban; the German and Italian ones did not). Any sociologists around here who want to give this a go? Steps to Stagnation Page 16 of Thursday’s Today newspaper carried two articles on Malaysia. These articles suggest that the political leadership of Singapore’s northern neighbour is closing itself off to new influences. Yet without the new, there is no growth. In ‘Speak less English: Minister”, Deputy Education Minister Mohd Puad Zarkashi was reported to have discouraged the use of English in favour of Bahasa Malaysia. In particular, he called upon private sector employees to use Bahasa Malaysia to show pride in the national language, instead of using English 99 percent of the time. He also insisted that national leaders use Bahasa Malaysia for all meetings and events, and returns letters written in English with requests to have them rewritten in Balasa. His main argument was essentially to ‘strengthen the position of Bahasa Malaysia’, which implies the reinforcement of a current Malay-centric culture. Bahasa Malaysia may be a national language, but it is not the preferred language. In the same way, while English may be the de facto national language in the United States or Britain, ethnic minority groups may choose to conduct their lives in their ancestral tongues of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Russian, Yiddish, or any of a hundred other tongues. That is because people are comfortable communicating in those languages as opposed to English. In states like Denmark, Switzerland, and the Netherlands, several languages are taught, usually the national language, the English language, and one other. Language is first and foremost a means of communication. It allows two or more people to express what they want, and to understand what the other party or parties want/s. Bahasa Malaysia is a language. But it is also linked to the construct known as the Malaysian identity, through its codification in the law. Notice I used ‘construct’. That is because prior to the Second World War, there was no Malaysian identity. The British used this to their advantage to colonise Malaysia. This identity was created as part of the post-WWII Malaysian nationalist movement, in an attempt to unify the country. This movement defined the Malaysian identity through several symbols, such as a flag, national anthem, and national language. In effect, Bahasa Malaysia is a political tool as well as a language. Two people speaking two different tongues cannot effectively communicate. A South African who insists on using only Afrikaans can never get his point across to a Frenchman who has vowed to use only extremely formal French. Language unites people who speak the same language, and divides people who speak different languages.By encouraging the use of Bahasa Malaysia, and downplaying the use of English, the good Deputy Minister is effectively asking Malaysians to reject other cultures, and stick strictly to a Malaysian identity. If Malaysia were a person, you would call Malaysia a schizoid. A schizoid is a person who lacks interest in social relationships, tends towards a solitary lifestyle, and displays emotional coldness. The psychologist Harry Guntrip would add narcissism and a sense of superiority, among other traits, to the list. Being a schizoid in an increasingly interdependent world is a severe disadvantage. Lacking the ability to connect to people means a lack of communication skills, and a lack of communication skills means being severely disadvantaged in areas like job applications, projects, or simply telling someone that you are not interested in that person without inviting a stab in the back in the future.The irony of reinforcing Bahasa Malaysia is that it works against Malaysia. Malaysia is not a country of Malays alone. Malaysia has ethnic Indian and Chinese citizens, for example, and they are just the largest. Bahasa Malaysia is linked to the Malay identity more than the Malaysian identity, because Bahasa Malaysia derives its roots from the Malay language. Indian and Chinese citizens, coming from different ethnolinguistic backgrounds, are disadvantaged in the learning and use of language compared to a Malaysian Malay whose ethnolinguistic background and identity is intertwined with Bahasa Malaysia. It is therefore easier for a Malaysian Malay to learn and use Bahasa Malaysia than a Malaysian Indian or Chinese citizen. By favouring Bahasa Malaysia, the Deputy Minister is sending a subtle message, consciously or otherwise, deliberately or not, that he is favouring the Malays of Malaysia. That he is himself a Malay merely adds weight to this message. Should minority citizens choose to interpret his words this way, the ruling government will lose more favour in the eyes of the people. That, I would think, is probably more important to Kuala Lumpur than any perceived harm to the construct known as the Malaysian identity. In ‘Muslim preacher charged with giving lecture’, Muslim scholar Asri Zainul Abidin was arrested for delivering a religious lecture without a permit. Asri, the former mufti of the state of Perlis, has pleased not guilty, and has called his arrest ‘selective persecution’. This hyperlink contains some more information not covered in Today. In effect, the Selangor state religious authority, JAIS, allegedly allowed all muftis to lecture in Selangor except Asri, in the days when Asri was a mufti himself. Asri himself was a controversial figure, who among other things criticised what he called overzealous efforts by Islamic authorities to crack down on what is termed ‘immoral behaviour’. A mufti is the highest-ranking official appointed to advise a state ruler on Islamic laws, and therefore has a great deal of influence in religious matters. From this admittedly one-sided account, it suggests that JAIS is attempting to suppress Asri’s influence on the youth of Selangor with regards to their attitudes towards Islam and morality. Here is some background. Malaysia has a justice system with civil and religious courts. The civil courts cover ordinary crimes, ranging from theft to murder and everything in between. The shariah courts have jurisdiction over Muslim affairs. Religious enforcement officers, also known as the religious police, are deployed to enforce shariah law. In practice, the religious police are authorized to conduct raids on premises to search for Muslims of the opposite gender who have committed khalwat, which means ‘close proximity’, for Muslims who have consumed alcohol in nightclubs, and other such matters. Asri was arrested by 35 religious enforcement officers and 25 policemen. The district police chief claims that the police merely assisted in the raid, and he had no idea that Asri was involved. These actions do not bode well for Malaysia. This article reinforces the belief that suppression of controversial religious ideas is part of official policy, if only at the state level. Previously, the Malaysian government came under fire for persecuting members of the Sky Kingdom sect and hampering efforts to convert out of Islam, among other actions. Such a perception, in the long term, will make Malaysia appear to be an increasingly reactionary Muslim state, which tends to worry non-Muslims, especially those interested in investments, business, and tourism in Selangor. In addition, the statement released by the police chief suggests a lack of professionalism: he is effectively saying that the department lacks official oversight when its officers are attached elsewhere. This decreased confidence in the police department will again have a negative impact on the perception of the state, and perhaps the country. These two articles suggest that closing off minds and channels of communication are harmful to a country. Favouring a specific culture within a country will alienate minority groups. Cracking down on a popular if controversial religious scholar who preaches liberal values will alienate people who do not believe in the values driving that act. Closing off hearts and minds to new influences leads to stagnation and backwardness. How does a muscle grow? Exercise. By working against an external weight repeatedly, and increasing the weight over time. How does a mind grow? Through stimulation by outside events. The first step to growth is by accepting and grappling with external events, be it the start of a weightlifting program, a commitment to the discipline required in the military, or a foreign policy review that entails partnership with former rivals. Singapore became the country it now is because of its acceptance and adaptation of Western ideas of government, economy and trade; Chinese concepts of hard work and meritocracy; and a fairly internationalist approach to international politics, meaning working with other countries for mutual gain. Openness to new influences spurs dynamic changes and evolution that causes growth. What happens if you don’t exercise? Your muscles wither. What happens if you deny your brain sensory input? Mental illness and death. Countries that close themselves off to foreign influences tend to be failed states. History is replete with them: the USSR, Myanmar, North Korea, Imperial China. Without new influences, there is no impetus for growth or change. A policy that closes off the country to new ideas and influences from within and without closes off the country’s capacity for growth. Without the new, there is no growth. By advocating the closing off means of communications via use and disuse of language, and by attempting to control ideas on religious conduct, certain Malaysian authorities seem prepared to close off Malaysia to new ideas. They are also setting up Malaysia for stagnation. Time will tell if this is but a temporary stage, but as long as the ruling Barisan Nasional holds power and the opposition parties remain silent, I am not going to hold my breath. Mono no aware One year and ten months has come down to this day.I packed my kit, checked for the last time that I'd taken everything with me. Submitted the necessary paperwork, signed the requisite blanks. Received the NSman's severance package of a handbook and his identification card. Exchanged a couple of perfunctory, permanent goodbyes.Gathered my things. Left the camp alone. Didn't look back.Should I be happy? Those who have gone before me think so. It's the end of burden, the end of authority, the end of harsh training, the end of duty. So it is. It is also the end of the worst, and the end of the best.With liberty comes responsibility, the responsibility to use it well. I have literally nothing to look forward to. No place in any local university or tertiary institute, no job, no recommendations, no next step charted well in advance. With nothing in the future comes the necessity to shape that future to one's will. Alone. I alone amongst my peers am in this position. Pardon if all I see is the exchange of duty to country for duty to self, relations, and ever-widening social circles.You know what it's like to leave the military? You've got look after your health now because the Army isn't going to force you to exercise any more, or provide meals that are supposed to conform to dietary guidelines. You've got to shape up your finances because you're not drawing any more money from the military. You've got to live your life because nobody is going to guide it for you any more. And almost nobody is going to care what happens to you after you leave.Oh, and three years from now, nobody at your camp is going to remember you. Your bunk and bed and locker would be taken by someone else, or just left abandoned. Whatever kit you may have returned would be recycled and re-issued to someone else, or left alone. Every NSF who knows of you would have completed his full-time NS liability, and gone on to other things. The regulars, most of them anyway, would be posted elsewhere, and those who remain would deal with so many other servicemen that your place in their minds would be abdicated for someone else. Soon, sooner than you think, there'll be no trace of you left in that camp.The friends you've made? The kit you took back? These are probably the most permanent external reminders of what you've done. But one day, after the National Service cycle is complete, you won't need your kit anymore, and they'll languish in a forgotten corner or be consigned to the trash. Your friends, most or all of them will one day travel different paths, never to be seen again outside in-camp trainings and occasional coincidental meetings. There's nothing you can do.But this is how things will be. This is the transience of things, and everything, too, will pass.So what is left? Myself. The photograph on my IC is different from the one on my military identification card, known as an 11B. When I look in the mirror, the reflected face is dissimilar from the one on the 11B. Older now, not necessarily wiser. I remember the forge of training, of the exposure to the face of the warrior archetype. I remember the hammer of experience, of adapting to overcome the situation. I remember the wear and tear of hard use, of various injuries and illnesses and occasional destruction and damage of property. I remember the sharpening and polishing, of midnight work and long late meetings and training and doing. Somewhere along the way, I know now, they have made me who I am.NS is just the latest influence on my life, the most powerful one so far. But I have miles to go on my path, and surely new challenges and obstacles. Perhaps one day my NS experiences and their impact may be overriden. Perhaps built upon. But not stagnate, not be regulated to a single event with a single influence which can be safely ignored. The present is defined by the past, and when NS lies in the past, my future present 'I' will not ignore or forget it. I cannot. That's all right, isn't it?--------Author's note: Mono no aware is a Japanese term. Loosely translated as 'the pathos of things' or 'empathy towards things'. It's usually defined as the recognition of the transience of things, and a bittersweet recognition of this fact. Personally, I prefer the definition 'the sadness of being human'. Human Nature, as Observed on a Train A little over an hour ago, I tried to catch the next train home. The train had come in when I had arrived; a throng of people were slowly flooding in. “Please move in!” a station employee called out, guiding them with his hands. When the mass of people finally moved in, I tried to board the train. But the front entrance was plugged up with people. The rear entrance was similarly sealed off. When I peered into the windows, I saw a most astonishing sight. The centre of the car was completely empty. Nature abhors a vacuum. Yet osmosis has clearly failed here. The employee waved his hands, exhorting the people to move in. Pleading, almost. Other commuters stopped outside the car, waiting for a chance to board. Inside, I saw faces turning away, eyes going blank, mouths closing shut. Others had more subtle expressions, their gazes narrowing to filter out an ever-increasing number of people from their field of view, and therefore field of thought. The press of passengers remained still. Neurons fired, words formed, and my lips began to open. Then the doors closed, and the train moved off. As it passed me by, I saw just two people standing in the middle of the train, staring out at the platform, their gazes washing out the other would-be commuters. No, I’m not angry. Or disappointed. Or disgusted. Or wrathful. Just curious. Why did the passengers not move towards the centre of the car, allowing more people to board the train? So, now, I shall attempt to work it all out. Let’s look at the employee. He had all the hallmarks of an authority figure. He was wearing a distinct uniform and carrying a handheld radio. These are symbols of power. His uniform and role may not be as recognized as that of a soldier or a police officer’s, but the symbols he wielded should be sufficient to show to the average person that he is in a position of authority to accomplish a task, and thus induce obedience. In fact, if you give a man a lab coat and a clipboard and tell everybody around him that he’s a scientist in charge of an experiment, everybody will treat him as such. The Milgram experiment proved this conclusively. But counting against the employee, I think, was his manner of speech. He was facing the front rank of passengers, who were just about squashed into the train, and did not gesture at anybody. The human brain can seek to interpret the employee’s words as directed towards the passengers near the mouth of the car, not the ones at the rear. So, the people at the rear can feel that they are not being asked to move, and so feel no pressure to move -- even though they are the only ones with the space to move, and are the cause of the situation. Furthermore, the employee used a gentle, polite tone of voice. Such a strategy tends to work in a one-on-one basis, when the other party has shown an inclination to listen, and when you want to interact with that person. But, in this case, you aren’t seeking an interaction. You’re seeking compliance. Police officers are trained to order suspects to surrender through shouts, simply-worded orders, closing in on all sides, and visual and auditory distractions. This much sensory input overloads the brain, closing off its ability to think, and pushing the suspect into choosing the choice that is repeatedly being presented to him: surrender. Policemen don’t say ‘Please put the weapon down’. Not unless they are dealing with the mentally unstable and believe that doing so could convince the subject to do so. They say ‘Put your weapon down’. They may tag on a ‘sir’ or ‘ma’am’, but the tone and the underlying message is the same: Do as I say. The word ‘please’ tends to detract from this effect and mitigate this message, which is why one uses it out of respect for one’s superiors. But in this situation, the word ‘please’ softens the message to the point where the intended audience, already buffered through what are essentially human shields, can again choose to ignore the message. End result: some people get left behind on the platform. The employee should have gestured at the people at the rear, or otherwise indicate that he was addressing them. Doing so strips away the illusionary distance between the audience and the speaker, making it more and more difficult to ignore the message. He should also have used firmer, blunter, and more direct speech, to further impress his will upon the intended audience. Now, let’s consider the people in the train. In particular, the people at the outer fringes of the plugs of people, the ones who could have simply moved in. Is there a cost in moving? No. The energy expenditure of taking a few steps is negligible for the average healthy human being, and the people in question were healthy human beings -- at least healthy enough to walk. Is there a benefit in staying? No. One spot in a train is as good as another. Can we chalk this up to the inertia of stillness? With no real costs pushing a person into moving, nor any benefits to pull his feet into motion, it’s simply easier to stay still. Up to a point, yes. But let’s go deeper and talk about where this inertia came from. There is a specific neuron in the brain known as a ‘mirror neuron’. This neuron fires when an animal does something, and observes the same action performed by another. This is generally useful: it forms the foundation of empathy, and is a survival trait. When you see someone smile genuinely, your mirror neurons fire, and you tend to break into a smile too. This generates rapport between the both of you, bringing you that much closer. Likewise, when you see a group of people flee, your neurons fire, and you tend to run with them too -- better to be wrong than to find out at first hand just how sharp a tiger’s claws can be. So, say you are standing in a train car. Around you, people are standing around, not moving. Your mirror neurons tell you that there’s no need to move, and that it’s best to stay still. That’s what everybody else is doing, after all. Those same neurons, however, don’t tell you that the people can’t move because you are blocking the way. Another part of the brain is responsible for that. So far, it seems, the collective voice of the mirror neurons seems capable of drowning out that of the part of the brain that tells you that maybe something is wrong with this picture. That’s if the latter is actually activated in the first place. It’s so easy to filter out that dissenting part of the brain when the mirror neurons are loud and clear, and when that man in the green shirt on the platform isn’t really talking to you. That being said, I don’t think the explanation can stop here. Everywhere else I have been and have seen or read of, the public transportation system doesn’t suffer from this loophole in this law of nature. People tend to move towards the centre of the car, bus, whatever they are riding on. So far, only Singapore seems to suffer from this problem. Why? Let’s think about motive. Why would a person want to stay near the entrance of a train car or bus? I would imagine that doing so would facilitate one’s exit from the vehicle when one arrives at one’s destination. While doing so inconveniences other people from boarding, there remains a significant number of people who are not inconvenienced by that notion. Why? I don’t know. I actually don’t know. I would think that some of the people who choose to do this tend to be more self-centred than average, placing their personal needs and wants above those of others. I would also think that the rest are just plain ignorant of their actions, and/or choose to deny the consequences of not moving in -- after all, it doesn’t affect them personally, and people are moved into action by what affects them personally. Why? If this were part of human nature, then we would have seen this overseas. But I have not, and neither have my contacts and research material. So all this must be part of something inherent in Singapore. The only explanation I can think of lies in the culture that is ingrained in us -- the mindset that we are encouraged to adopt by the people around us. Every Singaporean knows of kiasi and kiasu, the twin pillars of Singapore culture and behaviour. The former is being afraid of death, though it tends to mean being afraid to take risks, such as writing an essay that may lead to a few quiet people knocking on your door at midnight. The latter, literally translated as ‘fear of losing’, is to be afraid to miss a future perceived gain, be it the most delicious food at a buffet or a seat in a foreign university. I use ‘perceived’, because the person perceives that the object of desire is seen as good -- but it may not be. What this suggests is that we live in a culture that aims to defend and inflate the ego. By refusing to take risks, one’s ego need not experience failure. By seizing at everything that comes one’s way, one’s ego need not worry about regret. Mirroring encourages this behaviour, as everybody imitates everybody else in a strange kind of empathy, building upon and reinforcing this culture.And by being so wrapped up in defending the individual ego, one can ignore the humanity of others. By refusing to take risks, one refuses to push one’s limit and grow as a person, or achieve one’s goals, or make progress. Everybody said that Singapore would not survive as an independent nation until the government took a risk on Albert Winsemius’ economic strategy post-independence. By refusing to pass on a future perceived gain, one distorts one’s view of the world, and potentially harms oneself and others. After the First World War, the French sought revenge upon the Germans through the Treaty of Versailles, thoroughly wrecking the German economy, decimating the military, reducing German territory -- and inflaming German anger, which Adolf Hitler used as a base to gain power and support. Over-emphasising the ego leads to ignoring other people’s needs and wants -- and one does so at one’s peril. In the case of France, when the cries for revenge were finally silenced, that was because many voices had gone still. By blocking entrance into the train now by just standing around, one encourages others to do the same -- and you might just get caught in a similar situation. Let’s go back to the train. Why do people stay as close to the exit as possible? To minimise the time spent leaving the train -- which suggests that there is a cost involved in not leaving the train on time, and a benefit in leaving quickly. Here is kiasi and kiasu for you: people don’t want to risk missing their stop, and want more time to do whatever they want to do, so they stay as close to the exit as possible. Never mind that a few extra seconds moving from the centre of the train to the exit is insignificant, and that letting people board the train would allow them to continue their journeys smoothly (and avoid blog posts like this one). Overly cynical view of the world? Maybe. But, unless proven otherwise, and until a sociologist finally investigates this phenomenon, this seems to be the most reasonable explanation for the train passengers’ behaviour. So what can be done about this? This situation involves elements that are both external and internal. The external elements are supplied by figures of authority (and, to a lesser extent, posters and announcements). The internal aspects are the motivations and mindsets of passengers. The external aspects are easy to change. Staff should be trained to communicate clearly, especially when addressing crowds like this. Posters and announcements should be re-crafted, such that their message sticks. How the latter could be done is best left to experts who dare to take on the challenge of communicating in a space where information is routinely filtered out. The internal element, however, is more difficult. It revolves around our culture. People living in Singapore are encultured to a greater or lesser degree in the philosophies of kia. The academic system encourages competition between individuals through the perceived differentiation of elite, mundane, and bad schools, perceived differences in prestige among different higher education choices, and sharply limited places in local universities (especially for Arts students). The workplace tends to be competitive, with a glut of highly-qualified job-seekers on the market. The people around us, further, reinforce the kia ideology every time they talk about it, or engage in activities that are based on it, and seem to succeed. And mirror neurons entrench herd behaviour. The odds are against change. The key here is to turn weaknesses into strengths. Mirror neurons are two-way; if someone else sees you do something, his mirror neurons fire. By moving to the centre of the car, one person encourages other people to move -- which probably explains why there were a few people in the centre of the car when the train moved off. And that's just the beginning. The human creature is a thinking being. The kia philosophies are, quite literally, based on fear and avoidance of that which is feared. The opposite of fear is not so much as courage as understanding and acceptance. Soldiers assault close-range ambushes because they understand that a swift counterattack is the best means of survival, and accept the risk that remains because not doing so means certain death. This, I believe, is the basis of what we call courage -- if only at the unconscious level. In order to overcome the kia culture, it is crucial to develop the ability to assess our wants, needs, goals, objectives, fears, strengths and weaknesses, to pay more attention to growth and real gain instead of defending the ego, and to keep acting on these principles. When more and more people act this way, they influence even more people to follow these principles, leading to a paradigm shift in mindset. External changes here can be accomplished easily enough. But internal changes, through re-programming the brain, is harder, takes longer, and is more painful. Yet it is this kind of change that drives real change, be it giving way to other passengers or abolishing slavery or granting the right to vote or running a country. The basis of real change is a change in mindset that predicates the physical generation and maintenance of new, presumably better, ideas. But change like this starts from you. Dare you change? Choices There are times in life when one has to make a choice. Should I continue my current path? Or blaze a trail of my own? The time now has come for me to make that choice, for now and the rest of my life. Among the many choices I have made surrounds my position in The Online Citizen. I've had had doubts about it for months now, but I've finally made my choice.I am now no longer a member of The Online Citizen.I left.Given a choice between following someone's path and following my inner light, I would pick the latter. After three years in TOC, I've learned a few life lessons, saw a few things I couldn't have seen otherwise, and met a few extraordinary people. It was a fruitful time, but that time has passed. Now is a time for change, for endings, for rebirth. I feel it in my heart.And on I walk, down the pathless path. Silence Regular readers would have noticed that I have not been updating my blog for a long time. Certainly not long enough to warrant my so-called reputation online. Now that I’m back, I feel like I owe some kind of explanation.July was a busy month. Busy enough that I had to conserve my energies, and turn my attention to tasks that required more attention. The transition to August was a rocky one, with a series of events falling like hammer blows, one after another. The last of these events hit like lightning and put paid to who I thought I was.When the dust settled, I cleared away some of the rubble to find myself. Eventually I saw myself in a mirror darkly, an image that stretched from the present to my childhood, cast in a stark light. For that glimpse I paid with my old writing voice.For hours and days and weeks I stared at a succession of blank screens. Nothing came out. What I squeezed from my brain I had to discard. The well of words ran dry.No, it's not all that bad. Truth be told, after what I've done, I’ve felt better in the past fornight than the past decade. But that's cold comfort for a writer who cannot write, who has exhausted the words in his pen.I can no longer write the way I used to write. Most of the reasons and motivations that spurred me to write in the past are now so much dust in the wind. What is left cannot hold up a house of straw, and I'm very sure that more would be torn down in the coming days and weeks. Some of the old turns of phrase are alien, and I find myself using new ones. Change is coming.A road has closed forever behind me. In front of me is a pathless path that disappears into the dark. It is a path that I will have to forge alone, with nothing but a lamp of inner light for guidance through long and uncertain years. I dare not look for others when I have yet to cast a calm eye within. Perhaps I will find myself in this new silence. Failing that, I will remake myself in the gentle dark. Taking A Stand A new generation of Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs) has been chosen. Their mission statement is still the same: represent a wider variety of views inside Parliament. NMPs are supposed to be ‘people who have independent, non-partisan, constructive views of their own’, according to Leader of the House Mah Bow Tan in today’s Today newspaper. To champion causes outside of Parliament may ‘cause an NMP to lose his standing as an objective and impartial NMP and undermine his effectiveness and credibility’. This all sounds well and good, until one looks up the meaning of ‘non-partisan’. To be non-partisan is to have no formal affiliation with any political party. And NMPs, by their very definition, are non-partisan. They are not affiliated with any political party in any official capacity. By this I mean that they are not card-carrying members of any political party, nor do they represent any political party in any capacity. This definition could, strictly speaking, extend to special interest groups. These are groups which advocate political change, be it lower taxes or animal rights. But remember that the operating word is ‘formal’. This means that a non-partisan person must not be serving in the group in any kind of capacity, be it as a member or spokesperson or director. It does not mean that the person is not allowed to speak out in favour of the group, and help to represent the group’s interests in public institutions like Parliament. So there is no problem here for NMPs so long as they do not take up a post in a special interest group. The definition of ‘non-partisan’ may even be extended to unbiased by, or not influenced by, other groups. This may be the level at which Mah is talking about. But in practice, it is very difficult. The role of an NMP is to represent views in Parliament. This means that the NMP must first learn and understand the views held by various groups, But in so doing, he is already influenced by these views.That is because he would have taken the time to analyse and think through what these views are, and their worth in the public arena, and whether or not they are worth his time’s or the House’s. This thought process leads to a judgment on what these views mean to the NMP as well, if only on a subconscious level…which effectively means that the views espoused by certain groups, be they advocacy groups or otherwise, would influence the NMP in the course of his work. So, if Mah were referring to this level of ‘non-partisan’, ‘objectivity’ and whatnot, he would be asking NMPs to make an impossible choice. If they choose to remain objective and ‘non-partisan’, they cannot afford to investigate the views held by various groups, which means that they cannot effectively represent their views, which means that they might as well quit and go home. If they choose to represent the views of these groups, they would be indelibly influenced by these groups’ opinions, which means that they would have violated the ‘non-partisan’ guideline. In my personal opinion, at most we should restrict ‘non-partisan’ to ‘not officially affiliated with any political party of special interest group’. To go any deeper would be to make the NMPs’ jobs impossible. It is this definition I would be working from in the rest of this essay. Let’s pause for a moment to consider why politicians raise views in Parliament or wherever in the first place. They do this to tell their colleagues about the situation on the ground. By doing so, they aim to implement policies that are connected with the people, and can hopefully benefit the country. Am effective law is preceded by a motion in Parliament that is informed by an opinion. This train cannot be decoupled for it to be effective. NMPs, in particular, represent views in Parliament so that Parliament can better decide on policies, and these views are best summarized and represented in the form of a motion to be brought before Parliament for discussion. Now consider a scenario in which an NMP chooses to support or champion a cause outside of Parliament, such as the repeal of Section 377A. Because he is an NMP, he is seen as operating by his conscience, without following the agenda of any specific political party. He lends the voice of officially-recognised objectivity and impartiality to the cause, whether he wants to or not. Even if the NMP were to participate in his capacity as a private citizen, he would be participating in the realm of politics, and in this situation, he cannot escape from his position and identity as an NMP. He will be seen as an NMP first, a citizen second. Even if he were to declare that he is acting in his personal capacity, and if people accept that, the fact that he is an NMP would not be ignored. For example, said NMP may be pressured to bring up the cause in Parliament by everybody else, because of his unique position. To refuse to do so is to give up a unique and unparalleled advantage to do good for society. It would be akin to favouring to follow a set of guidelines instead of favouring an approach to accelerate positive change by bringing up an issue to the national level. To say nothing of doing his job in the first place, which is to represent views in Parliament, like representing the view that Section 377A should be abolished and favouring and tabling a motion to do just that. In politics, opinions only count if they are translatable into actions, such as tabling a motion. Otherwise, giving lengthy speeches on a subject in Parliament without tabling a motion would merely, at best, pique somebody else’s attention. What if the situation takes place outside of Parliament’s purview? For example, the recent history of the Association of Women for Action and Research took place without official government intervention. NMP Siew Kum Hong was there, acting in his personal capacity. The simple fact is, NMPs who participate in external activities are also seen as NMPs first, especially if they do so in politically-charged events. Simply declaring that they are there in their personal capacity would not so easily erase the impression that they are NMPs, in pretty much the same way that a convicted murderer cannot wash off the blood on his hands simply by saying that he didn’t kill anyone. Simply by being at any political event, whether or not the Government chooses to intervene, an NMP would raise its profile, because he would be seen as an NMP first, and this thought would influence everybody’s actions and perspectives. More so if he were reported being there, or admits that he was there in various media. Simply by being there, an NMP would change the atmosphere, perspective, and profile of any group engaging in some activity, be it a rally or a conference.Instead of downplaying this effect, the smart move would be to capitalize on it. NMP activists would be able to use their position to effect greater change in Singapore. While their official purpose is to represent a wider variety of views in Parliament, these views if accepted would translate into changes in policies. It is inescapable in an arena where an opinion is only taken seriously if it were backed by a motion to change existing law, or if it is opposing an existing motion. When it comes to Parliament, NMPs effectively have the same powers in a debate as an MP except for voting on the amendment of the Constitution, public funds, a vote of no-confidence, or removing the President from office. Since these are not pertinent issues in the foreseeable future, NMPs are effectively non-elected MPs who should represent wider views from the community…which, by its very definition, includes motions towards political action. Mah has stated that all of this might cause an NMP to lose his standing and undermine his effectiveness. Actually, the reverse is true. If an NMP were seen actively refraining from participating in the political arena, he would be seen as abdicating the responsibilities of his job. An NMP’s job is to represent views from the wider community, in order to benefit the country. This includes views from activist groups. An NMP would not do the group justice if all he does is to talk to the leaders. He would not be able to guage what kind of support the people have for the group, and the nature of the group if he does not attend their talks and rallies; and yet if he does so he would effectively raise the group’s profile simply by being there. If an NMP does not take the effort to fully understand a group, especially one whose pet cause he believes in, he cannot do them justice in Parliament, where he executes his official duties. Thus, his effectiveness and credibility would be undermined. As for Mah’s concerns about objectivity and impartiality, we need to understand why these values in the first place. Objectivity and impartiality means to not take a stand, regardless of the consequences, positive or negative, of doing so. They ensure that someone would not be unduly biased in his or her work. The key word is ‘unduly’. Negotiators, counselors, and mediators are expected to be objective and impartial, because they need to understand all sides of any particular issue and successfully reconcile all parties involved. They cannot afford to be partial towards any one view because doing so would mean ignoring in part or whole the concerns of other parties involved. Right up to the end of each case, they need to be objective and impartial, so that everybody involved has a fair say. So what about objectivity and impartiality? The key difference between the world of the negotiator and the world of the politician is that the former facilitates people in taking action, while the latter takes action for people. The mediator has to be objective and impartial because he is not directly influenced by the negotiation process. A marriage counsellor, for example, would not be affected whether or not his clients divorce or continue to stay married. The politician has to be objective and impartial while considering views, but this stops when he is expressing his view. Yes, his view, not everybody’s view. When the politician takes in the views of his constituents, or when the NMP thinks through the views of various groups in the community, the people’s views become a part of his views on any given situation. This is because during the analysis of any particular view, that view becomes assimilated into the politician’s frame of mind, or rejected. For example, a politician may support zero tolerance policies primarily because it sends a strong deterrent message to criminals. After speaking to citizen activists, he learns that zero tolerance policies also saves millions of man-hours and dollars annually that would have been lost to crime. When he speaks to his colleagues and opponents, he now uses both arguments. He has to, in order to win over more people who may not be as convinced of the policies’ deterrence value as he is. The same holds true even if he decides to understand an opposing view. An American pro-gun politician may take the time to understand his gun control opponents. The politician thinks that the right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, while his opponents fear that criminals would be able to arm themselves more effectively without any measures. By understanding these concerns, the politician would be able to know where his opponents are coming from when he addresses them in Congress, Senate, City Hall, or wherever. This knowledge forms part of his view on firearms as a direct consequence. Similarly, when an NMP represents the views of a group, in or outside Parliament, these views must become part of his views. He talks about them because he thinks that they have a point to make that would benefit the country. One of the keys to a successful message is consistency. You cannot throw up opposing arguments in a speech without addressing or reconciling them and hope to be seen as effective, if your mission is to represent a view. An NMP may try to talk about opposing arguments in or outside Parliament, but unless he is giving a primer on the situation he would not achieve anything significant, like passing legislature to improve the country. Having NMPs do just that would be a poor use of manpower and talent; Parliament could simply invite an expert into the building to brief everybody on the situation instead of letting an NMP use up his valuable speech time in Parliament to talk about the situation instead of moving towards change. Our NMPs have stated that they want to see some kind of change in Singapore. This means taking a consistent stand. This means being partisan. Outside Parliament, the NMP would have to maintain that stance. They cannot afford to promote the opposing view in the hopes of being ‘objective’, because it would compromise their effectiveness in and out of Parliament. Championing a cause would reinforce the consistency of that stance, even outside Parliament, which means a greater effect inside Parliament, which means change in Singapore. Of course, the moment they become officially associated with that cause, such as being an official spokesperson or favouring it above other duties, they cease being NMPs. But there is still plenty of leeway in this regard. The negotiator helps people make a decision, while the politician helps people by effecting legislature. The difference between them is context. The negotiator is working in a place where concerned parties address each other, aided by the negotiator. In this world, the view of, say, the Israelis on an independent Palestine is not the same as the view of the negotiator, whose view is simply to get the Israeli and Palestinian delegations to reach a compromise. The politician is working in a place where his fellows address each other. In this world, the view of a politician is seen as his view, not necessarily the view of the people he represents. This even extends to NMPs. The NMP, after all, is raising views in his view that would benefit society. This is not to say that there is no place for objectivity. The NMP must be objective when gathering the views of the people, doing research, and understanding any countercurrents. This is the only way he is able to understand the breadth and depth of any given issue. But in Parliament, when speaking, he is no longer objective. He is talking about what he thinks would benefit society, which takes away all notions of objectivity. After all, to be objective is to not take a side, regardless of the consequences of doing so. This is the place for objectivity and impartiality for NMPs. But NMPs are politicians, whose job is to decide on policies for the country. This means taking a stance at some point in time, or being sidelined forever. It is impossible to be an objective and impartial politician, but it is when you are simply gathering information. This should be the standard all politicians should hold themselves to for objectivity and impartiality. To do more would be akin to hunting dragons up a tree. To do less would mean dishonouring the people of Singapore. Mah also said that NMPs should not be activists because doing so is ‘not in line with the objective of the NMP scheme, which is to provide more non-partisan views in the House’. To be perfectly blunt, ‘non-partisan views’ are the views of citizens, who are informed by partisan groups (the Government, activist groups, etc.)…which means that non-partisan views are partisan views. A truly non-partisan view comes from someone who has been living in isolation in a dark cave for the past decade or so, because that someone would be untouched by all the groups out there spreading information about anything. But that kind of view is both uninformed and irrelevant in today’s context. The objective of the NMP scheme should be to provide more views in the House. These views could then be accounted for in future and existing policies, to better benefit the country. If Mah were referring to this, then NMPs should still be allowed to champion causes outside of Parliament without being partisan. This would have the effect of reinforcing the message of that cause and strengthening its influence in Parliament. This would mean that Parliament would have to understand this message and this cause while considering legislation, and take it into account.But this does not mean surrendering to that message. If, for example, an NMP decides to advocate for a group that believes in stopping all immigration and closing off Singapore, and that group somehow becomes a strong voice in Parliament, Parliament still does not have to pass legislation that stops immigration and turns Singapore into an isolationist state. Before legislation is passed, it must be debated upon in Parliament in order to consider all points of view, and to accept and reject useful and harmful ideas respectively. While this means taking the isolationists’ message into account, it does not automatically mean passing a law that turns Singapore isolationist. But since NMPs have to go through a vetting process, and are recommended by the communities they live and work in, I would think that such a scenario is unlikely to begin with. An NMP is merely an MP who is supposed to represent other views in Parliament and with diminished powers. The objective of raising these views is to bring about better legislation and other changes to better serve the people of Singapore. But in order to do this, the NMP cannot be objective and impartial all the time. At some point, he has to take a stand, or be ignored -- along with the people he is supposed to represent. I hope that our new MPs are able to understand this, and act accordingly. And that Mah understands just what his words really mean. Benjamin Cheah's Interview My interview for the Singapore Blog Awards is finally up. The photograph is courtesy of Jasmine Sim. Please vote for me and spread the word. Finalist Yesterday, I received an e-mail. Below is an extract from it.Dear Blogger,Congratulations! You are one of the top ten finalists in the Most Insightful Blog category in this year’s Singapore Blog Awards!Your blog is shortlisted from over 1500 blogs submitted and will now go through the scoring and voting phase (See http://sgblogawards.omy.sg).PrizesThere will be one grand winner in each category who will walk about with a trophy and a galore of prizes - http://sgblogawards.omy.sg/about/prize.htmlScoring and VotingScoring will be done by a panel of professional judges. You can view the judges’ profiles and judging criteria here: http://sgblogawards.omy.sg/about/judge.htmlVoting commences today and will end on 31 July, 2359hrs SHARP. Voters will stand to win a total of 5 Creative Vado (worth S$169) and 5 ST701 Portable External Hard Disk (250GB).Well, enough said, no? I must admit, I'm pretty lucky. This is the first time I'm participating in this award, and compared to my competition I'm a virtual newbie. Indeed, one of my competitors has four years of experience; twice the amount I have. The other bloggers are indeed insightful, offering refreshing perspectives on issues that they deem important, be it new media as a business solution to frank discussions on sexuality.But what I do offer is analysis. In-depth analysis from a different perspective, backed by all the research material I can find, written with the academic rigour ingrained in me during my flirtation with education. It is these details that make or break an essay, an argument, a career. An argument that is all theory, even if perfectly constructed, is merely fluff. An argument, no matter how theoretical, if backed by research and girded by logic, demonstrates its relevance to the real world, and is thus superior. I aim for the latter, always. It is the cornerstone of my works, and the foundation of my achievements. It is this, I believe, that defines me, and is the reason why I deserve your vote.What have I to offer to you? Nothing much. Just more of the same, and maybe some new content in the future. Of course, if you do vote, you'll stand a chance of winning a Creative Vado and a portable hard drive. That being said, I don't know how the lucky voter would be chosen. If it were not by some random selection process, then I think the voters with the highest number of votes would stand a higher chance of winning the prizes. This is speculation on my part, of course, but is nevertheless a good incentive for you to keep voting for me every day. To vote for me, please sign up for an account at omy.sg. Then, go to the Singapore Blog Awards' Categories page (here), log in, proceed to the 'Most Insightful Blog' link, and click the word 'vote'. I'm not aiming to be take the top position. But, with any luck, we'll take this blog into the Top Five. Your help is very much appreciated. Nothing But the Facts Dr. Ng Eng Han, said that "sexuality education needs to be taught in a context of values which our mainstream society believes in". This strikes me as a potentially dangerous proposition. This implies that certain facts have some kind of moral weight attached to them, and should be taught accordingly. This further implies that the 'mainstream' must be the 'correct' set of values -- as though there were such a thing to begin with. Both are wrong.Facts are facts, independent of morality. A fact exists as a verifiable event in the real world, and is always true. A moral belief exists in somebody's mind, or in the minds of a group of somebodies, but is not necessarily true. A fact is that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong is left-handed. He has been observed writing with his left hand, and not with his right. A moral belief is that left-handers are evil.We must see facts and morals in the proper light. Facts are pragmatic truths about the some aspect of the world. Morals are a way of viewing and interacting with the world. Historically, when the two are conflated, the moralistic interpretation tends to reign. That is, when "facts are taught in a context of virtues which mainstream society believes in", virtues become fact.Thus, for centuries, left-handed children were forced to write with their right hand in order to nip in the bud a propensity towards evil. This must be true because powerful churches and teacher-nuns and secular teachers taught that left-handedness means a tendency towards evil activities. Capitalism is the root of all evil, and communism must develop from and triumph over this self-destructive ideology. This is true because Karl Marx and Frederick Engels said so, because the Communist Party (and therefore the State) said so. The Aryans are the master race and destined to rule the world, and Jews are the lowest race and deserve to be exterminated. This is true because Hitler -- and the Nazis, and then the government, and then the schools, and then the media/propaganda engine, and then the people, said so.Over and over again, countries all over the world have embarked on illogical and destructive practices and actions because the mainstream said that it was the right thing to do. Because the mainstream was influenced by small groups of people who said that it was the right thing to do. So it must be right. So it must be the truth. So it must be a fact.The fact is, mainstream morality is simply what the majority of people believe in at any given time in a given geographical area. That is all. It does not mean that the belief is justified, merely that more people believe in that particular set of moral values than any other set of values. The mainstream itself is more often than not influenced by a tiny minority of people who manage to push their views on society. When this minority surrenders to another, the mainstream views change.For example, take homosexuality. It is condemned by the Church, and pupils are taught that it is illegal. Why is it illegal? Because of Section 377A of the criminal code. Its origins lay with Section 377 of the Singapore legal code. This was the original anti-homosexuality law in Singapore, which in effect prohibited penetrative sex 'against the order of nature'. The British intended to rule Singapore with British laws, albeit modified here and there to suit local customs, and chose as its benchmark the Indian Penal Code. Section 377 was copied and pasted from the Indian Penal Code by the British, after the British colonised Singapore. In the spirit of this section, Section 377A was introduced in 1938 to cover non-penetrative sex between men. These laws were written because of the British desire to suppress homosexuality. This desire in turn was influenced by the Church. How is this so?Homosexuality was originally condemned by the Church. A majority-Christian Parliament passed laws in London prohibiting sodomy and other homosexual acts, i.e. Sections 377 and 377A. The British then transplanted these laws into Singapore's legal system -- into a country with a minority Christian population. The present-day government still keeps Section 377A, apparently only by 'symbolic reasons'. The present-day Church still condemns sodomy and homosexuality. The pressure of British and local lawmakers and clergymen during colonial times, who are decidedly in the minority of the populace, with access to the media, influenced the attitude of today's citizens towards homosexuality. After the British left, government figures, the courts, and the Church -- all minorities in local society -- kept up the pressure against homosexuality through the media, the law, and the pulpit. Suddenly, minority morality becomes mainstream morality, and therefore accepted morality -- never mind that the moral code the minority and now mainstream morality came from belongs to a minority religion in Singapore to begin with.Confusing? Yes. Absurd? Also, yes.Attaching moral weight to facts is a dangerous proposition. Doing so distorts the lens someone else uses to look out into the world, that same lens whose name is morality. A pair of white Caucasian -- 'Aryan' -- twin girls are taught that the Aryan race is the master race, that America should be free from interracial contamination by stopping immigration, that Hitler was a great man with good ideas, that the Holocaust was exaggerated, and that a race war is coming in which whites would triumph over all other races. The girls were taught this ideology from their mother, who said that she was going to "give them [her] opinion just like any...parent would" so that they have "the background to understand why certain things are happening". Today the girls produce nationalist pop songs that espouse these beliefs, spreading the Good Word. They have three albums, three singles, a DVD and devoted fans. Fans who now spread the same beliefs the girls hold, the beliefs which their mother passed down to them. Fiction? No. The girls are Prussian Blue.There may be times when facts and morals seem to collide. For example, consider a man who steals food from a busy marketplace, in order to feed his starving family. Many would argue that the theft was not wrong, or that even if it were, it does not warrant the same degree of punishment if he stole, say, expensive jewellery instead. Certainly the courts would agree with the latter view. That is because the intent behind the deed is recognised as being morally proper (i.e. to feed one's starving children). In a broader sense, the act is judged as a moral act. But let's go deeper.Fact one: the man is a thief who stole food. Fact two: the food he stole was meant for his children. These are facts. The moral judgment of the man being (somewhat) justified in stealing the food is built upon the second fact, and personal beliefs. But the moral judgment is still not the fact, because there may yet be moral absolutists who demand that the man be punished to the full extent of the law, because of the first fact, which was that he is a thief who sold food that was placed on sale. It is easy to mistake the belief from the fact, but this is something we should not do.So how is this relevant to sexuality education? In the United States, abstinence-only sex education is becoming one of the most prominent fields of sex education, stimulated by over one billion dollars in federal funding (i.e. the US government, as opposed to local governments, are funding these programmes using taxpayers' money). Proponents argue that abstinence-only education teaches teenagers morality that limits sex within marriage, and that comprehensive sex education actually increases pre-marital sex, and therefore sexually transmitted diseases and teenage pregnancies. Now, bear in mind that 'mainstream morals' in the United States are actually fairly conservative Christian values. The average American is a Christian of some denomination or other. Christian-based morality is the mainstream morality in America by virtue of the fact that about three-quarters of Americans are Christians. Christian doctrine posits that sexual intercourse should occur after marriage between two faithful heterosexual partners, which is one of the messages of the abstinence-only education programme. So abstinence-only programmes teach "sexuality education in a context of values which mainstream society believes in".Not according to the United States House of Representatives. Error is presented as fact, speculations as truth, and truth as fallacies. Data is scrambled to fit the curriculum. Religion is passed off as science. In the abstinence-only curricula, condoms are claimed to work only 69% of the time in preventing pregnancy (actual rate: 85% in the worst case, by users who don't use them properly). The same curricula claim that condoms are ineffective in hindering the spread of venereal disease, which is against scientific evidence. Perhaps most ridiculously, touching another person's genitals "can result in pregnancy".Well, the Americans followed Dr. Ng's advice before it was given out, and look what happened. This was a failure by educators to check the facts, and by the curricula writers to respect the facts. Now, the MOE seems to be trying to prevent that failure. It promises to set up a steering committee of professionals, such as psychiatrists and educationists to advise on the curriculum. Community and parent representatives would periodically review the materials. A core team of teachers will be trained to deliver the sexual education programme. External agencies engaged to supplement sexuality education programmes will be vetted even more thoroughly. Parents would be provided more information, and be given the choice to opt their children out of sexuality education programmes.It may seem realistic, but it's not good enough. The MOE's core focus here is on maintaining healthy relationships and preventing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and teenage pregnancies. Its goal is "encouraging heterosexual married couples to have healthy relationships and to build stable nuclear and extended family units". It does not "condone promiscuity, sexual experimentation or promote homosexuality". It "teaches the values which are held by the majority, whether they are religious or not".This is what it looks like to me: the programme will teach children how to develop healthy relationships with each other; the risks of sexually transmitted diseases, promiscuity, and teenage pregnancies; information about contraception; how to build healthy relationships with their family members; and that homosexuality is wrong. In short, a mix of morals and facts.In short, what the American abstinence-only programme thought it was doing.Well, almost. Parents will now have a choice to take out the child from sexuality education, replacing it with their personal form of such education. Or not. The Ministry of Education cannot, and should not, hide behind the words "mainstream values." Opinions and morality are ways of looking at and interacting with the world. They are built upon a foundation of facts and experiences. Morality is derived from what one feels or has been taught after a particular event occurs. We are taught that stealing is bad, because there was once an original theft and the victim was adversely affected by it. From that theft, and the victim's subsequent misfortune, arose the belief that theft is bad, because theft deprives someone of his or her lawful property. Laws established by authority figures justifies the belief that theft is bad through punishing theft, and teachings by other authority figures reinforce this notion, by activating the natural deference to respected authority figures in human beings, and the fear of punishment. While this is a gross simplification, it shows that morality is born after the fact. In my opinion, the Ministry of Education must teach a comprehensive sexual education programme that offers pure, unadulterated facts about topics related to sexuality. It must have the courage to go against mainstream morality by daring to examine homosexuality and contraception and other seemingly taboo subjects. It must face these topics with an open mind, and present the facts in the same spirit. It must encourage children to form their own thoughts about sexuality, and in so doing exercise their free will and intellect.At the same time, parents should not be allowed to opt out their children from sexuality education programmes. The reasoning behind opting out is to assuage feelings of 'discomfort' in parents. But the most uncomfortable parents would be parents who have very religious backgrounds, because historically the main objections to any kind of sexual behaviour came from organised religion, from temples, mosques, churches and synagogues. Organised religion, mostly the Christian Church, has sought to control what it deemed as immoral sexual behaviour since Victorian times, or perhaps even earlier. These parents would probably send their children to faith-based sexuality education programmes instead. Or not.My main concerns lie with the latter category: parents who choose not to send their children for sexuality education programmes, for any reason whatsoever. Such children are at risk of being exposed to inaccurate information, peer pressure to engage in risky sexual practices, and may not be able to handle themselves against sexually aggressive peers. On the other extreme, they may not even understand the sexual act, and so not engage in any kind of sexual intercourse whatsoever -- even after marriage. While rare, these cases have been reported before.As for faith-based education programmes, I will admit that there are some programmes in Singapore that offer unblemished scientific facts even in a religious context -- which is not necessarily an easy thing to do. However, I would be more comfortable with additional controls on existing faith-based programmes to ensure that they conform to high standards of academic rigour.In Junior College, I once attended a presentation on pornography. That presentation presented a study that linked pornography to murder. This was based on what is essentially a claim from notorious serial killer Ted Bundy that pornography drove him to murder. This, the presentation concluded, pornography facilitates murder. Thus, Japan, one of Asia's most prolific producers of pornography, must surely have Asia's highest murder rate. But, Japan has instead one of world's lowest murder rates (0.5 to 100000 people). The presenter did not explain this incongruity. The fact is, pornography merely served as a facilitator for murder. Other facilitators include violent media, alcohol, drugs, and the Bible. These facilitators do not cause violence, but rather lower inhibitions towards it. This subtlety was lost in the presentation. The presentation was delivered by a person from Focus on the Family.A Christian organisation.A right-wing, evangelical Christian organisation with a history of participation in politics, which opposes homosexuality, 'militant feminism', pre-marital and extra-marital sex, and pornography (of course).To be fair, Focus on the Family Singapore appears to be secular in nature, and there were no overt religious references in the presentation. But evidently, something was lost in translation in the presentation. I will argue that faith-based sexuality education programmes must be subjected to the same rigour as secular ones before they can be allowed to be taught in Singapore.I will further argue that parents who choose to opt out of programmes taught in school must then choose a sexuality education programme taught by an approved external agency (faith-based or otherwise) for their children, in order to minimise the risks of non-exposure to sexuality education. The best curriculum is one founded on facts. How a person sees the world is compounded on his experiences and what he or she is taught. By being taught facts, the student would be able to decide how to view the world after seeing it through a clear glass. Contrast this with teaching based on 'mainstream morality', which could distort the lens the student uses to look out into the world. True learning occurs when the student figures out his personal truths; that is only possible if he is taught the facts, facts that are not deliberately or otherwise blurred with opinions and judgments. It's Not Over Mas Selamat has been captured. To me, that piece of news was a fitting end to an otherwise dreary and hectic working week. His removal from the international terrorist network would deny Jamaiah Islamiyah, and other terrorist organisations, his expertise, contacts, and resources. This, in turn, would frustrate terrorist operations, potentially saving lives around the region.But let us not forget that JI and its partners are still active.I've noticed many things in the media and on the Internet. The mainstream media is singing the priases of Singapore's Internal Security Department (unwittingly or otherwise overlooking the fact that the Malaysian Special Branch actually made the arrest). Bloggers are talking about whether the government should have held back information about his capture, expressing relief and grattitude at his arrest, about not giving Malaysia enough credit and so on. But I've yet to see anything commenting on potential threats.Mas Selamat had been on the run for 398 days. He was located in the outskirts of Johor Bahru. That does not, however, necessarily mean that he had been staying there for that period of time. Neither does it necessarily mean that he shunned the world, refusing contact from anybody or everybody. The simple fact is, outside of Mas Selamat himself, and perhaps the local and Malaysian authorities, we do not know what Mas Selamat has done.In those 398 days, Mas Selamat could have taken steps to re-establish ties with JI and put together a fresh cell. 13 months is a long time, long enough to travel to Thailand or Indonesia(or further, if given access to the right material) and link up with fellow believers and recruit more people to the cause, and plan a fresh attack.The Malaysian authorities, in fact, have hinted that Mas Selamat was discovered to be plotting 'something which we could arrest him for' -- in other words, a major crime. A man like Mas Selamat does not become advance in the underground hierarchy by taking unnecessary risks; this crime would range from anything to a terrorist strike to an operation to appropriate funds to the illegal procurement of material for an attack. Again, without further information, all I can do is make stabs in the dark against a cloaked target. Given Selamat's vocation, it is still safe to say that this operation was designed to advance his chosen cause. There may yet be a chance that Mas Selamat's cell, if it exists, could still be out there. The media release suggests that all critical information has been extracted from Mas Selamat. Yet, it is entirely possible that he did not divulge everything, and had protected his colleageus, if any, long enough for them to escape or evade detection. The press release would surely alert his remaining confederates and drive them underground. The possibility that MSK knows more people than the authorities are aware of cannot be ruled out at this juncture, so Mas Selamat's hypothetical cell may, in fact, be real.This cell could, even with Selamat's arrest, still mount a strike. Terrorism is a Darwninian world; organisations that have failed to evolve are mercilessly eliminated by the long arm of the law. Al-Qaeda, currently the inspiration for every major Islamist terrorist organisation out there, is so decentralised that it is held together by ideology alone; cells need not have been formed by Osama bin Laden (or, indeed, have met OBL or vice versa) or his lieutanents to be able to mount strikes. The 2004 Madrid bombing, in fact, was conducted by a cell that had no connection whatsoever to al-Qaeda beyond believing in its ideology. JI would have learned from Al-Qaeda to keep its structure as fluid and decentralised as possible, to remain resilient in the face of a crackdown. Even without MSK, it is still conceivable for his new cell to plan and conduct an attack, if its members have the necessary skills and resources to do so.If such a cell exists, it would seek every opportunity to mount a reprisal as soon as possible. Mas Selamat's recapture is widely seen as a blow to JI. By being able to mount a reprisal, JI would show that it is not down and out. By going so, it would gain renown in the underground network of terrorists, and portray itself as an effective organisation to sympathisers -- sympathisers who could then be inspired to take on a more active role in JI or other terrorist groups.Even if there were no cell, or if it were quietly liquidated, we should not let down our guard. All over the world, there remain many people who fervently believe in the message of Islamist militancy and its doctrine of terror. Through the use of propaganda and sympathetic clerics, Al-Qaeda and related organisations are attempting to spread their ideology worldwide, and it is not impossible for them to win over new converts every day. Having heard of MSK's arrest, it is entirely possible that a group of new or passionate believers would decide to form a cell in order to mount a reprisal strike. In fact, just one man can do so: the recipes for producing homemade explosives are laid bare on the Internet to he with the patience to find them.MSK may be arrested, but the threat of terrorism remains real in our uncertain times. If anything, we should heighten our vigilance in the forseeable future. This does not mean putting a policeman on every street, nor mobilising the Army to place the country under martial law. What it means is to pay more attention to one's immediate environment, keep an eye out for suspicious behaviour, and to alert the relevant authorities if anything suspicious were seen.Napolean understood that the best time to attack was when after the enemy had just gained a major victory. That was because the opposing force would most likely let down its guard, exposing itself to a counterattack. Likewise, we should not allow any remaining terrorists to mount a strike in our time of triumph. It is possible, but the price to pay is eternal vigilance. It may be difficult, perhaps, but it is certainly far easier than the blood of innocents. Singapore Blog Awards 2009 It's official. This blog is a contestant in the Singapore Blog Awards 2009. More details here.I'm honoured. I've never had the time to update this blog as often as I wanted to. There are many events I can't blog about (most notably the AWARE saga), because my National Service commitments isolate me from the news and current affairs far too long for me to make any meaningful analysis and comments. I only have a little over a hundred posts here, spread over the course of three years. And yet I have been nominated for the Most Insightful Blog category.I never really thought of myself as insightful. All I've ever done was to write about how I see things. I'm not a genius. I don't have any special insights into human behaviour or the local socio-political arena. I don't have connections that provide insider information. All I've ever done was to apply the same standards I hold for myself in my schoolwork and academic life to my online work, and vice versa.Still, someone, somewhere, believes enough in me to nominate me for this award. So I'm repaying that faith, by entering this competition. Nominations proper close on 9 June 2009. Perhaps two weeks after, the real voting begins. Between then and now, here's hoping for the best. Much Ado About Nothing On Monday, the Singapore Democrats published an article claiming that Singapore has purchased Electronic Voting Machines (EVM) from India. The SDP itself based its commentary on this article from The Hindu, an online Indian-based news update service. The SDP has raised a big fuss over it. But, in the words of The Bard, they are making much ado about nothing.In the article, Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL), the supplier of the EVMs, stated that it is currently in negotiations with several countries, including Singapore. The company has also customised its EVMs to suit Singapore's purposes.At this juncture, I want to make a distinction between BEL's EVMs and generic electronic voting machines. The former will henceforth be referred to by its acronym, which was the one assigned to it by the company. The latter will be labelled 'e-voting systems', in order to prevent confusion.But nowhere in the article is a declaration that Singapore has, in fact, purchased the EVM.Replace 'Singapore' with 'an international corporation', 'BEL' with 'a global electronics giant' and 'EVM' with 'latest office and desktop solution', and the process can be demystified. What happened, in effect, was that BEL tried to tailor its EVMs to court business from Singapore through a demonstration of its capabilities. But Singapore did not purchase the EVM.Nor does Singapore have any intention of doing so, as reported today in The Straits Times. While I have been critical of The Straits Times in the past, it is fairly unlikely that this is simply another piece of propaganda; you cannot, after all, hide the existence of a machine when it is going to be a platform for the next elections, and there is little propaganda value in this article.E-voting systems do have their faults, and e-voting in general is presently flawed, as reported in this post by the SDP, and again in the above-mentioned aticle by Steven Stigall and Dr. Rebecca Mercuri, among many other sources. But the main flaw in these warnings is that they were not referring to the model in question.This distinction is significant because BEL's EVMs were designed to minimise electoral fraud. The machine's microcontroller's uses One Time Programmable Read Only Memory (OTROM). After initial programming, the programming codes cannot be read or altered by any external source, including the manufacturer. The code itself accepts no data other from any external device save for the balloting unit. As the EVM is a stand-alone unit, it is impervious to hacking attempts from the Internet. Data registered in the machine is encrypted for further security. After the poll is officially closed, no further votes may be made.In addition, practices set down by the Election Commission of India can be adopted to further reduce the chances of bogus votes. Before polling begins, the Presiding Officer at the polling station will show the result screen of each EVM to polling agents, and allow the agents to conduct a mock vote to demonstrate that the EVMs work as advertised. Replace 'polling agent' with 'independent observer' and another check and balance can be established. After voting ceases, the Presiding Officer will press the 'Close' button, effectively shutting down the EVM and preventing anybody from inputting a vote. Perhaps the best vote for BEL's voting machine is the 2004 Indian General Election. In the face of illiteracy and lack of infrastructure in remote areas, the 2004 General Elections were widely considered as the smoothest election held by the world's largest democracy. This was facilitated through education and awareness programmes, and executed through the widespread use of BEL's EVM. Indeed, BEL's EVM has received the least flak and the most praise compared to other e-voting systems.The SDP has conflated BEL's EVM with other e-voting machines. BEL's model was designed to facilitate free and fair elections. By not making this distinction and not checking the facts, the SDP has wrongly smeared BEL's reputation.And by not checking the facts before publication, the SDP has shot itself in the foot. One step Earth Hour has come and gone. Given the scope of this year's publicity campaign, I am confident that a large number of people voted for the Earth, switching off their electrical appliances for one whole hour. But this is a start, and nothing more.Take for example an overweight woman who, deciding to lose some weight, takes a walk around the neighbourhood. After an hour, she returns home, satisfied that she has done something. For the rest of the year, she continues her high-calorie, low-exercise lifestyle. That is the same situation we could be facing.Why do I say this? I don't see people talking about environmental issues in Singapore. Outside specialist circles, there is virtually no debate on issues like carbon taxes and climate change. I have not heard of any local petitions to increase COE prices and implementing Cradle to Cradle designs and processes. NGOs here are mostly silent on the environment until significant events roll around, and after that brief moment of glory, fade into public obscurity. Our elected representatives are more concerned with additional poltical restrictions and objective films than making concrete change for the future. And the people remain silent.Granted, there are a great many people out there who lack the knowledge, commitment, and passion for environmental issues. Beyond what is disseminated to the public, they know little about how to preserve and protect what is left of our polluted planet. This, if anything, is all the more reason for those who know and care to take action.There are people out there who care about the Earth. But in Singapore, their voices are mostly silent, if not drowned out by other matters. To effect change, it is not enough to merely express your opinion on a blog. To effect change, it is necessary to leave cyberspace, talk to people, do research, meet stakeholders, and influence them to see your point of view. That is the road to change, with no shortcuts or deviations.Earth Hour is a step forward. But it is only one step in a long road, and the journey may never be completed before it is too late. Why I blog To many, the world is not what we want it to be. To a specific breed of people, we are less free than we should be, pay more taxes than we have to, are subject to more laws than we must, and live a life of a lower quality than we should. To this very specific group of people, the first way they deal with this is to communicate their discontents. In today's world, more often than not their tool of choice is a blog. While this is admirable in itself, blogging alone cannot effect real change.The essence of blogging is communication. By writing this post, I am letting my reader know what I think about blogging. My reader can access my work through the Internet. The Internet's borderless nature means that anybody out there can read my works on this blog. They are also free to leave comments, and perhaps even spark a discussion. In this sense, I communicate my views to the world, and interested readers communicate theirs, hopefully sparking a conversation. However, conversation on a blog is little more than the digital equivalent of having a face-to-face conversation. Worse, it is not a perfect subsititute, because you cannot read body language or hear the tone of voice on the Internet. Talk alone solves nothing.Socio-political bloggers write because they sense that something is wrong -- or right -- with the world. They want to illuminate what they believe are erroneous policies and cases of injustice. They want to shine a light on Good Samaritans and organisations that work towards the welfare of others. In effect, they want to spread the word about something. By doing so, they hope to influence others to take action. They hope that this action, as proposed in their works explicitly or implicitly, would solve whatever is wrong with the world. But the gulf between communication and change can be a very wide divide.This is especially so in Singapore. Bloggers have effected political change before. But these bloggers did not do so by preaching to the converted, reaching out to netizens, or talking amongst themselves. They did so through action. In 2008, polytechnic and ITE students started a petition, meeting ordinary Singaporeans on the street, to campaign for lower public transport fares while simultaneously spreading the word on the Internet. This campaign led to a reduction in concession fares by $2 and $4 for monthly bus and train concession passes and hybrid concession passes respectively. This came about because the leaders of this campaign met with the officials who decided the prices, and persuaded them to lower the prices. This is in direct contrast to a proposal on public transport proposed by The Online Citizen, which was quickly delegated to obscurity. The key difference was offline action.There is a common consensus amongst socio-poltiical bloggers that there is something wrong with the current state of affairs. That is, after all, their raison d'etre. They can push for change through their essays, targeting the relevant persons with authority to effect necessary changes. But when the powers that be remain unswayed by blogs and petitions, as in the case in Singapore, then more must be done. The gulf between communication and change must be bridged through offline action. This action takes the form of meeting key players, meeting the public, putting faces to their voices, roping in experts, organising a campaign, and other actions designed to increase support for their cause and sway any opposing camps. Offline action is significant, because it is more difficult to ignore someone in your face than a collection of words on a computer screen. It is more difficult for the State to gloss over a political scandal when the country is talking about it, and is opposed to the official point of view. It is difficult to not review economic policies when investors, convinced that something is wrong, are pulling out of of the economy. That is the leverage afforded by offline action that is not accessible to online blogging alone.But this is not to say that action should take precedence to blogging, or even supplant it. Quite the contrary. There is a distinct chain of events that leads to change: communication of ideas, selection of best ideas, political action, and then change. It is a formula followed all over the world by successful political campaigners. The American black civil rights movement started with social workers educating blacks about their political rights, and spreading the word in churches and speeches. Others came up with ideas to effect change. The one that stood out the most was the non-violent approach, advocated by Martin Luther King Jr. King met community leaders, social workers, politicians and ordinary people. King directed the peaceful marches for civil rights. King organised the systematic breaking of Jim Crow laws, starting with blacks sitting in areas reserved for whites. Enough people did this for Washington to sit up and take notice, and eventually do away with official segregation. While this action may be the most visible part, only action in the right direction can effect change. Political action without a guiding ideology is like shooting into the dark without knowing where the target is. Action, in short, must be informed so that the actors know how to act, and what direction they should take.I have stated earlier that blogging is about communication. An action is informed by the ideas, principles, and goals that underlie it. The civil rights movement was informed by the idea that blacks have the same rights as whites, and that these rights should be fought for through non-violent goals, in order to sway the federal government into changing the law. Informed action in the right direction can only take place in an environment where there is vibrant communication. Specifically, communication amongst enough like-minded people to create a marketplace of ideas. This marketplace of ideas is essentially a recognition that there are several competing ideas out there, and that through debate and experimentation the best ideas can be adopted. Indeed, communication is the foundation of informed action. In the past, this communication was effected through speeches, pamphlets, posters, and press releases. However, the advent of infocommunication technology, specifically New Media, has effected an explosion in infomommunication capability. In effect, anybody anywhere can communicate any idea to anybody anywhere through the use of New Media.If the marketplace of ideas were manifest in the real world, then blogs and specialist websites must be the stalls that populate this market. Blogs and websites offer opinions and ideas of varying quality for people to analyse and take up. By influencing the way people think through ideas, the blogger hopes to influence the way people act, by informing their actions.This is why socio-poltical bloggers blog. They do so to change the way people think, in order to persuade them to take up a specific course of action that the blogger or bloggers feel is the best. In the best case scenario, this is enough to propel the government into taking action. But more often than not, this is not enough. People will not automatically take to the streets because of a blog post. Parliament will not pass or abolish a law on the recommendation of a group of bloggers. To cause change, more must be done. Bloggers need to meet the players and negotiate with them. Bloggers need to persuade people to follow their cause -- and this is still best done through offline action, by meeting the media, organising rallies, and the like. But, of course, all this action can only take place, and be successful, if there is sufficient and vigorous communication of ideas.Change is best expedited through offline action that aims to sway the key players and the general public. However, this action, to be successful, needs to be informed by the right ideas. This can only come about in an environment that promotes and maintains communication of ideas, in order to filter out and disseminate the best ideas for implementation. But steps must be taken in order to create this kind of environment, and to pick out these ideas. People need to talk about these ideas, to dissect them, to propose them, and ultimately to adopt them. This is why I blog. Looking In, Looking Out Regular readers would note the lack of updates on my blog. A lot of it has to do with writer's block. Every writer experiences it differently. In my case, it's like sprinting head-on into a wall of water, then trying to run through it. Except that instead of going forward, you are struggling just to run in place.I admit, I have plenty of things to occupy my time. The working week is, of course, taken up by my commitment to Singapore's defence. What's left of my life is crammed into the weekend, if I'm lucky. Sometimes not even that. And then there is my writing. On the Internet, I am best known for blogging here, with occasional contributions on The Online Citizen. Offline, I am writing a novel. Writing is an art that I am still learning, still grasping, still practicing. Writing, in addition, requires research into topics ranging from neurolinguistic programming to amateur psychology and everything in between. Life is a zero-sum game. If you are doing something, then you are not doing something else. I cannot, for example, write an article for this blog while at the same time exercise. Certainly not with the same degree of quality. In light of this, and other upcoming developments, I will need to take my blog in a different direction.I have realised that I cannot repeat somebody else's argument in my writing. Not with the same conviction, authority, or substance. Neither can I write to fit a trend. Take TOC for instance. When an important issue arises, it will dedicate a week to that issue. Currently, transient workers are taking the forefront. Try as I might, I cannot think of something to write for migrant workers. Anything which I can write about has been taken by someone else. To insist on writing would be to turn the wall of water into a palisade of stone, completely and totally shutting off my ability to write.Call it a curse. Call it a gift. But all I can do, it seems, is to write that which has yet to be written or covered, at least in any great detail. More often than not, this merely means that my pieces would be too obscure to warrant much attention. After all, I'm not writing what people want to read. In which case, the cost-benefit analysis strongly suggests that I should just stop writing, because I have many things to do with my time, and writing requires an irrecoverable investment in time. Yet I cannot stop writing. Perhaps I am naive. People have called me over-idealistic. But my reason for writing is to expand horizons, manifest dreams, celebrate truth, expose lies, and maybe, just maybe, leave a legacy for the world.But although I canot bear to stop writing, I have encountered many obstacles on my way. Writer's block is just one of them. Some of the more popular advice is to keep on writing, regardless. These are fine words, and they may have worked for some people. But not for me. Even if I do keep on writing, I would inevitably delete what I've written for any number of reasons. When my block clears, the replacement text is always superior to what I have written earlier.So, at times like this, I need to look inwards. Writing is a form of communication, and communication means engaging the outside world. At the same time, how someone communicates is an expression of his or her inner self. Someone who focuses on the trivial all her life, for example, will while her days thinking and talking about the latest fashion trends, vacations, parties and the sort. Someone who would rather ponder on the intricacies of life, trying to reconcile the bullet and the Bible on some days and the evolution of morality on others, would rather read and write quietly. Should they become so set in their ways that they can do little else, then when they meet, they cannot communicate well, if at all. Their different lifestyles and interests and personalities are so different that they cannot bridge the gulf between them.To look out into the world, first look inwards. That is exactly what I will do now, in recognition that I am so utterly different from everybody I know. This blog will still be active, but I can only update it when I can actually write something I can live with here.And as for writers who doubt that introspection can cure writer's block, please read above. A January Musing This time one year ago, I was being processed for Basic Military Training. I guess I've changed a lot since then. I suppose my present self would find my self then a nearly unrecognizable character. In the following days, I will take some time out to reflect on who I am, who I was, what I have become, and who I will be. It will take a while, and I don't expect to be able to update this blog for the time being. It's not for want of material, but rather something else. I sense writer's block descending upon me, and for me, the best cure is to take some time out to look at life in a new perspective. The Lionheart will grow in a different direction this year, but it will take a while to define that direction. So please be patient, and stay tuned.But I will say this: ten more months to ORD...and the next stage in life. An End, A Beginning 2008 is drawing to an end. As the year closes, I sit and meditate about what I have done, what I have learnt, and what I will do.This blog is still a socio-political blog. In it are my thoughts, my perspectives, and my hopes. This is the essence of The Lionheart, even though the subject matter has thus far been limited to Singapore's political scene for the most part.Politics is not my only field of interest, nor is it my primary concern. The intention of establishing The Lionheart was to find a more efficient, more honest, way of expressing myself. Other affairs and topics are also clamouring for my attention, and for expression, and release, on the wider world. I am fundamentally a human being, and I cannot deny my essential humanity. In order to stay true to my growing self, and to the mission of the blog, the era of Singapore-centric politics on The Lionheart must come to an end.This does not mean I will henceforth not cover politics. What it does mean is an expansion into other areas heretofore not covered by this blog. This includes personal meditations, philosophical ideas, perspectives on being a human being, reviews of interesting media, and perhaps snippets of my personal life that I deem should be released to the wider world. I hope to include photographs as well.This post marks the end of the current phase of The Lionheart. It is also the beginning of its future. Conspiracy of Silence Yesterday, The Online Citizen received an e-mail. Dr. Ahmad Magad, Chairman of the Pasir Ris-Ponggol Town Council, seems to have instructed the General Manager of the TC, Ms. Kwok Wei Kin, not to reveal any more details regarding the TCs' investments beyond what has already been uploaded and what will be published. Below is the e-mail reproduced in full.Wei KinFurther to this, at the meeting with Minister yesterday it was decided that we will NOT disclose any further details beyond what we have already uploaded on-line and will be publishing in our Vibes newsletter.Additional follow up queries should be replied with politeness, indicating that our disclosures are and will be consistent with Corporate Governance Standards. Pls follow up accordingly.Thanks.Best Regards,Ahmad MagadThis link leads to the full story.If this were true, then what we are looking at is a conspiracy of silence. Up to this day, we have received nothing but chaff from the Town Councils. This is rather disturbing. The Minister for National Development Mr. Mah Bow Tan explicitly said that each Town Council "has the duty to explain to its residents how it invests its funds, what is its philosophy, what are the risks it takes". Yet, after meeting with the above un-named Minister, the Town Councils are going to shirk their duty with official sanction at the ministerial level.What is the rationale behind this? Why are the Town Councils not providing full disclosure now? The Town Councils have stonewalled requests or have directed them to the inadequate annual reports. There is no reason to believe that the Town Councils will provide the information that every taxpayer needs to know.If we don't ask for something, and press for it, we will never get it. We need to keep asking. We need to keep up the pressure. The only way to break a conspiracy of silence is to fill the silence with focused questions, aimed and fired again and again until there is a satisfactory reply. Keep sending e-mails and letters. We owe this to ourselves. The Shadow of Mumbai The spectre of terror has reached Singapore at arm's length. The on-going terrorist attacks in Mumbai have claimed the lives of about 160 people so far, one of whom is a Singaporean. Ms Lo Hwei Yen's body was found dead on the 19th floor of the Oberoi Hotel by Indian security personnel. She is the first Singaporean to have been killed in an overseas terrorist attack.Singapore has been lucky before. From 9/11 to Madrid to London to Bali, Singaporeans have been spared from terrorist attacks. But no more. Her death is and will remain an unqualified tragedy.Other Singaporeans are still in Mumbai. 4 remain uncontactable. It is perfectly understandable should every one of them decide to pack up and go home, lest they too be targeted. Indeed, Singapore is far safer than Mumbai at this point of time. We need not have to hope that today, a suicide bomber or fanatical gunman will not enter a crowded mall or Changi Airport with dreams of martyrdom.But the right approach is not to be afraid. Terrorists seek in incite terror in a target audience. They do so by targeting specific targets, usually civilian in nature, and inflicting as many deaths and causing as much destruction as they can. They want to be seen as invisible, striking only when it is too late. They wish to spread their message through violence, showcasing their prowess, denigrating their perceived enemies, and inspiring like-minded people from all communities. Through destruction, they hope to build a new world.But no world can ever be built by violence. Terrorists do not, as a rule, have a coherent plan for instituting the changes they are calling for, be it a global Islamic caliphate or an independent state. Without a clear vision and realistic plan for their new world, they have no overall strategy with which to replace the existing state of affairs. Terrorists are only interested in violence and destruction, because that is their current and only strategy. Even if they were able to totally destroy their enemies, they have no idea how to build the world they seek. They can never achieve tehir stated aims. In that sense, terrorists are doomed to fail from the start.At the same time, we should guard against being dragged down with them. The strategy of civilisation vis-a-vis terrorism should be to avoid being terrorised. Terrorists are given that name because they seek to instil a sense of fear in the community they target, be it a nation-state or ethnic group, as part of their strategy of destruction.Terrorist networks seek to isolate communities which provide the best recruits from the rest of the state. By attacking a country using operatives from a certain ethnic group, they hope to implant the belief that everybody from that ethnic group is somehow evil. It is, after all, a human failing to over-generalise groups of people based on the actions of few. Should the other people of the state turn against that specific race, the latter community would be more and more inclined to believe terrorist propaganda. This is already the case in Israel and Palestine. Palestinian terrorists spread the word of Israeli outrages against Palestinians and Muslims, hoping to inflame Palestinians and incite them to violence. By doing so, the terrorists would have an easier time recruiting new members, and obtaining logistical, financial and logistical support.In addition, terrorist organisations seek to destroy the foundations of state through fear. They want to replace the current state of affairs with the one partially articulated in their ideals. The first step is to erode the political values of a country, and turn the people against the government of the day. The USA PATRIOT Act was instituted in the wake of 9/11, supposedly to safeguard America against future terrorist attacks by granting the authorities a wider scope of powers and tools to deter, detect and detain terrorist suspects. But the USA PATRIOT Act substantially eroded civil liberties in America. The Federal Bureau of Investigation tapped and trace phone calls to and from foreign countries on a large scale, and harvested the financial information of a million visitors to Las Vegas and continues to hold this information, among other controversial actions. A Justice Department audit determined that the FBI had abused the PATRIOT Act over a thousand times from its implementation until 2007. The American historical narrative has Americans fighting for their rights and freedoms, from the battlefield of Gettysburg to the streets of Washington. Americans take pride in their hard-won freedoms, and have demonstrated a proclivity to turn against the governments and agencies that appear to impinge on these freedoms. The USA PATRIOT Act, a policy designed to strengthen America, backfired when the people of America turned against it, and started to disapprove of the FBI and the federal government because of the act. That, in turn, made the terrorists' operations a lot easier, because people will be less inclined to report suspicious activity to an agency that they are hostile towards, or at least disapprove of.Terrorism cannot be defeated. It is not a person, an organisation, or a nation. It is a strategy that hinges upon fear. What can be done is to contain terrorism, and prevent it from gaining a foothold in society and from being accepted as a legitimate strategy by disaffected members of society.Terrorism is an idea, and ideas are bulletproof. But they are not immune to refutation. We need to demonstrate that we are unbowed by terrorist attacks. That means going back to work, volunteering in rescue efforts, doing one's duty as best as one can, taking care of the family, and watching out for suspicious activity. By refusing to let fear influence our lives, muddy the way we see other people, and taint the way we formulate public policies, terrorism can be contained. Above all, we cannot let terrorists provoke us into generating, and accepting, a culture of fear. We must instead search out and understand the causes of our fear, understand why terrorists do what they do, confront and rebut the ideology of terrorists to prevent these ideas from inspiring others, bind the wounds between the peoples of nations from different ethnic origins, and implement sound policies that ensure our safety without unduly robbing us of our rights and freedom. By doing so, we will disprove the idea that terrorism is a sound strategy, and guarantee our victory.Ms Lo's name has been added to the too-long list of victims of terror. The shadow of Mumbai will loom large over Asia, no matter the outcome. Yet we must not seek vengeance against terrorists. We cannot implement another PATRIOT Act. We must not exchange liberty for fleeting security. We can never allow terror to dictate the way we live our lives. Instead, we must respond calmly and rationally to terror, and let our heads rule our actions. We must seek out and understand the terrorists, then proceed to rebut their ideology of destruction. Above all, we must let go of the notion that there is a War on Terror, and instead see terrorism for what it really is. Only then will we triumph. A Call for Action "When asked if town councils might lose more money from their other investments, Dr Teo said that he did not have the details of their investments and declined comment about his town council, Holland-Bukit Panjang." TODAY Newspaper‘Each town council has the duty to explain to its residents how it invests its funds, what is its philosophy, what are the risks it takes’ Mah Bow Tan, Minister for National DevelopmentGovernment money of any form is still our money. Through taxes, the Government takes money from the people in order to run the country. The State has an implicit contract with the people to ensure that the money is put to good use, and as the money is used by the people and for the people, the people have the right to know how their money is being used.But this is not happening.The Town Councils have remained silent. This silence has remained deafening in light of increasingly louder questions. With Singapore being swept up in the global tide of recession, how the Government uses the people's money is an increasingly relevant, increasingly controversial issue. While we are told that the Town Councils invest our money in stocks and products, we are not given the full picture. When the media probes deeper, the Government gives no response.In a country whose government prides itself on being strong and clean, this is unacceptable. It is nothing less than a disservice to the people who fund, build, run and maintain the machinery of state -- in short, every Singaporean. By deflecting or stonewalling questions that we have the right to ask, and whose answers we have the right to know, the Government is suggesting that it has something to hide. But why does the Government have something to hide?Our system of government rests on the shoulders of Parliament. But our Members of Parliament are by and large our elected representatives. We have shown our confidence in our MPs to lead us, but because they are making decisions on our behalf, we have the right to know the processes and information that governs these decisions. We have the right to know how our MPs are managing our money.It is up to the people to take the Government to task. It is our right, and our duty, to demand accountability from our MPs, instead of closing our eyes and hoping that the TCs invest the people's money wisely. The time has come for us to exercise our rights, and demand some answers.Written in italics below is a template letter drafted by The Online Citizen. You may use this letter to ask your MPs the questions that need to be asked, through e-mail or ordinary mail. Your TCs' addresses and their chairpersons' e-mail addresses are found below. Should you use this letter, please cc a copy to The Online Citizen so that it can track the number of queries sent. Should you receive a reply, please update TOC as well. TOC will collate any and all information received, and make it public. Singaporeans deserve this transparency.To: The Town Council ChairpersonRe: Investments of sinking fundsDear Sir / Madam, I am a resident of the Town Council which you chair. In light of the recent revelations in Parliament about certain Town Councils having exposed their sinking funds to troubled structured products that may now be worthless, I would like to ask for details on how the funds that have been collected from residents over the years are being invested. Specifically, I would like to request for the following information: 1)Full and transparent disclosure of all investments currently held by the Town Council (whether they are structured products, stocks, bonds, fixed deposits or others), made using sinking funds 2)In particular, whether sinking funds have been used to invest in any structured products that are not related to Lehman Brothers, but which may now be at risk3)The performance of the Town Council’s investments over the past three years, and whether these performance figures are based only last audited figures or include recent investment losses and/or write-offs4)What would the performance have been, if the Town Council had used all investable funds to purchase 10-year SGS bonds instead5)Who were the qualified persons who had advised the Town Council on its investments, and how were they appointed6)Whether the Town Council had purchased securities or otherwise placed any investments with these qualified persons, and if so, how the Town Council had addressed the apparent conflict of interest7Whether the Town Council believes that it had been missold any investments (whether related to Lehman Brothers or otherwise), and if so whether the Town Council intends to take action for such misselling.8 )Whether there are any minutes or records of the Town Council’s deliberations on decisions to invest in structured products, and if so whether the Town Council intends to disclose themI would like to remind you of the statement made by Minister for National Development Mr Mah Bow Tan:“Each town council has the duty to explain to its residents how it invests its funds, what is its philosophy, what are the risks it takes”. (Sunday Times November 23)I trust that you would agree that we residents deserve nothing less than full transparency and a complete accounting of what has happened, so that we can rest assured that our sinking funds have been appropriately handled.I look forward to your early reply. Yours Sincerely,(Name)(Address, Constituency)———–Addresses and emails of town councils and Members of ParliamentAljunied TCSerangoon North Office, Blk 147 Serangoon North Avenue 1, #01-421 , S550147 Fax: 6288 2009Chairman: MDM CYNTHIA PHUA : cynthia.phua@aljuniedgrc.org.sgAng Mo Kio-Yio Chu Kang Town CouncilAve 10 Office Blk 528 Ang Mo Kio Ave 10, #01-2385, S 560528Tel: 6456 1633, Fax: 6456 1225Chairman: MR INDERJIT SINGH : inderjit@singnet.com.sgWest Coast-Ayer Rajah Town Council:Clementi OfficeBlock 444 Clementi Avenue 3, #01-123/125S 120444Tel: 1800-776 0271Fax: 6775 1814 Chairman: MR ARTHUR FONG : arthur39@singnet.com.sgTanjong Pagar TC: Block 166 Bukit Merah Central, #03-3527 , Singapore 150166Tel: 6272 6415, Fax: 6272 6415Chairman: ASSOC PROF KOO TSAI KEE : kootk@mindef.gov.sgHong Kah Town Council 309 Choa Chu Kang Ave 4, #02-02 Choa Chu Kang CentreSingapore 680309 Tel: 6764 3295, Fax: 6764 7208Chairman: MR ANG MONG SENG : amshktc@singnet.com.sgJurong Town CouncilMain OfficeBlk 255 Jurong East Street 24, #01-303 , Singapore 600255 Tel: 6561 2222, Fax: 6562 4997Chairman: MDM HALIMAH YACOB : halimah@ntuc.org.sgPasir Ris-Punggol TCPasir Ris OfficeBlk 577 Pasir Ris St 53, #01-88, Singapore 510577Tel: 6585 4938, Fax: 6585 4937 Chairman: DR AHMAD MOHD MAGAD : amm@ii-vi.com.sgSembawang TCWoodlands OfficeBlk 306A Woodlands St 31, #02-00, S(731306)Tel: 6368 3100, Fax: 6368 2271 Chairman: MR HAWAZI DAIPI : hawazi@mom.gov.sg , hawazi@moh.gov.sgBishan Toa Payoh TCToa Payoh Office :Blk 125A #01-134, Toa Payoh Lorong 2, Singapore 311125 Tel : 6259 6700, Fax : 6259 9626Chairman: MR ZAINUDIN NORDIN : zainudin_nordin@pa.gov.sgJalan Besar TCGeylang Bahru Office , Blk 70, Geylang Bahru , #01-2719 S(330070) Tel: 62989222 / 1800-2989603 Fax: 6293 2117Chairman: DR LILY NEO : dr.lilyneo@gmail.com Vice-Chairman: MS DENISE PHUA LAY PENG : dphua@starhub.net.sg , denisephua@pathlight.org.sg Marine Parade TCMain OfficeBlk 50 Marine Terrace, #01-265, Singapore 440050Tel: 6241 6044, Fax: 6444 0919Chairman: DR ONG SEH HONG : sehhong_ong@renci.org.sgHolland-Bukit Panjang TCUlu Pandan Office 170 Ghim Moh Road, #06-02, Singapore 279621 Tel : 6 416 7900 , Fax : 6416 7911 Chairman: Teo Ho Pin : TEO_Ho_Pin@pa.gov.sgEast Coast TCBlock 206 Bedok North Street 1 , #01-353 , Singapore 460206 Tel: 1800 444-9549 , Fax: 6444-0775Chairman: MS TAN SOON NEO, JESSICA : jesstansn@hotmail.comTampines TC: Block 136 Tampines Street 11, Singapore 521136Fax : 6783 2208 Chairman: MR ONG KIAN MIN : ongkm@singnet.com.sgPotong Pasir TC:Tel: 6284 5000Fax: 6284 5161 MR CHIAM SEE TONG : chiamco@singnet.com.sgHougang TCHougang Avenue 2Singapore 530701Tel: 6286 3533Fax: 6283 2678MR LOW THIA KHIANG : ltk@wp.sgFor too long, the Government has heard the sound of a silent nation. Now is the time to remind the State what we have put them in power. Now is the time to get some of the answers we've been searching for too long. Now is our time. Eugenics, Education, Economics “That is the way the world is. I have explained this. I think I lost votes after I explained the awful truth. Nobody believed it, but slowly it dawned on them – especially the graduates – that yes, you marry a non-graduate, then you worry about whether or not your son or daughter is going to make it to the university!”Minister Menthor Lee Kwan YewLee Kuan Yew has, once again, espoused his views on eugenics by appealing to a common 'Asian' mindset of educational excellence. I will not even try to dispute eugenics; that task is best left to better men. But it is worth the while to examine why Lee has said that.The Singapore domestic economy has its roots planted in industries that specialise in high-technology, such as electronics and chemical manufacturing. These industries are the main drivers of Singapore's economy, and they are set to expand in the future. The government's encouragement of biosciences is the latest official action to expand these industries.But to enable these industries to grow, companies need staff. More input means more output, neglecting all other economic factors. These industries require personnel with specialised skills and knowledge, and such people are more often than not university graduates.The Government is still very much focused on Singapore's economic growth. The rationale for this is simple: people tend to have an attachment to their country (and perhaps the ruling political party) if they believe that the government looks after their basic needs, such as jobs, housing, education, and food; and if they make a lot of money in Singapore, then they are more inclined to stay in Singapore than anywhere else. The Government still acknowledges that its primary role is the custodian of the economy, to the extent of establishing government-linked corporations like Temasek Holdings to invest directly in its own economy. Lee Kuan Yew believes that if graduates marry graduates, they will produce children who are graduates, who will then boost Singapore's economy in the long run. The people, made wealthier by government policy, will then see little or no reason to oppose the Government or leave Singapore.On paper, it is a sound politico-economic strategy. The Social Development Unit is quite probably an offshoot of this. But in reality, this strategy is not sound. The emphasis on university graduates highlights an inherent bias in the workings of government: a tendency to prefer people with high logical-mathematical intelligence. In other words, people who can work with numbers and/or reason very well. These traits are very useful in the fields of high technology, and those skilled at solving problems requiring the use of logic and mathematics are rightly lauded for it here.But the system favours our future scientists too much. Year after year, we read about Singaporean students achieving some new breakthrough in the field of sciences, mathematics, or other related fields. The government extends more and richer scholarships and grants to science students and companies engaged in research and development than artists and philosophers. The government is constantly promoting the sciences in one field or another, hoping to turn Singapore into a hub for this or that, such as biomedical science. While this is all fine and well, Singapore's government wants a world-class city, and a world-class city needs a world-class culture. It is difficult to have a world-class culture when we lionise the scientist and ignore our writers, artists, sportsmen, musicians, diplomats, philosophers, and chefs.From a purely economic standpoint, the government is ignoring the kind of people that can develop the tourism and sports industries. Book-lovers will want to visit countries and places that have inspired or are the settings of novels written by world-class writers. Audiophiles will visit countries with world-class orchestras. The training and competition of sportsmen will stimulate growth in other areas, such as sports medicine. While these areas are not as inherently appealing as the high-technology sector, they nonetheless provide real areas for cost-effective growth if handled properly. Imagine spending $1 million on training 50 people in logico-mathematical skills, when in the end perhaps 20 contribute to the economy in areas that require such skills, while the rest contribute to the same or other sectors with marginally lesser ability, for lack of talent or training respectively. Then compare that to spending $2 million on that same 50 people, to develop their inner talents, so all 50 contribute to the economy to the fullest of their ability. The latter would prove to be a more effective economic option in the long run.It is unlikely that the Government will change its stance very soon, if at all. Indeed, their political strategy was derived from Singapore's economic conditions of the 1960s and before, where poverty was rampant. Now that poverty has mostly been solved in Singapore, the people can focus on other issues, such as self-development. But the Government, outside the usual lip service and maybe a half-dozen programmes, does not seem to recognise this.What ought to be done is to let people understand that paper qualifications are not everything. It is counterintuitive in Singapore, and goes against most of what has been ingrained in us as children. We have, after all, been taught to look out for our career while in ssecondary school and beyond, so that we can earn money. However, the measure of wealth does not lie in the material goods one possesses, because that kind of measure is relative to time, space, and other people. The true measure of wealth is really the well-being of a person, physically, emotionally, mentally, spiritually, and materially. It does not matter if a person were rich or not, so long as he or she has enough for a comfortable living without sacrificing his or her health, in the holistic sense of the term. 'Rich', after all, is simply an opinion, measured in perishable goods and floating currency.I believe that society's mindsets towards wealth and education must first be changed. Paper qualification is not a prerequisite for wealth. Sim Wong Hoo, Singapore's youngest millionaire, holds a diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering, not a paper degree Lee wants as many people as possible to hold. Bill Gates, one of the world's richest men, left Harvard to start his computer firm. Note that these two men did not pursue the equivalent of a university degree; instead, they developed their personal interests and intelligences, and made use of that to become successful. Note that their successes were in a field that required logico-mathematical intelligence, questioning the belief that such a field requires people to be degree-holders to be successful.I believe that the first step towards wealth is personal development, that is, identifying and honing one's talents and character. It does not matter whether or not that talent lies in the sports, music, or mathematics. Armed with skills based on your strengths, you can then search for, or create, your own opportunities. Bill Gates and Sim Wong Hoo, after all, created their own businesses instead of searching for employers. That, I believe, should be the true purpose of education. Lest we forget, the economy is driven by people, and its characteristics reflect those of every single person who contributes to it. An economy founded on a smaller number of people who are using their talents and skills wisely would be more cost-effective to upkeep and develop than an economy based on a large number of people who developed their weaknesses and took jobs based on the end results, because it is harder to develop a weakness than to train a strength. I believe that the government should change its stance towards developing people's potential, instead of calling on them to blindly pursue a degree and degree-holders, because of this.It is my belief that the Government, or at least the person of Lee Kuan Yew, is pursuing the wrong strategy. It (or he) is encouraging people to chase after degrees in universities instead of honing their talents. However, by honing their talents, they will have powerful skills that can be used to create or search for business opportunities, and in turn, be successful in life. That, I believe, ought to be the government's position on economics and education. Eugenics is still little more than a personal perspective -- albeit one that is open to exploration and development by talented and trained scientists. JBJ is Dead. At 1.30 am, Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam died today of a heart attack at the age of 82. History, I suspect, will do more justice to his life and death than I possibly can in the space of a single blog post. Indeed, having lived in a different age, having never met the man before, it is hard for me to tell what, exactly, is the measure of the man.I cannot write his eulogy. I cannot sing praises of him. I cannot do more than write of his passing, and its influence on me. He and I lived in different times, with different values, standards, practices, and collective memories. I do not know JBJ, and never will. All I do know is what I have read, and I hope what little I do know of him is enough for this piece.History will say that Jeyaratnam had an extraordinary strength of conviction. Representing the Workers' Party in 1981, he ran against and defeated Pang Kim Him of the People's Action Party in the 1981 Ansom by-election, becoming the first opposition politician to win a seat in Parliament since 1968. In 1984, he was again re-elected, as one of only two Opposition MPs that year. In addition, he was the only minority candidate outside the PAP who was elected into office in both elections.From 1984 until 2006, JBJ was hit by a series of court cases, accusing him of mis-stating party accounts. slander, defamation and lying; eventually leading to his being declared bankrupt from 2001 to 2006. Yet his spirit remained unbroken. In 2008, he started the Reform Party, nursing his dream to return to Parliament one day as an elected MP. But his dream died with him this morning.JBJ is dead. But I cannot let the values he stood for die with him. He believed in a democratic Singapore, one that will no longer live in the shadow of one-party rule. As recently as 11 days ago, he tried to file a class action lawsuit against the Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong, for not holding a by-election in Jurong Group Representative Constituency, following the death of MP Dr. Ong Chit Chung. He had the strength of will to continue the good fight, even when reduced to hawking books on the streets of Singapore. As the first Singaporean Opposition MP of the 1980s, he stood for a political alternative in a system of homogenous views. It may yet be possible that his greatest gift to Singapore will be the Reform Party, but only time will tell.And what of me, a 19-year-old NSF with a penchant for writing? I do not hope to one day be able to accomplish what he has done. I cannot wish that some day I will be as renowned as he. That, I think, is not the point of remembering the dead. The point is to recognise what made them special, what made them human, and what made them stand out. In doing so, we hope, if only on some subconscious level, that either we or someone else we know will one day be able to embody that which made the dead men great in their time, and so usher in a better world. And so, today, for my hundredth post, I have written of a dead man, in the hope that the living will recognise what he was, and reinforce what he stood for.I can only hope that I may yet be able to live up to my words. Milestones Yesterday, The Online Citizen held its first public event. Conducted at Speakers' Coerner at Hong Lim Park, six bloggers spoke on public transportation in Singapore, outlining a series of proposals to improve the state of affairs in Singapore.In a very real sense, this marked a major milestone in the Singapore socio-political blogosphere. Bloggers were initially content with talking to other people on the Internet, known only by their writing voice and pet topics. But in practical terms, this achieved little, if at all. By insulating themselves from the government, the media, and the public at large, early socio-political bloggers could only do so much. It is, after all, very difficult to ask others to do something if you are only talking to yourself, and perhaps amongst like-minded friends.Admittedly, not all of this was their fault: tighter regulations on speech and expression, a more conservative media, and a less connected, knowledgeable and open society hindered the work of the early bloggers. ThinkCentre, as I recall, held several events to help raise awareness of political and legal issues in Singapore. Then they were stymied by lack of media coverage and public support, not to mention an unreceptive government. But now, advances in communications technology and the increasing utlity and prominence of the Internet have effectively forced the government to pay more attention to bloggers. The recent steps towards political liberalisation were, in fact, a concession to the times: it is no longer practical to stifle or ignore the growing voices of dissent on the Internet.The time of engagement is coming. Already, bloggers are making their presence felt in the traditional media, and in politics. Once thought the preserve of the State and approved think-tanks, bloggers are now presenting their own proposals to the government for consideration, through speeches and papers. I myself have helped to write the press statement and presentation paper of the so-called 'Bloggers 13'. The Online Citizen is now expanding into the offline world, seen most dramatically in yesterday's speeches -- and the submission of its proposal paper to the government. The intention behind these activities was to actively engage the government, in the hopes of influencing public policy.I am heartened by this. This is a step forward towards the democratic society we have promised to build in the National Pledge. A nation may be founded on democratic principles, but maintaining these principles requires people to live by them. Democracy means "people's rule", and that requires ordinary people having a say in how policies are decided. The bloggers who did speak so far are ordinary Singaporeans: tertiary students, teachers, a financial consultant, an entrepreneur, just to name a few. This demonstrates that there are yet people who want to have a say in Singapore, and in so doing help to make Singapore a better place to live in.The government has indicated that it is willing to listen. There have been no repurcussions against any of the above-mentioned bloggers so far, legal or otherwise. It is now up to activists and bloggers to speak up and engage the people and the government to realise their vision. It is my hope that bloggers after myself will understand this, and continue to mobilise and speak up. Time will tell, but this might yet happen. The Online Citizen at Speakers' Corner In Response to The Straits Times Thank you for writing to us. We do appreciate your making the effort.We receive up to 70 letters each day. Limited space means we can publish only about a dozen every weekday. This means having to make often-difficult editorial judgments on which letters to publish.We regret we are unable to publish your letter.If your letter relates to a matter under the purview of a government department, you may want to visit www.sgdi.gov.sg for a list of officials to contact.Yours sincerelyMs Noor Aizafor Forum EditorThe Straits TimesLast Wednesday, the media deregulation group organised a press conference in response to the release of AIMS' proposal paper. The following day, the Straits Times published an article, stating that 'Bloggers 13' wanted a near free-for-all. Furthermore, it misrepresented us as radical liberals, calling for the abolishment of regulations on the Internet, and it also commented that we were ignoring the rest of AIMS' proposals.Within 24 hours, we drafted and finalised a letter to the Straits Times' Forum Page, in response to that article. The Straits' Times sent us the above-quoted reply. With our right of reply denied by the Straits Times, we have little choice but to publish the letter on our blogs. Here it is.Blogger's do not advocate "near free-for-all".Your article in Thursday's ST, "'Bloggers 13' want near free-for-all"misrepresented our group's response to the discussion paper of theAdvisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS).Contrary to the article’s headline, we do not advocate a near “freefor all”. Indeed, the very first paragraph of our April 2008 reportexplicitly cautions against caricaturing any side as wanting a "free-for-all", adding: "The real issue is what kind of regulation can allowus, as individuals and as a society, to harness the benefits of freespeech while minimising the harm that such speech can cause.The report also claimed we were "ignoring" AIMS' proposals except inrelation to changes to the laws on political content online.In fact, our 20-page proposal to MICA in April encompassed a broadspectrum of cyberspace related issues including a suggestion for theformation of a community moderation mechanism called IC3 to deal withcontroversial online speech including extreme racial and religiousviews. The proposed IC3 is to be made up of content providers,internet technology users, and internet content consumers. This wasdiscussed at a public seminar we held on 21 June 2008, which wasattended by the chairman of AIMS, Mr Cheong Yip Seng.However, we make no apologies for concerning ourselves largely withpolitical control of the internet in our recent press statement. Wefind it curious that ST considers our silence on some parts of theAIMS report to be more worthy of reportage than what we actually dosay. The effect, once again, is to caricature rather than inform.It is unfortunate that the caricaturing we warned of in our proposalis practiced by a national newspaper. The report in Today was, incontrast, considerably more nuanced and reflective of our position. Itis a pity that the Straits Times, despite being the larger andostensibly more serious newspaper, seemed less patient with details onthis occasion.The full text of our response to AIMS can be found at www.journalism.sgand elsewhere on the web. The blogger deregulation group will continueto elaborate on our community moderation proposal for submission toMICA.(Main text of letter written by Choo Zheng Xi) Press Release from Bloggers 13 Statement for the media3 September 2008 By Bernard Leong, Benjamin Cheah, Choo Zheng Xi, Gerald Giam, Justin Zhuang, Martyn See, Ng E-Jay, Scott Teng, Roderick Chia, Alex AuAIMS' proposals are progressive but can be improved 1. The Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS) released its public consultation paper last Friday, 29 August 2008. 2. In April, a group of 13 bloggers submitted proposals for the deregulation of the Internet to the Minister for Information, Communication and the Arts. It can be found at http://www.yawningbread.org/ybsamplerfiles/bloggerssub.pdf. AIMS has put on the table some good, forward-looking options that move in the directions proposed by us. AIMS' analysis of the state of the technology and its impact on the relevance of the existing regulatory assumptions were particularly lucid. 3. However, the Consultation Paper is silent on two aspects which we consider fundamental, and which we had discussed at length in our April proposals: (a) Principles. There is a lack of principled recognition of the value of the free flow of information as a critical enabling feature of a mature and robust democratic process. The paper advises against the government regulating what is "unregulable" given the borderless nature of the Internet (paragraphs 1.09 and 1.10). This is merely a concession to a practical impossibility, not an articulation of the value of free expression. Articulating so would serve well as a guide for future amendments to legislation. (b) Process. There was no discussion on the process of regulation. There seems to have been an assumption that the various overlapping mechanisms – of bureaucratic regulation by the Media Development Authority, the Board of Film censors, and occasionally through prosecution – would continue, with proposals for even more panels, such as one for assessing political films (paragraph 4.57 of AIMS' paper). In contrast, in our April submission, we had called for a pruning of the processes, with particular emphasis on removing administrative discretion, including the power to impose fines. We had found the reliance on administrative discretion in the existing regulatory system unsatisfactory. We argued that if truly needed, rules should be written as law and violations of such laws be a matter for prosecution in an open court. Transparency of process is important and in this regard, we hope that AIMS will address this issue when they finalise their report. 4. In the areas where AIMS has put forward proposals, we note that it has taken a somewhat cautious and conservative approach. Here are 5 areas in which we have specific feedback:(a) Films Act Section 33. Section 33 of the Films Act should be repealed immediately and unconditionally. AIMS' consultation paper suggested repealing it in phases. This is unnecessarily conservative. The paper outlined 3 ways forward (paragraph 2.31). The first – classification of political films – is absurd because voters are at least 21 years old anyway, and such a proposal calls for even more bureaucracy. In any case, as AIMS' paper pointed out, the technology is already such that if anyone wishes to circumvent the rules by putting it up on the Internet, there is no practical way to stop him. The second – notification and right of reply – is also meaningless in practical terms. The third – blackout during parliamentary elections – is the most realistic of the three. Yet it still has definitional problems. What is a "party political film"? How new is "new"? The basic problem is AIMS' uncritical adoption of the idea that "misleading" films may cause havoc (paragraph 2.35). Yet, politically slanted videos are an integral part of the democratic process and allowing such material helps the electorate to exercise and strengthen their faculties of political discernment. Furthermore, as the paper pointed out, "the incumbent political party may be said to have prior knowledge of when a General Election would be called, and may release party political films just before elections are called." (paragraph 4.73). Thus, a blackout period, far from assuring neutrality, in effect introduces a bias. Given these problems, we call for an unconditional repeal of Section 33 of the Films Act, with at most the stipulation that all election advertising that promotes or opposes a candidate should include the name and address of persons sponsoring such advertisements, as in the case of Australia and Canada (paragraphs 4.38 and 4.40). (b) Films Act Section 35. Section 35 of the Films Act should also be repealed. This section empowers the Minister to ban any film at his discretion. For example, Martyn See's video documentary "Zahari's 17 years" (mentioned in paragraph 4.45) was not banned under Section 33, but under Section 35, yet AIMS' consultation paper does not propose the repeal of Section 35. c) Parliamentary Elections Act and Regulations. We agree with the suggestion to broaden the positive list for election advertising (paragraph 4.79) with respect to Internet activities of political parties and candidates during an election. However, it is worth asking if, with the broadening, it is even necessary anymore to have a positive list. We think it better if it is removed altogether. Malaysia had a general election in March 2008 without regulations circumscribing election advertising on the Internet, and by all accounts from the people (apart from the government that saw losses) nobody thinks the election was less democratic for it.A number of Malaysian candidates raised money through Internet appeals. Allowing online fundraising is a point that we feel AIMS' paper should have addressed even as it recommended that political parties should be allowed to use social networks (Web 2.0) in their election advertising. (d) Class Licence Scheme. The consultation paper "recommends the removal of the registration requirement for individuals and bodies of persons who provide any programme, for the propagation, promotion or discussion of political or religious issues relating to Singapore through the Internet websites" (paragraph 4.81) as adequate legislation is in place to deal with potential threats to our society. We support this proposal. However, there is room to take AIMS' proposal further. The entire Class Licensing Scheme should be dismantled. The Class Licensing Scheme is distinct from the registration requirement, in that it treats all Internet sites as automatically licensed even if owners are not called on to register. As automatically licensed sites, the Media Development Authority (MDA) treats them as coming within the scope of the Internet Code of Practice, and sees itself as having the power to impose fines on any website for violating its Code of Practice. It is this kind of regulation through administrative discretion that we have argued against, for it is characterised by an opacity of process, and the free hand given by the MDA to itself to write and interpret the Code of Practice. As the AIMS' paper says, there is already adequate legislation in place, whether to deal with child pornography or racial and religious hate-mongering, so there is no remaining rationale for resorting to an automatic class licence scheme administered by the MDA. The continuance of such a scheme, with its inherent lack of certainty in interpretation and avenues for recourse promotes self-censorship, which is the antithesis of the engagement and active participation that the consultation paper calls for, where "processes are more transparent, eliciting the trust of its citizens." (paragraph 3.41)(e) Symbolic ban on 100 sites. We agree with the proposal to abandon the symbolic ban (mostly for pornographic content) on 100 websites. The consultation paper had argued – and we agree with its analysis – that "the existence of the ban may give parents a false sense of security when the reality is that the 100 websites are merely symbolic. Furthermore, the symbolic value of these 100 websites diminishes with the continued proliferation of websites with undesirable content, and the increasing use of alternative methodologies like file-sharing networks" (paragraph 5.90) 5. Overall, we find AIMS' proposals progressive. In the areas discussed above, we urge AIMS to incorporate our feedback when they finalise their report, and we hope that the government adopts all the proposals so presented.For more information,Choo Zhengxi +65 9030 4377Alex Au +65 9630 2172 Where is the dividing line? "The overall thrust of all these changes is to liberalise our society, to widen space for expression and participation. We encourage more citizens to engage in debate, to participate in building our shared future." Minister Mentor Lee Kwan YewMake no mistake: I do welcome the recent liberalisation of politics in Singapore, promised by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in his National Day Rally speech. In my opinion, it looks like a shift towards common sense and democratisation. However, in the shadow of the Prime Minister's words lurks the bureaucratic ideology of the past. Consider the lifting of the ban on 'party political films'. On the surface, it is a step forward for democracy -- and it can well be, as it has on the surface freed up film-makers to document the activities of local political figures, citizens, and the like. But Lee's caveat on banning materials that 'create a slanted impression' is still unfeasible to my eyes.The criteria for deciding this 'slanted impression' lies in the message of the film, as inferred from its content. Now consider a film produced by a Singaporean filmmaker that shows People's Action Party Members of Parliament and assorted grassroots leaders making their rounds, talking to common citizens, and addressing their complaints. It is an entirely factual, showing our (mostly) elected MPs at work, and showing that they are, indeed, doing a very effective job. Every second of the film that portrays a member of government is shot on-site, with only enough editing to ensure clarity and viewability. The aim of the film is to demonstrate to the viewer that the PAP MPs live up to their job expectations, and even beyond. Of the Opposition, the film says nothing.On one hand, the film is quite clearly a factual documentary. On the other, its objective is 'partisan', i.e. slanted in favour of the PAP, and therefore the government. Where is the dividing line? It is not immediately apparent, nor, I suspect, would future policy alleviate this matter. In fact, I foresee the official line going something like this: "Cases which fall under such grey areas will be considered by the relevant authority on a case-by-case basis."But this is not good enough. Our civil servants surely have more than enough to do than to sit through a screening (or a dozen) of various 'party political films' to decide if they were documentaries, partisan, or whatever they deem it to be. Neither is it practical to hire civil servants for this sole purpose, because the number of such reviews cannot be so easily forecasted or predicted. In addition, these civil servants, due to time constraints, existing political biases, and qualifications may not make the right decisions.Consider the above example. For the sake of argument, we shall assume that it is passed as a documentary. Now, suppose that that same filmmaker decided to make the same type of film, only that it follows the Opposition Members of Parliament at work, and delivers the message that the Opposition's MPs are highly credible. Again, of the PAP's MPs, he says nothing. Considering that the 'relevant authority' mentioned above is the Media Development Authority, which is a branch of the government, it is safe to say that the people who will have to make the decision for this film come from the MDA. Given the character of the government, I will be hard-pressed to argue for a scenario in which a government body will willingly and ungrudgingly pass a documentary that uplifts the government's political opposition.The whole point of a 'party political film' is to make a political point. Politics is itself 'partisan' -- subjective, so to speak. A totally objective film would qualify to be a historical documentary, but is useless campaigning material for a politician, and is equally worthless from an activist's perspective. The political process works when contrary views meet and interact, stimulating deeper explorations and discussions in the body politic. The lack of a dividing line means that the above regulatory process will be evoked more often than not, effectively subjecting the production of party political films to artifical bureaucratic barriers -- 'liberalisation' then becomes little more than a word, and 'light touch' a hollow slogan' to the eyes of the people. This disillusionment means that the people will believe less and less in the effectiveness and honour of the State, which drains the State of its soft power.Now, let us consider the case where the film is uploaded online, instead of being broadcast on television or cinema. In this realm, attempts at regulation can only be called absurd.As the so-called 'G13' argued in June, regulation of online content by the State is impossible. The borderless nature of the Internet makes it difficult to decide which jurisdiction content falls under: a Singaporean may upload a film on YouTube, which is hosted in America; determining which nation has jurisdiction over the film will be difficult, at best. Tracking down and prosecuting users who have uploaded partisan films online is a highly difficult task, due to the fluid nature of servers, the fickleness of international law, and the difficulty of making a case (barring a miracle). Should the government attempt to impose blanket bans, the international community will quickly decry its actions -- and unlike China, Singapore needs to listen to the voice of America, Europe, and her neighbours very frequently to stay on their good terms. These, and other reasons, make regulation of party political films on the Internet an exercise in futility at best. Repeating the arguments here, I believe, would serve little purpose. It is for this, and other reasons, that we have argued for platform-neutral legislation regarding regulation of media.It is easy to say that the government is liberalising politics and widening spaces. But the shadow of unneeded bureaucratic regulation is stifling this attempt. This shadow, in fact, has replaced real efforts at liberalisation. What the government ought to do is to drop every and all kinds of regulation of party political films beyond those that safeguard public decency and health, eliminate the term 'party political film', stop talking about 'partisan politics' -- a redundant term if there ever was one -- and come up with a comprehensive single regulatory policy on all forms of media, preferably something akin to the paper the Internet Deregulation Seminar has released. By not making real efforts at liberalisation, the State is simply holding on to its power, instead of letting the people take it. What fellow believers and activists can do is to keep pressing the case for non-regulation and true liberalisation. The government has given the people sanction to use various media tools, by dropping the ban on 'party political films'; activists should make full use of these tools. They can produce films that argue for deregulation, greater political freedoms, and other such causes in addition to regular efforts. This is just another tool in the toolbox, one that can now be used with greater legal freedom. One cannot expect the State to make such a concession by itself; it is up to the people to enlighten it.Ultimately, this policy is trying to achieve two goals: meet demands for greater political freedom, and holding on to political power. But these demands are not satisfactorily met, because of bureaucratic tie-ups and a lack of a dividing line. This same lack of clear definitions return power to the state. But by doing so, the State will lose credibility with the people, therefore losing real political power, and defeat the stated objective of liberalisation. The way forward lies in pointing this out, and using the tools granted by the government to do so. It is my belief that the activists and politicians of today and tomorrow will rise up to this challenge.