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 'G15' 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. Law is Political 38. —(1) The purposes of the Society shall be...(c) to assist the Government and the courts in all matters affecting legislation submitted to it, and the administration and practice of the law in Singapore;(d) to represent, protect and assist members of the legal profession in Singapore and to promote in any manner the Society thinks fit the interests of the legal profession in Singapore...(f) to protect and assist the public in Singapore in all matters touching or ancillary or incidental to the lawSingapore Legal Profession Act 22 years ago, Section 38(1)(c) of the Legal Profession Act was modified to read the above. The justification for this was to prevent the Singapore Law Society from being a 'political pressure group'. But I will demonstrate that this modification was simply a measure to reign in the power of the Law Society to influence politics in Singapore.The law is political. Politics describes how a group of people make decisions. The decision-making process itself depends on the nature of the group. For example, a group headed by a single man wielding absolute power will take action based on that man's decisions, while a group founded on democratic principles will decide on various matters after accounting for everybody's input, or at least their appointed representatives. But the framework of power, namely how power is acquired, surrendered, and applied within the group, is instituted and regulated by pre-existing laws.Consider Singapore. The government has three branches: the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary. This is because the law has long ago spelled out the structure of government. It is the law, as upheld by the judiciary, that governs what the executive and the legislature, in this case, may or may not do. In effect, the law tells the country's leaders when and how they may or may not act in any given situation. In fact, everything involving some kind of decision that would influence other people, from justice to taxes to elections to business to the use of mobile phones, is governed by one law or other.Singapore's Law Society is composed of lawyers. The job of lawyers is to interpret the law, and represent their clients' interests in a court of law. To do their job properly, they must have a great awareness of the law, and its effects on the common man, not necessarily their clients. The nature of their work is effectively political, because they are influencing the judge's decision in court by drawing upon the foundations that gave the judge his power to decide a case, and the infrastructure that gave the courts their authority to try people for any reason.It goes without saying that humans are imperfect, and this imperfection extends to their creations. So it is with the law. Every now and then, lawyers may come across segments of the law that they disagree with, and they may realise that many, if not all, in the Law Society share the same view. The nature of this discomfort may well be that certain segments of society are unfairly discriminated against, such as the homosexual community's liability for prosecution under Section 377(A), for instance. Under section 1(f) of the Legal Profession Act, the Law Society is charged with protecting and assisting the public "in all matters touching or ancillary or incidental to the law". The Law Society therefore has a duty to take action when it determines that a law does not protect the public, or when the public needs assistance with regards to a legal issue.It is disingenuous to label the Law Society as a 'political pressure group'. The work of its members is akin to designing, maintaining, and changing the pillars that uphold the application of political power in Singapore. Should the Law Society discover a legal matter that pricks its collective conscience, and if that matter were to affect the average citizen, among other effects, then it is its duty under Setion 38(1)(f) to speak up. By doing so, it will become a 'political pressure group'. The Law Society is therefore a 'political pressure group'; all the government has done is to call it as it can be. The only negative connotations of that label are those seen by the State, vis-a-vis its grip on political power. That, perhaps, is why the law was changed 22 years ago.The modification of Section 38(1)(c) of the Legal Profession Act occured in August of 1986. Three months prior, the Law Society, under then-president Francis Seow, issued a press statement criticising the government's amendment to the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act. The amendment allowed the Government to curb the circulation of foreign publications deemed to be interfering in Singapore's domestic politics. The Law Society said that existing laws were sufficient to deal with such publications. The government then accused Seow of using the Law Society as a political vehicle. Three months later, the Legal Profession Act was modified, particularly Section 38(1)(c).But, as explained above, the work of the Law Society is political. It is not a cold, unliving institution, but a body of living men and women of character and knowledge, whose work takes them to the infrastructure of politics. The job of these lawyers is to properly determine and regulate the flows and application of political power in Singapore. In the course of their work, should they encounter anything that falls under the category of Section 38(1)(f), it is their duty, moral and legal, to act. Restraining the Law Society from doing its duty, on grounds that it will become a 'political pressure group', is disingenuous, because it obsfucates the true nature of the law, and its relation to politics.It can be inferred from this incident that the true purpose of this modication was to curtail the Law Society. Section 38(1)(c) is often interpreted as forcing the Law Society to take a reactive stance to government policies, by speaking only when spoken to on matters of the law. This interpretation effectively renders the Law Society impotent, by preventing it from exposing, criticising, and effecting changes to laws that it disagrees with. After all, changing the law is akin to changing the course of a river: it redirects and refocuses the flow of political power, for whatever purpose, be it to run a hydroelectric dam or to irrigate a collective farm. It is not outside the nature of Singapore's government to suppress the power of any body that has even the slightest potential to challenge its power, as seen in its treatment of the Opposition. Neutralising the power of a hostile Law Society is a crucial goal for a government intent on retaining its hold on power, because lawyers tend to have more credibility with people on political matters due to their knowledge and experience with the law. With the most powerful potential legal adversary removed, the system that gave the government its power is retained. The government's power then remains unchallenged.What can the Law Society do now? In the interim, it should do its duty. It has a duty, under Section 38(1)(f) of the Legal Profession Act, to protect and assist the general public in legal matters. So when discussions on the law, or matters relating to the law, come into play, it must speak. Its role would be to clarify the issue for the general public, and to examine the legality and righteousness of the actions of the actors involved. This means explaining the laws in question in detail and with lucidity, examining different perspectives, and if necessary arguing for what it believes is the optimal solution. Its job is still to protect the public, which can be read as protecting them from anything from discrimination to red tape. Not one word in the Legal Profession Act bars the Law Society from being proactive, from engaging the State, or from acting freely. Section 38(1)(c) merely outlines one of, and not the paramount, duty of the Law Society. This, I believe, is the interpretation the Law Society ought to adopt.The government can continue to slam the Law Society for becoming a political pressure group for all it wants. But the Law Society is, by its very nature, a group whose work is political. The Law Society should not acquiesce its power to the State, rather to do its duty, to ensure the proper interpretation and application of the law -- and the correction of the law, to better serve the people. To do otherwise is to break the law it has helped to defend and apply. Disobedience for Justice I managed to read Sue-Ann Chia's article in today's Straits Times, titled 'What place does civil disobedience have in Singapore?' In it, she attempts to argue that civil disobedience has no place in Singapore. I use 'attempt', because all I see are fragments of arguments.Civil disobedience is the act of peacefully disobeying a specific law, in the hopes that it would be amended or abolished, and so benefit the people in the name of justice. Justice, in this case, means equal treatment to all people, regardless of personal factors that are irrelevant and/or out of their control. By doing so, the innnocent would be protected, the guilty punished in proportion to his crime, the future criminal deterred, and the good rewarded.Chia said that she is 'not advocating civil disobedience'. She argues there is no need for civil disobedience because a new government could be voted in. In addition, civil disobedience could mark the start of a slippery slope towards anarchy. Finally, civil disobedients in Singapore do not have much support amongst Singaporeans. These three 'arguments' fail to demonstrate that civil disobedience has no place in Singapore, not because of their incoherence, but also because they are fundamentally flawed.Chia's overarching argument is that civil disobedience 'defeat(s) the purpose of having democratic elections'. This argument presupposes that there are, in fact, democratic elections . This is hardly the case.'Democratic elections' presupposes that elections are free and fair, with no political parties receiving inherent advantages or disadvantages. With respect to Singapore, the existence of Group Representative Constituencies distort democracy, by enforcing homogenisation at the expense of minorities, as Yawning Bread has shown. Goh Chok Tong himself has admitted that GRCs were established primarily to allow junior Members of Parliament or candidates to be assisted by more experienced ones -- in other words, to let junior candidates piggyback on the success of their seniors. In doing so, the People's Action Party puts more MPs on its bench than the opposition parties, because the Opposition is smaller, and possesses fewer skilled and popular candidates and less resources, and so is forced to fight an uphill battle in every GRC. The media plays up coverage of PAP events, and relatively little attention to Opposition rallies. Simply counting the number of articles and estimating the length of each article covering each party will reveal the media's lopsidedness. This, in of itself, throws the concept of democratic elections in Singapore into question. I will state that elections in Singapore are not democratic, in the spirit of the word.Even if the issue does not cover Singapore, and assuming that elections in Singapore were democratic, what about non-democratic countries? The fall of communism in Poland and East Germany, and later the whole of the Union of Societ Socialist Republics, was not brought about by peaceful democratic elections. As History students will tell you, there was a confluence of factors, most notably peaceful demonstrations on the streets of Eastern Europe. The protests mobilised the former Soviet citizens into taking action against the regime, by giving them a chance to participate directly in politics for the first time in generations. The dictatorial communist governments were felled by civil disobedients, not the ballot box, because elections, had they existed, were rigged to favour the Communist Party. Chia has failed to consider this case, weakening her argument.Because elections in Singapore are not democratic, and that not every country is democratic, the underlying assumption underpinning Chia's argument has fallen, and with it, her entire case. We cannot simply re-elect another government if we so happen to disagree with some of the laws it chooses to enforce, because the system tilts the odds in the government's favour. Coupled with opposition parties that are too small to possess real power in Singapore's political arena in the near future, and the fate of every foreseeable election is sealed. Consequently, the unjust law remains on the books in the indefinite future.Even assuming that democratic elections exist in Singapore, Chia's argument still falls. The assumption that underpins her argument is composed of two sub-beliefs: the new government would be perfectly willing to change the law, and that the issue at hand can wait until polling day.The law in question could be a political hot potato, perhaps something along the scale of Singapore's Section 377A, in which case the new government would not touch it of its own accord, lest it loses votes. Chia believes that, just because the government refuses to change an unjust law, the opposition would naturally call for its change in order to win public support. That is not true. The Worker's Party, for instance, has remained ambivalent on Section 377A even during the height of the debate on it. If the Opposition refuses to change the law, even if it means a chance of being voted into power, then argument by election will fail.That is even assuming that the issue can wait until the next election, because a law or ruling could well harm the country for a long period of time. Consider, for example, the American war in Iraq: if the war were unjustified, it would make more sense to stop the killing now, instead of waiting for a thousand, or even a hundred, casualties between now and voting day. When time is of the essence, then people have to act decisively, without undue delay. Civil disobedience is the ultimate impetus against a slow-moving or unmoving government, because it reminds the government that it is representative of the people, and draws its power from the people. Should the democratic government lose the support of its people, as broadcast through civil disobedience, then it will not be the government in the future. It is this impetus that prods bureaucrats and politicians into action.Chia highlights the argument that civil disobedience is the start of a slippery slope towards anarchy. But this is a very poor understanding of 'anarchy' and 'civil disobedience'.The whole notion of civil disobedience is to peacefully disobey a law to make a statement, in order to effect a change in law and so better align the current legal system with the principles of justice. It is, in effect, the people talking to the government with a loudhailer turned to the highest volume. Anarchy, on the other hand, means an absence of government. Civil disobedience is based on respect for the ruling power, so much so that civil disobedients would not resist arrest, trial, or punishment. Anarchy, however, views all governments as essentially harmful, as they take away human freedom. It is that respect that bars civil disobedience from degenerating into anarchy. It is not impossible to embody, as Martin Luther King and Gandi have demonstrated. Dr. Chee Soon Juan and his fellow demonstrators, in fact, have never resisted arrest when the police showed up. Anarchists would prefer to resist arrest, because the police is viewed as an extension of the State, and thus as something to be resisted and eventually destroyed. It is this divergence of ideology, demarcated by the notion of respect, that stops civil disobedience from becoming a slippery slope towards anarchy.If anything else, civil disobedience is designed to promote the cause of justice. Wong Kan Seng has disingenuously said that civil disobedience 'does violence to the rule of law'. But that is because the rule of law has failed, and the existing system refuses to change it. From its perspective, there is no point in expending time and resources to change a law that people do not pay attention to, because it would merely divert attention from other issues, or could help ensure that the system stays in power. Consider the example that Chia has raised: the black civil rights movement. Following the election of 1876, a series of laws were passed, suppressing the rights of African Americans. Collectively known as the Jim Crow laws, they legalised racial discrimination, exploited minority races, and disenfranchised most African Americans. The system was henceforth maintained by white voters and white Presidents, with the latter needing the former to either enter or remain in office, even if they were racists. Blacks and other minority races had no legal means of combating such an entrenched system; they had to act against the law in the name of justice. Civil disobedience thus provides a powerful avenue to mobilise a disenfrancished population, and to channel them into taking constructive action.The essentials of Chia's second argument is that civil disobedience undermines the rule of law. But the law must adhere to the principles of natural justice. When the law fails, it must die. For it to live on is a smear on the justice system, for the principles of natural justice are not upheld. When the government refuses to admit justice into the legal system of its own accord, it is the perogative of the people to embody the sword of justice, and cut down anything that hinders the progression and execution of justice. If it entails violence against the law, then so be it: laws can be re-written, but justice cannot.Chia's last argument is painfully ludicrous. She states that civil disobedients must be 'good judges' of the 'right circumstances' and 'causes (that) will take off'. In Singapore, Chee Soon Juan and the Singapore Democratic Party, the most prominent civil disobedients in Singapore, have failed to accurately judge the proper conditions for the use of civil disobedience. Therefore, it is implied, civil disobedience has no place here.Civil disobedience is a controversial, high-stakes political tactic with its time and place. Just because the Chees and the SDP have failed to show adequate judgment, in Chia's opinion, does not show that civil disobedience has no place in Singapore. It simply means that the conditions do not yet exist, so anyone seriously considering civil disobedience must first realise these conditions -- if at all possible. Just because civil disobedience may have no place now does not show that it will never have a place in Singapore.The principle behind civil disobedience is that breaking the law in a peaceful, physically non-violent way would eventually lead to a great deal of social good. This good is expressed in the modification of the existing system, so that it would treat people more fairly, no longer act against the people's conscience, or otherwise rectify an existing wrong. The case against civil disobedience must demonstrate that civil disobedience will do more harm than good.Chia's contribution to this: civil disobedience violates the principle of democratic elections, and could lead to anarchy. But as I have already mentioned, when the electoral system has failed, when the Opposition refuses to change the law even if it were the next government, or if the issue is time-sensitive, there exists a case for civil disobedience, either to minimise and prevent existing and future harm, or to right a wrong. Furthermore, the principle of respect stands between civil disobedience and the slippery slope to anarchy, reducing the ability for civil disobedience to do more harm than necessary. Therefore, Chia has failed to make the case against civil disobedience.When justice is insulted by the law, civil disobedience is a powerful tool to erase that smear, as it provides an impetus for governments to act and gives an avenue for frustrated and repressed citizens to act. In my opinion, it should not be used when legal ways are sufficient, such as a letter-writing or petition campaign, because of the higher costs a civil disobedience campaign entails. To draw an analogy, it is akin to using a machete to cut a loaf of bread. You can do that, but why bother when a bread knife is at hand? This is especially so since you might accidentally damage your tabletop. On the other hand, if you need to hack through a thick jungle, a machete is infinitely superior to a bread knife. Like every tool, civil disobedience has a time and place. If one wishes to discard it, one must prove that it is harmful, outdated, or otherwise inefficient. It should not be discarded on faulty arguments alone. Seminar on Internet Regulatory Reform Book Launch As requested by the Amoeba Republic:You may, or may not, have heard about the Pick-Me-Up Book , which was first launched in January this year. The book is a collection of true stories of how people managed to overcome their dire circumstances and strife to turn their dreams into reality despite facing long odds. Aptly, the Make-A-Wish Foundation is the beneficiary to this good cause. The organisation's aim is to provide unconditional support to underprivileged children in turning their dreams into reality. 60% of the nett proceeds will be donated to the foundation, while the remaining 40% will be used to set up a social enterprise. The book has also since been featured in local media and received some notable endorsements by several MPs. It has since been distributed to good bookstores around the island.BUT ... Given the resounding response thus far, a second edition of the book will be launched at the World Book Fair this weekend!!! The upcoming launch will include both an English and a Mandarin version of the book.Also, the highlight of this edition is the story by Charmaine Tan, a 13-year-old wish-child from Make-A-Wish Foundation who is suffering from end-stage kidney failure, on top of a congenital eye disease which has led to her being visually-impaired today. Her wish is to become a published author.The good news is that her wish is about to be granted this coming weekend!Details of the Book Launch are as follows:-Book Launch - Pick-Me-Up Book (Edition 2)Date: 31/05/2008 (Saturday)Time: 3pm to 5pmVenue: World Book Fair, Suntec City Convention Centre Level 4 (Booth 4EO1)It will be wonderful if you could spread the word on your blog, or even attend the launch yourself, to make the granting of Charmaine's wish of becoming a published author a memorable one. Charmaine and her mother will be invited up on stage during the book launch to share her experiences of writing the book, and she will also be having her first autograph session then!Do support the book by purchasing a copy (or better still, more than one) at the launch!For more information, you may visit http://pickmeupbook.org/blog/pick-me-up-2nd-edition-launch-at-the-world-book-fair/.Thank you for your support!As a writer and a reader, I am skeptical. I have and will never read, much less buy, a book unless it's worth it. This means a high standard of writing, a dedication to the craft of writing, and that the book revolves around themes that I have an interest in. I've learnt the hard way that this is achieved through practice, research, revision, dedication, preserverence, and a healthy dose of experience. By these standards alone, I find it difficult to imagine that a thirteen-year-old can meet my standards of writing, especially in a country where the art of writing is debased by English teachers -- at least, the teachers I've known. But as a human being, I am quietly glad that this little girl achieved a dream that I've harboured for six years, and counting. She is a testimony to the resilience of the human spirit, and an example for all the writers and people out there, with secret dreams that only perserverance and courage can nourish, and realise. Responsibilities and Regulations "In discussing media policy, some caricature the choices as a debate between those who understand the need for regulation and those who want a free-for-all. This is a false debate. The real issue is what kind of regulation can allow us, as individuals and as a society, to harness the benefits of free speech while minimising the harm that such speech can cause."Opening line of the proposal to deregulate the InternetThe essence of communication is two-way dialogue. This demands that both parties make the effort to listen to and understand each other, instead of just shooting their mouths off and sealing their ears with plugs cast from the mould of self-righteousness. It is the recognition, and execution, of this responsibility that underpines democratic discussion: problems would be solved, resources shared, and opposing perspectives reconciled, because everyone understands where each side is coming from, and is interested in a common objective. It is with great regret, therefore, that I must say that the writer of this letter has failed to do so.Mok's essential argument that the Group of 13, as the bloggers behind the Internet de-regulation proposal has been labelled, must demonstrate our "good faith by setting forth the responsibilities that accompany liberties." By this, he means that we should propose and/or maintain a mechanism to regulate the Internet, to ensure that rights are exercised responsibly.We did. Read the quote.The full text of our proposal is readily available online. In essence, though, while we are calling for most laws regarding freedom of speech to be abolished, we recognise that there must be some measure of regulation to protect the public good. This regulation comes in three forms.The first is through clear, narrowly-tailored statutes and prosecution. We believe that the current media regulations are very vague. For example, it is illegal to distribute films unless they have been approved by the Board of Censors. But, this means that any home video you produce to upload on YouTube, for example, is illegal, unless you have somehow submitted it to the Board and received approval from it. It is also highly difficult to prosecute you should you decide to upload your videos without approval, because it is nearly impossible to prove that you had actually committed this illegal act once you go online. The vagueness of current regulations means that any decision to take action is based solely on administrative discretion. But, this leaves people wondering whether or not they have committed a crime (like uploading a home video on YouTube). This, in turn, would chill actual speech and expression, because the average citizen, not knowing whether or not he will commit a crime by doing something, would prefer to do nothing. That is the only guarantee he has of not running afoul of the vaguely-worded law.By having clear, narrow laws, we would be able to resolve this situation. For example, suppose that Parliament passes a law saying that all films that are to be screened in cinemas must be submitted to the Board of Censors for approval. So, it is no longer a crime to upload home videos on YouTube -- or videos with political messages, for that matter. With no disincentive against action, the people would then be able to express themselves more freely, allowing them to harness the power of the Internet.In addition, we are advocating the principle of 'prosecute or nothing'. Yawning Bread has written at length about this. Suffice to say, we believe that the current system is inadequate. It allows the Media Development Authority to impose arbitrary fines, enforce vague policies at will, leave no course for defence and appeal, and causes some laws to overlap with administrative rules. By clarifying the system, and adopting this principle, we would replace all the MDA's policies with laws set in stone, to be run through the justice system. Offenders would have full rights of legal defence and appeal, the government would have the opportunity to explain how and why someone had broken the law in a public court, and the grey area of administrative discretion would be eliminated. This, we believe, would better serve the cause of justice than the current system.The second form of regulation is to make all existing laws platform-neutral. By this, we mean that Singapore should pass a comprehensive series of laws governing the full spectrum of media, instead of having one set of laws for films, another for books and magazines, and so on. This way, we avoid having a schizophrenic regulatory regime. Consider that, by law, 'party political films' like Singapore Rebel are banned. But this ban is becoming increasingly relevant, as these films can be watched on YouTube or downloaded elsewhere. In the process of harmonising laws, we are calling for the most transparent and liberal procedures as possible to be set as the industry standard, so as to encourage people to exercise their freedom of speech. Do note that having one set of laws is a world apart from having no laws at all. It is something that Mok has failed to notice.The third form of regulation is community moderation. We believe that almost all of society's legitimate concerns about the abuse of free speech can be addressed through informal means. Bloggers, for example, can choose to delete derogatory and defamatory comments. YouTube has a code of regulations forbidding explicit content. Internet forums are almost always moderated. These measures, by themselves, would mean that most objectionable material would be eliminated before they even hit the screen. We also proposed the formation of an Internet Content Consultative Committee, which would offer recommendations should controversies arise, such as when conflict arises between the state and allegedly irresponsible content providors. In this manner, we need not expend the courts' and government's time and resources to deal with irresponsible behaviour, and capitalise on the Internet community's ability to self-regulate.We proposed all this in recognition of the responsibilities that accompany rights. All of us, in our brainstorming sessions, agreed that we had to find a compromise between maximising rights and minimising abuse. We have not proposed that the courts should do away with laws concerning, say, injurious remarks on race and religion. What we have proposed is that Parliament pass laws that more clearly define what 'injurious remarks' mean, in order to better protect the people. Is it a crime should a South Indian insult a North Indian? The law is unclear on that; and that is why we need to improve it.There is nothing that Mok has raised that we have not addressed. He says that with rights comes responsibilities. We agree. He implies that we need to keep some regulations. We did; we are simply streamlining the system. There is a difference between having fewer and better laws, and no laws at all; and the group has stood by the former position. Mok has failed to recognise this. I would even suggest that Mok has not read the proposal in its entirety, or taken the time to absorb its full implications, without further evidence. Extrapolation? Maybe. But, unlike Mok, I have justification. Free the Internet The proposal for Internet deregulation is finally up. Here is the URL. We're going to need all the support we can get, so please look the proposal over and e-mail us your comments. The e-mail addresses are in the previous post. With your help, we would be able to gain a greater voice in the public stage. Do your part, and free the Internet. Bloggers propose changes to media regulation Since December of 2007, I have been working with a group of bloggers on a set of regulations pertaining to the Internet. It would be submitted as an open letter to the Minister of Information, Communications and the Arts. The following is the official press release.MEDIA RELEASEFor immediate releaseBy Choo Zheng Xi and Alex Au18 April 2008Bloggers’ group proposes sweeping changes in Internet regulationA group of committed bloggers will submit recommendations to the Minister for Information, Communication and the Arts within the next few days, on the subject of Internet regulation. This open letter, which will be released to the public at the same time, will call for sweeping changes to bring Singapore in line with international norms and the reality of the new technology.Its key proposals include:1. All regulation of speech should be platform-neutral, given the steady convergence of various platforms as a result of the digital revolution. There should not be different rules for different media.2. Platform-neutral regulations should be harmonised to be as minimal as the current freest platform, if not even freer.3. What rules there need to be should be narrowly tailored and should serve clear social purposes.4. Rules should take the form of unambiguous laws, and in extremis, violators prosecuted, rather than take the form of licensing, bureaucratic discretion and administrative penalties as currently is the case. The various licensing schemes and the Media Development Authority’s powers to fine and ban should be dismantled.5. Shielding a government from criticism is not a legitimate social purpose. Restraining political content is unjustified in principle and unrealistic in practice, and the attempt to do so impairs Singapore’s maturity as a nation.6. The group notes that there are plenty of laws that need to be amended or repealed to give effect to the recommendations, such as the Broadcasting Act, the Parliamentary Elections Act and the Films Act. As this may take time, the group proposes that in the interim, there could be an Internet Freedom Act that sets out clear guarantees for Internet freedom, over-riding the multiple (and sometimes conflicting) restrictions in all these other laws, regulations and codes of practice.7. The group advocates a much bigger role for community moderation and in fact sees an ongoing trend wherein site owners themselves ensure a responsible use of their digital space. To further this process, the group suggests that an Internet Community Consultative Committee (IC3) be set up comprising one-third independent content providers, one-third persons familiar with rapidly evolving digital technologies, and one-third regular consumers of Internet content (i.e. regular surfers). They should not have any legal powers, but serve as a regular meeting point for citizens concerned with the free and responsible use of digital media.8. Controversies relating to Internet speech should as far as possible be resolved via community moderation. Only when public safety is at serious risk should the law and prosecution be invoked.The group of 15 persons was led by Choo Zheng Xi from The Online Citizen and Alex Au of Yawning Bread, and started work in December last year.Alex Au says, “The government often posits freedom and responsibility as trade-offs. We disagree. It is the exercise of freedom that nurtures a sense of responsibility, so if we want Singapore’s digital space to be mature and responsible, we must give it the freedom to grow.”Choo Zheng Xi says, “Internet technology is borderless and every day, people learn new ways of getting around our petty rules. The trend is towards the unenforceability of MDA’s rules. In the long run, it will damage the credibility of the law to have all sorts of meaningless rules that are unrealistic and largely seen as illegitimate. It is urgent that we trim the thicket.”Alex Au says, “The technology is such that as things stand, individual bloggers find it easy to ignore the rules; they are not going to be deterred by them. The people who are going to be deterred are those considering making a significant investment whether in film, online or other expression. The arbitrariness of administrative control and the absence of clear avenues of appeal to independent courts of law, provide no legal certainty. The present system is perverse, contradicting our aim of being a vibrant media hub.”For more details,Choo Zheng Xi, remy_choo@hotmail.comAlex Au Waipang, yawning_bread@yahoo.comWith any luck, I may even have Internet access when the paper is released, in time to direct you to the paper. But I'm keeping my fingers crossed. If I can't, I believe that Alex Au (alias Yawning Bread) and The Online Citizen would have the links. In any event, I believe that this would be a milestone in local politics; only time will tell how this would go. Thoughts on Tibet, China and the Olympics International relations, politics, sports, nationalism, and human rights seem an unlikely mix. Yet that is what we see in Tibet and China. With people calling for an end to protests against the Olympic flame, for a separation of sports and politics, it is easy to forget that the very reason Beijing wished to host the Olympics was political: China wanted a symbol to demonstrate its ascendency, and that symbol was the Olympic Games. The 2008 Olympics was bound to be the most politicised of all the Olympic Games in recent memory. Analysts had already predicted that China's dream of hosting the Olympics was based on a desire for global recognition. But the darker history of China would inevitably rise into the light, fighting for a voice even as the government proclaims the greater glory of the people. It could have been many things: cross-strait relations with Taiwan, the East Turkestan independence movement, or in this case, Tibet. The Tibetan people have lived and suffered under Chinese rule for too long: rising standards of living, economic growth, Han assimilation and tight control have failed to reign in a desire for greater degrees of autonomy, and perhaps even freedom. This underlying desire, coupled with means and manpower, would propel pro-Tibet activists to steal the Olympic spotlight from China, in a bid to demonstrate to the world the will of the people. The Chinese have reponded with the moves of a textbook autocrat: send in the riot police, enforce a media blackout, close ranks, and circle the wagons. When the media was finally allowed to cover the situation, it did so from a pro-China perspective, emphasising the grievances of the local Han people (and therefore, Beijing) while ignoring the Tibetan perspective. Nationalist propaganda, through speeches, editorials and articles, have primed the most visible Chinese against everybody Beijing deems a threat: the Dalai Lama, 'splittists', and the West. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has said that the protests should be stopped because they incite anger amongst the Chinese youth; what he has failed to consider is the sheer amount of nationalist propaganda they are fed trough the state-controlled media, and the censorship of news from Tibet. Words like 'monsters', 'wolf in monk's robes' and 'life-and-death' struggle are bandied about in the press, describing the enemies of the state (read: Buddhist monks and the Dalai Lama) and the situation in Tibet (and against the world). The Chinese people have failed to see the propaganda in their media, and the lack of balanced coverage, and instead swallowed everything the state propaganda machine fed them. The end result is a manufactured anger that burns as fiery comments in forums and websites. Lee Hsien Loong has failed to see this -- as had many of the loudest voices against the protests.We cannot kowtow to China. The fundamental issue is that the people of Tibet feel that they cannot live under the current system imposed by the Chinese. While Tibet may have lived under China for a long period of time, and that this has been recognised for a long period of time, the people of Tibet cannot stand for it anymore. Drawing parallels to southeastern America, that the former Mexican states there are recognised as part of America, is irrelevant, because the people living there have accepted federal rule. The people of Tibet have spoken through their protests around the world. Calling for them to separate sports from politics is irrelevant; the Chinese have already beaten them to it, and the Communist Party has more blood on its collective hands than the Tibetan people. The world must face this issue, and take action.The first step should be to leave the protestors alone. They are speaking truth to power, against all odds. Freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of choice, and freedom from fear are far more important than the Olympics. As history will attest, the first four have direct impact on the lives of people; the last is just the icing on the cake. At the same time, the demonstrators need to demonstrate some discipline: they cannot and must not let their protests degenerate into violence and bloodshed. Should that happen, their cause would surely be undermined through the state-driven Chinese press. Their objective is to raise awareness and to apply pressure, nothing more. Their job is perhaps the toughest of all, for they must reign in their emotions and resist provocation in a highly-charged atmosphere. Their actions will paint the portrait of the Tibetan independence movement for posterity; let it not be remembered as having taken up a bloodied, indiscriminate blade.The next step should be to let the people of China realise what is going on. We need to get information from Tibet to the people of China, and let them understand what, exactly, is happening in Tibet. It is highly unlikely that the government's efforts to censor the news and fire up the people will cease any time soon, yet the consequences of not countering these efforts would be an imprisoned Tibet. This injection of information should ideally occur through the medium of the Internet, because of its borderless and open nature. Websites, online petitions, documentaries, and the sort should be posted online, detailing the life of Tibetans under Chinese rule. The objective of this exercise is to get the Chinese people thinking, to get them to understand that there is more to the issue than what they have been fed.After that, the Chinese government must engage in talks with the Dalai Lama, and perhaps leaders from the pro-independence movement. The leaders of China must recognise that they can no longer hold on to Tibet in its present situation. Even if the movement were defeated in the near future, it would return to haunt them later. Beijing must address the root of the issue, by exploring ways and means to grant Tibetans a greater measure of freedom, and to listen to the wishes of the Tibetan people, instead of plastering over everything and hoping that things would remain the same. The end result need not be an independent Tibetan state; I am fairly confident that most people would be satisfied with the extension of the 'one country, two systems' policy to Tibet, so long as Beijing stops oppressing the people. On one hand, it would ensure that Tibet remains a part of China, thereby satisfying Beijing. On the other, it would give Tibetans the freedom to live as they would want to live.Naturally, this would not happen by itself. It is up to the world community to pressure China to engage the Tibetans. In our increasingly connected world, it is becoming a moral imperative to act on behalf of those who cannot. No longer can governments choose to not take action, because there are no fundamental differences between the humans who make up these governments, and the humans who have been oppressed. Letting economics trump humanity, as Singapore's government has done, would be repaid in the future in many ways: disapproval from trading partners, disapproval from citizens, greater political discontent, and so on. While this issue, by itself, would not have a great effect on local politics, it would nevertheless give more ammunition to dissidents and activists over here, and around the world.We need to set our priorities straight. Shall we settle for propaganda, or take the time to dig for the truth? Do we want peace by the truncheon, or a voice for the voiceless? Shall we have an uninterrupted Olympics, or the dignity of an oppressed people? Dare we let things remain the same, or have the courage to change? Spirals and Mirrors: The Birth and Growth of Extremist Terror Extremism is a monster sneering at a funhouse mirror, trying to scare its distorted reflection by slaughtering random passers-by, while simultaneously frightened of its warped image. Other bystanders break out the big guns, and then break down into squabbling factions that cannot decide on what to do next. That, at least, is what I have inferred after watching Geert Wilder's Fitna and observing the international response to it. Fitna represents a kind of extremism: the extreme position of Islam justifying violence against non-believers at all times. Islamism is another kind of extremism: any and all means are sanctioned in the pursuit of converting the world to Islam. Both sides are best known for the bitter vitriolic they spew at each other, disregarding calls by third parties for calm, propelled by the belief that they are definitely right, and the other is definitely wrong. In the physical world, the former position is characterised by the deliberate burning of a mosque and the random beating of a Muslim; the latter a suicide blast and a deliberate decapitation. Both positions are uncannily similar, and manifest as mirror images of each other. In fact, Fitna, without the condemnation of Islam, could pass off as Islamist propaganda. As each side glare at each other, their proponents raise the ante, preparing ever more caustic rhetoric and building even more powerful bombs. The distorted mirror warps even more, allowing each other to see only what they want to see: even more proof that one side is morally right, and the other so wrong that it deserves eternal punishment.This is how extremist terrorism develops. A small band of extremists gather to make their views on the world known, claiming that they are from a particular race, religion, or social class. A small group of people process this perspective, and take it as the viewpoint of the entire community; in this case, Wilder's belief that Islam is a violent, ruthless religion. This group then fires a volley of countercharges, painting that community in the worst possible light. Inspired by the opposing side's views and actions, both sides become bolder and more outspoken. Tensions grow and tempers flare, best seen through the demonstrations outside the Dutch embassy following the release of Fitna. The target audience splits, inching or dashing towards either side's positions. A variety of factors, ranging from media coverage, education, foreign and domestic policies, and anything else concerning the issue at hand influences the speed at which this happens. But it is an almost inevitable process.As the opposing sides grow, they seek to make their voices known on a larger scale, through bombs and bullets. Each drop of spilled blood is another drop of fuel for the other side, stoking wildfires that threaten to engulf the community in a sea of hatred, suspicion, mistrust, and fear. The entire community need not be significantly influenced by either side; all it takes is a tiny percentage of society to take up either cause. Consider the Troubles in Northern Ireland, with the country torn in a three-sided low-intensity conflict between the Irish nationalists, Ulster loyalists, and British and Irish security forces. The first side claimed sovereignty on the basis of Catholicism, the second swore allegiance to the British crown by virtue of being Protestant, and the third were called in to stop a war. The last only succeeded after thirty years of blood, shed mostly by the people of Northern Ireland. Until the 1998 Good Friday agreement, Northern Irelanders had to live with the fear of car bombs and drive-bys, breeding an atmosphere of fear and mistrust. The modern history of Ireland, in fact, begun with the first few extremists who decided to speak through gunfire and propaganda.Confronting extremism and terrorism is one of the main challenges our era has to face. It is also a very complex one, which has to be addressed through several, often overlapping areas. These areas go beyond my fields of expertise. But a general approach to the problem ought to undergo three stages: short-term, medium-term, and long-term.In the short term, we must do everything in our power to frustrate the extremists from carrying out physical acts of violence, pretty much akin to repulsing the monster's claws as they attempt to pluck a victim. This would naturally mean training and empowering local security forces, a greater deal of international cooperation, calls for people to be more vigilant, and actively monitoring and liquidating cells of terrorists as they emerge. At this stage, there is little we can do to dissuade the extremists from carrying out their plans, short of physically stopping them, especially when the ticking time bombs have been set. At the same time, we must recognise that all we are doing is hacking away at the branches of evil, and that each severed branch breeds another. Extremist terrorists would be highly motivated, and so would not be deterred by news that their brothers-in-arms have been captured or killed; at most, they would simply lie low and wait for a calmer time to resume operations, and perhaps even recruit more people. They might even capitulate on mistakes by overzealous security personnel to aid their cause; Israel's attempts at 'focused foiling' using Hellfire missiles have led to many civilian casualties, a fact that Palestinian terrorists use to demonstrate Israel's brutality and the justness of their cause. This phase is, perhaps, the most visible and dramatised aspect of counterextremist work, because of its shadowed glamour. It is also a highly vital one, preventing the loss of untold thousands of lives and millions of dollars. But it is not enough.The medium-phase goal should be to break down the walls of ignorance separating communities. To use the parable of the monster, it is to unite the factions of bystanders, and to get them to come to a common agreement. For this to happen, there must be communication at many levels. Information is the bridge between the diverse groups of peoples in the world, cemented by acceptance and reinforced by reason. At the individual level, it involves accepting people of different faiths and/or opinions as part of the community. At the societal and national level, there should be an active effort to connect every group, be they founded on faith or secular reasons, to every other similar group, to allow communication to occur. Religious leaders, in our day and age, have a special responsibility to understand other faiths and preach the creed of acceptance and diversity. On the global level, nation should speak peace unto nation, striving towards common consensus and understanding. At the same time, teachers should teach their charges how to think for themselves and how to do so properly, in order to differentiate fact from fiction, discourse from propaganda. This information allows people to recognise that extremist viewpoints only represent one small, usually insignificant, part of a larger group of people who share a similar belief, such as Islam. This recognition would effectively poison the tree of evil, slowing or halting the growth of terrorist cells, as people recognise the nature of extremism and build a basis to tackle it together.The long-term goal is to slay the monster of extremism. This, again, takes place at several levels. First, the active extremists, who are involved in planning or executing terrorist attacks, and the leaders of the extremist movements, must be sought out and flushed out. As the organisation is destabilised, other measures come in. Extremism is itself a symptom of an underlying disease; destroying one terrorist group would only spawn another with a similar cause, as seen in the rise of Jamaah Islamiyah after the end of Darul Islam and Komando Jihad. Extremism is ultimately a set of ideology spawned by a set of inferences drawn from observed events. Islamist propagandists can take advantage of widespread poverty by blaming a target group and then offering amelioration and vengeance through a perverted Quran. These same propagandists can also capitalise on a person's spiritual journey in a non-spiritual world, by offering hollow advice that turns the target towards the desired path. The truth does not matter to the individual; only what the person sees is true. To eliminate extremism at the source, we must target the root causes of extremism. It could mean drawing up social welfare programs, reviewing foreign and local policies, or simply correcting false perceptions through providing accurate information. Counterideological work would be especially crucial in the shadow of al-Qaeda, as Muslim scholars strive to expose the flaws in Islamist propaganda to prevent people from being led astray. Once the roots of extremism have been identified, the boil of terror can be safely lanced and treated.Attempting to expose extremism by replying with its twisted reproduction would only encourage further conflict. Confronting extremism requires a concerted, sustained effort by the world community. It must first recognise extremism for what it is: a group that represents the fringes of a body that has adopted a set of umbrella beliefs. Then, the peoples of the world must cooperate and communicate with each other, building cornerstones of trust and acceptance. With this cooperation, the cause of extremism can be properly determined and addressed. Without the cause, the extremists have lost their justifications, and their ideology collapses. Perhaps, one day, we shall see the end of the War on Terror. But it must begin from the heart. The Road Less Travelled "You must choose a road for yourself."Kazuo KoikeIt's that time of the year again. Like night chasing day, the release of the 'A' level results is followed by a torrent of University applications. This year is more troubling than others. 1988 saw a mini baby boom (if there ever were such an event in Singapore), largely owing to a Chinese belief that babies born in the year of the Dragon are superior to others born under different signs. Twenty years later, last year's A level cohort has to compete with a swollen number of Polytechnic students appying for courses in local universities. There are only about 14700 University places at last count, and triple the number of applications so far. The Government might intervene, ordering these instutions to expand their class sizes, but there is only so much both the State and the schools can do. Everybody who falls through the cracks must find other options: a foreign university, a lesser-known institution, take the SATs and/or the A levels again, or straight to work and night classes, with the hope of taking the A levels.I am no genius. To say that my results were average is an understatement. Hopefully, I may yet enter my preferred course this year. If not, I'll explore other options. In any event, I realise that University admission is not crucial for me.It is ultimately a question of perspective. Nearly everybody I know is determined to enrol in some course in some university, or even any course in any university, to pave the way for future employment. I suppose that mentality has been ingrained in them since they were children: parents, especially Chinese parents, are fond of reminding their children to study hard, study even harder, and take up so many activities to give their children an edge over everyone else; and then enter University and get into a prestigious course, so that the children would be able to land high-paying jobs in the future. Mine are the same, but I have learned long ago what not to listen, and what questions to ask. After a period of introspection, I've realised that that mindset is predicated on a belief that money is a be-all and end-all, so as much of our energies as possible should be directed towards hoarding more and more of it.But is it? The whole point of having money is to exchange it for something that you can use or derive pleasure from. It is simply an evolution of the old barter system, giving everybody something common with which to exchange goods and services, instead of having to source for things that someone else is interested in before one can get what one wants from him. I do see the merit in maintaining a healthy savings account and in being thrifty, but only to the point when it ensures a comfortable living. Beyond that, I find that money has not much worth. There are other things in life to pursue: happiness, fulfilment, freedom, wisdom, and so many other intangibles. I cannot, and will not, sacrifice them on the hollow altar of material prosperity.This nation is virtually defined by the competition for pieces of pretty paper and plastic. The competition is bound to intensify--and had--over the years. On the individual level, the everyday student believes that he or she must have something to set him apart from his or her peers. He or she would then invest even more energy in his or her studies, extra-curricular activities, community service, and the like. Their teachers encourage such a mindset, constantly reminding everybody that a state of competition exists between each and every student for a place in each and every secondary school and tertiary institution and firm. But other students, realising this, redouble their efforts too. Consequently, the entire generation's standards are stepped up. The subsequent generation of students is now compared to the first generation, and even more pressure is placed on them. They perform better, and their standards improve. As the first generation enters the workforce, employers, teachers and admission offices too demand more from the previous batch. As batch after batch of students dash by, the bar is raised higher and higher, and the pressure is increased again and again. One would almost think that only students with straight-A results have a snowball's hope in Hell of getting into University. These circumstances encourage students to believe that their grades and CV are of utmost priority, followed by their careers. This competition is taking its toll. Already more and more of Singapore's children are entering counselling programmes, the Institute of Mental Health, and coffins. This, I believe, comes from the stress they experience as a result of the perceived implications of high scores and low grades. It is not a price I am willing to pay, not in addition to the blinders the current paradigm forces on us.Should Singapore's children insist on continuing the paper chasee, and in hoping to be able to work for somebody some day, then I shall step aside. It is their choice. But I have long believed that the only way for Singapore to survive in the long run is for local entrepreneurs to develop in full force, and take to the international arena. We can't have entrepreneurs if everybody were busy working for somebody else and refusing to break away. Yet entrepreneurship, by its very nature, breaks away from the Singapore mindset: it demands a greater degree of independence, confidence, risk-taking, resourcefulness, creativity, resilience and analytical ability than what the current paradigm teaches. In order to be an entrepreneur, people would have to sacrifice the conventional endgame of relatively secure high-paying careers under somebody else for an ambiguous solo future. It is something so alien to the Singapore mindset that the media finds it remarkable enough to talk about -- not that very many people would learn anything from it, because they are stuck in the conventional wisdom.This is not saying that people who find satisfaction in conventional jobs should be decried. Quite the contrary: should they like what they do, then they should carry on. But it does not give them licence to unnecessarily coerce or cajole them into joining their path. Where jobs are concerned, I subscribe to the belief that one should take up the career path one would derive the most satisfaction from, material and spiritual, instead of the career that one is pressured into taking up. For people with an entrepreneurial spirit, satisfaction would only come from doing things their way. The more I think about it, the more I realise that that is the road for me. The whole point of participating in the paper chase is to earn enough papers and points to impress whomever needs impressing. But if you have nobody to impress, the paper chase fades into irrelevance. I see it happening to me with each passing day. Perhaps it is a consequence of taking the road less travelled. I fully recognise that not everybody who sets out on this road would get to where they want to go, but there is no way of knowing without trying. The future, after all, is vast and infinite. Manhunts and Ministers, Questions and Perspectives Inevitably, I'm always too late to respond to events in Singapore worth commenting upon. Mas Selamat's escape is old news by now, and the usual watchers and commentators have said their piece. But as I read through various responses, I realise that some questions need to asked and answered, and some issues clarified. I'll write about three questions that seem to be the most commonly asked these days.How did Mas Selamat escape from the toilet?Before we break out our condemnations, we need to understand Mas Selamat, the terrorist. Being Jamaah Islamiah's cell leader in Singapore, it is reasonable to believe that he is talented, trained, and highly motivated, probably to the point of fanaticism. Therefore, it is safe to say that, the moment he entered Whitley Road Detention Centre, he was observing his environment He would be watching, waiting, memorising, looking for security flaws and opportunities to escape. I wouldn't be surprised if investigations revealed that Mas Selamat had asked to visit the toilet just before his monthly family visits, to probe its security. Remember that this was the man who fled Singapore before the ISD could catch up to him in December 2001, no mean feat for anybody under the ISD's scrutiny. He should not be underestimated.In addition, we must not forget the human factor. If Mas Selamat's guards were rookies or incompetants who did not remember or failed to follow Standard Operating Procedures while escorting him to the toilet, then he could have escaped. SOPs for toilet visits essentially involve the guard(s) watching over the prisoner at all times, who is handcuffed to the guard. The handcuffs are only removed when the prisoner is about to use the urinal or enter a cubicle, and go back on as soon as he finishes. So, the terrorist's guard(s) might not have done so, allowing him to escape. Alternatively, Selamat, temporarily free of his handcuffs when entering the cubicle, might have overpowered his guard before making his escape. So many other scenarios could have occurred. In addition, the toilet itself could have been a security flaw. For instance, it could have windows that lead to the outside world, so any prisoner who successfully eludes his guards could have a better chance of escape. Somewhere among this sea of possibilities lies the 'security lapse' Wong Kan Seng mentioned. Unfortunately, many bloggers are quick to blame Wong for the escape, instead of first thinking through what could have happened.So what was this security lapse? It is safe to say that, right now, only a handful of people know. And even so, they may only have a small piece of the puzzle. We can't jump to conclusions until the final timeline is reconstructed.Why did the authorities wait for four hours before the public was alerted?Consider this what-if scenario: Prisoner Achmad at Whitley Road Detention Centre was declared missing by his guard. The Guard Commander orders an immediate lockdown, then alerts his superiors before conducting a search. His superiors alert their superiors, and the chain goes all the way to the top. The media is then alerted, and very soon a nation-wide broadcast is made to be on the watch for Prisoner Achmad. Two hours later, Achmad was found hiding in a closet. The alert is cancelled, and everything is stood down. Bloggers, commentators, citizens and Opposition figures grumble and complain that the government is being too alarmist; the Guard Commander has to answer some very difficult questions; and the people would blame the guards for not looking hard enough.We often fail to consider the Guard Commander's position. When the guards reported that Selamat was gone, the Commander had to make a tough call. On one hand, an escaped prisoner must be re-captured as soon as possible, especially someone as dangerous as Mas Selamat, and to do that, he needs the resources only a nationwide alert could muster. On the other hand, he would be in a very difficult position if he did recommend an alert, only to learn later that Mas Selamat was in a different part of the facility. Strategically speaking, it would be best to not inform the public just yet. If Mas Selamat were recaptured while still in the process of making his escape, there would be reprimands, quiet investigations and the sort -- but there would be no public backlash, because the public wouldn't know. However, if the public announcement were made, and if Mas Selamat were found within the centre, some members of the public would decry this security breach, and call for action, forcing the authorities to take stronger measures -- which means that the guards would face harsher consequences. We must remember that the Guard Commander doesn't know that Selamat has escaped the premises; he only knows that he has eluded his guards. Following this strategy, the logical first step must be to lock down the compound -- in case Selamat was still on the premises -- and thoroughly search the prison. Let's take this train of actions to the final conclusion. The entire facility is searched. At the same time, the commanders alert the nearby police posts to place their men on standby, in case they run into Selamat or if they need backup. As the search goes on, perhaps police officers would be rushing to lockdown the external areas of the facility, while the Centre's commanders inform their superiors. When Selamat is judged to have escaped, a call for help is made to the regional and national police headquarters, which would then have to call up dozens, then hundreds, of patrolmen, support personnel, sergeants and commanders, and off-duty personnel, not to mention the Special Operations Command. The SOC would then activate the STAR unit, which would entail mobilising its land and maritime aspects.In order to prevent Selamat from quickly escaping Singapore, the police would need to alert the Customs personnel on both sides of the Causeway and at Changi Airport, followed by the Coast Guard. The 6 Singapore Infantry Regiment soldiers on guard duty at the airport would also have to be alerted. But such an alert can only actualy work if the people know what to look out for, which means that the relevant department needs to send Mas Selamat's photo and distinguishing features to the commanders of the relevant units, who would then have to filter down this information to the guards and custom personnel in a series of hasty briefings. While alerts are taking place, news of Selamat's escape would have to go up to the ministerial level -- which would mean going through several minor functionaries first. The relevant minister, most likely Wong Kan Seng, would then have to inform his colleagues in the Cabinet, and come to an agreement on whether or not to break the news to the public.After the decision is made, the media networks would then receive a news brief from the Ministry of Home Affairs. That would mean breaking into regular programming to broadcast the news on radio and television, which means running up to presenters and setting up the necessary equipment to make such a hasty broadcast. And only then can the public announcement take place.All this takes time. Having experienced first-hand unwieldly chains of command, heated arguments where everyone's face and/or status is at stake, and a series of indecisive and/or incompetant leaders, I can only see too well how it would take four hours to get to this point.I think the real questions ought to be how long it took to search the detention centre, how long did it take to alert the police and military, how long it took for the Cabinet to come to a decision, and whether or not this whole process can be simplified even further.Should Wong Kan Seng resign?Wong Kan Seng has been blamed for letting the escape happen. But is that true? Was Wong Kan Seng guarding the prisoner, or even near the camp? Did he plan the layout, the guards, the security systems, anything to do with the facility? Is he comfortably connected to the Guard Commander at the time of the escape?The answer is no. So why do people hold him responsible? It's probably because, being the Minister of Home Affairs and Deputy Prime Minister, Wong was in the spotlight and responding to the media. With so much attention on him, people naturally assume that he was, in one way or another, responsible for this escape. But if he were not involved in the security aspect of the centre, or even with the prison, then how can he be responsible? Must Wong Kan Seng hold Whitley Road Detention Centre in his mind, in addition to his many other duties, when he can let someone lower down the chain of command worry about it? I don't think many people have actually thought about this, instead choosing to blame the person whom they know -- Wong -- instead of the person they didn't know -- the guard.The majority of the burden must naturally fall on the guards, for letting him escape. But whether or not Wong was partially responsible for letting Mas Selamat run free must first be determined, before we call for his resignation for this matter.What Wong is really responsible for is dealing with the aftermath of his escape. With pressure from his colleagues, the media, and the people, he needs to make snap decisions properly. He needs to reassure the public, apologise on behalf of the guards at Whitley Road, ensure that the security services are doing their job, decide who is responsible and launch an inquest, and prevent similar incidents from happening again. Unfortunately, his latest remarks in Parliament fail to inspire faith in the government and the security services. While that is not necessarily an indicator of incompetance, when cast against his history of failures (failing to start a baby boom, the furore over protests at the World Bank meetings, etc.), it suggests to the people that we may soon need to replace him.Lest we get carried away, Mas Selamat still represents a grave threat to international security. While he may not be armed and dangerous as of yet, if he were to escape the long arm of the law, and start another cell of his own, the consequences could be disastrous in the long term. He nearly pulled off a terrorist spectacular in Singapore; he could very well succeed next time. We should therefore focus our energies on capturing or killing him first. The recriminations, and finger-pointing, can come later. Not Really A Soldier After three weeks of Basic Military Training, I've concluded that I'm not really cut out to be a soldier. It requires a kind of personality, a dexterity of hand and body, and a sort of mental resilience that I find lacking in myself. On one hand, I don't believe that I'm suitable for a combat vocation. On the other, a service side job would be exceedingly dull and boring -- having been pressed into temporary work in such areas, I recognise its nature better than most other recruits.But I am not going to turn away. I can't shirk my duties as a citizen, and I won't let myself descend to such a state. Being a citizen of any country, and remaining a citizen, requires you to take up the responsibilities demanded of a citizen. Through this would you help to maintain and improve the system and infrastructure that allows you to enjoy the benefits of citizenship. The time has come for my generation to take up arms in defence of the Republic, with the fervent hope that they need not be fired in anger. By providing for the common defence, our conscripts would enable the rest of the state to better provide for myself and the people, and for the people of Singapore to live free from oppression and foreign domination.I don't know how many of my peers would see things my way. I suppose the vast majority of them would simply see National Service as something that must be suffered through in order to progress. I don't dare to take up such an attitude; it prevents me from recognising that I still have a duty to fulfill, that National Service is a necessary instrument of the State and not just a phase in life. I recognise that I am not cut out for the soldiering life, but geopolitical realities demand that Singapore must paint her defence policies with a broad brush, by preparing her able young men for war, regardless of optimal traits. It is a sorry state of affairs, but not something that I can change at this point in time.So now, I will make my sacrifices. I will let go of my old self. I will exchange my pen for my rifle, and ink for ammunition. I have burned my bridges to the old world. I can't ever be what I once was any more. I am not really a soldier, but I must be the best I can be, for myself, and for this country. (Not) The Last Post Tomorrow, I'll be going for National Service. I have a rough idea of what to expect, but I'll only know when I get there. I have prepared as best as I could, and now it's time to let things take their course. I've said my goodbyes to those who mean the most to me. I've arranged things so that a friend would help me moderate comments on this blog for the time being. This would be my last post before I enter the Army. Where National Service is concerned, I believe that it is time for me to do my duty, for better or for worse, so that everybody else would have the opportunity to live in relative freedom. At this juncture, I have nothing more to say. I will leave my thoughts and arguments here for posterity, and let history be my judge and witness. For now, so long, and goodbye. A Hundred Dollars to Nothing: The Future of Oil and the World I am no economist, though I studied the principles of economics in college. One of the scenarios we covered was the effects of an increase in global oil prices. My schoolmates inevitably talk about susidies, nationalisation, government support for alternative energy research, and so on and so forth. But when we enter the real world, the dry academic world fades into the shadow of a dream.Let's face it: one hundred US dollars a barrel isn't going to deter consumers from significantly reducing oil consumption. Should the global economy be likened to the human body, then oil must be its lifeblood, carrying money, goods and pollution instead of osygen, nutrients and waste. Tourism, international trade, engineering, plastics, automobiles, and a host of other industries depend on a steady stream of oil for raw materials and/or fuel. These key industries are connected to others by the intricate web of globalisation and capital requirements, which are linked to even more firms. Demand for oil may slacken, but not to any appreciable amount. There is no incentive for firms to move away from this dependency; indeed, if they did, they would have to shut down unless they find other sources of energy and materials. These firms, too, are powerful enough to staunchly oppose any government and/or non-government initiative towards alternative energy, unless they move on their own initiative or are given substantial incentives to assist in alternative energy research. Firms like Toyota and General Motors are already embarking on research in hybrid vehicles, but this is not enough.Alternative energy research itself is not enough. Let us for argument's sake assume that a perfect renewable fuel can be found in the future, which can be developed at little cost to manufacturers. This fuel would replace oil, coal, and other traditional non-renewable energy sources in the future. In this brave new world, energy would no longer be a problem. However, other industries start panicking: firms that produce plastics and petrochemicals predict that they would soon find themselves with no raw materials left to work with. Other firms that depend on these industries for supplies, like engineering, construction and manufacturing, recognise that they would no longer have suppliers in the future. Workers at these firms, recognising the precariousness of their position, agitate for higher wages to preserve their future. These companies jack up prices, in order to keep up with wage pressures and an uncertain supply. The consumption of goods and services provided by these critical industries sharply increases, reaching a peak before it slackens off in the face of rising prices, in the process increasing the depletion of remaining petrochemical resources. Prices of goods and services spiral upwards, forcing governments to initiate painful measures to cut inflation. In the worst case scenario, these firms start to shut down as the world's oil reserves dry up, leading to widespread unemployment. There can be no protectionistic measures to allow these firms to gracefully close down, because they cannot produce anything without raw materials. The world then faces a rapid surge of unemployment, as refinery workers, plastics firm personnel, and others find themselves out of a job. Worse, the world has literally nothing left to replace anything built out of petroleum. Scientists must scramble to find a way to replace petroleum, while governments and firms struggle to tackle unemployment before the economy implodes, taking the world with it.Research into alternative energy would only solve a future energy crisis, reduce the world's dependency on oil, and stave off global warming. It cannot cure the international addiction to petroleum and petrochemicals. Neither can it prepare us for the withdrawal symptoms when the world, deprived of oil, is forced into cold turkey. All it can do is push that date away into a hazy future, one that we would only know when it is finally, irrevocably, upon us.To make matters worse, I do not believe that this would occur only when we finally run out of fossil fuels. It would come when firms find it too expensive to extract non-renewable resources, and governments are no longer willing to shoulder the costs of doing so. This, I reckon, would be a natural consequence of peak oil, when the production of oil slows down amidst rising oil prices. While some firms would nevertheless attempt to press on, they would only at best be able to temporarily soften the final impact of the end of non-renewable resources, until at last the well is dry, forever.More than alternative energy is needed. What we need is nothing less than a commitment to a lifestyle that involves renewable consumption. In this case, we need to break our dependency on petrochemicals. For that matter, we need to move away from non-renewable resources, and perhaps even the basic economic concepts that underpin the current global econmy. If the human race is to survive on Earth for generations to come, it must be prepared to shoulder the collective burdens of time past, in addition to its progress. I trust that science, now or in the future, would give us the tools to live in such a fashion. One scenario looks depressingly neo-Luddite: the world reverts to a much simpler way of living. People grow their own food, make their own clothes, and eke out an existence fairly similar to life somewhere in between pre-history and the Renaissance. Could it happen? Perhaps. Certainly the world could, in centuries to come, be forced to regress into a simpler way of living, and be stuck there permanently. I suppose Pagans, green anarchists, and associated types would not seriously mind such a living, and the peoples of the future would surely have no choice byt to continue living in such fashion. But is it necessary?Perhaps a more realistic scenario involves the application of science, in addition to a greener way of life. Recycling technologies come to the forefront, allowing mankind to indefinitely use and reuse previously non-renewable materials, like metals, stone, and the sort. Perhaps advances in nanotechnology would allow the efficient dissembly of anything into its component parts, allowing them to be re-used again and again. Alternative energies would meet our energy requirements. The people of the world still flourish, though they would naturally live a life that seems alien to ours. In such a world, everything is sustainable, because there exists ways and means to efficiently and economically reduce, re-use, and recycle whatever we use.Naturally, these worlds are far off in the future, perhaps not to be realised for hundreds of years to come. Yet, we in our time have the responsibility to set the stones for the future, instead of simply dumping our problems on our progeny and let them deal with the problem of their time, and ours. As members of the human race, and as sentient intelligent beings, it is nothing less than our duty to ensure this. While such higher morals -- or simply different perspectives -- may be lost on the people of this time, I still believe that there are people out there who share this vision, and take action to convince others of its utility, and make it happen. Should the human race find itself unable to colonise other planets with appreciable energy reserves, we need to make do with what we have.So, in our time, what can we do? Obviously, we need to reduce our dependency on petrochemicals. Governments of our time must find swallow the bitter pills of carbon taxes, high pteroleum prices, strained diplomatic ties, and perhaps even collective action. Research into alternative energies should be boosted. Research and development in other emergent technologies, like nanotechnology, should be encouraged with a view towards sustainable development. People, too, need to understand the importance of a shift towards a sustainable lifestyle. Other techniques, such as designing for deconstruction and increased support for recycling movements, ought to be encouraged. The transition to such a future would be a long and painful one, but ultimately necessary given the non-renewability of key materials. Like a malign cancer, the longer people remain ignorant and unwilling to change, the longer and more painful the final treatment would be. If there were be a treatment at all.Where people see resource prices, I see the neck of an hourglass. One bulb contains the all the non-renewable resources expended thus far, and the other measures the amount of non-renewable resources still available. I cannot see the volume of either bulb, only the speed at which its sands inexorably flow. Perhaps the best efforts of man can ony slow the falling sands, in which case our descendents must prepare for a neo-Luddite future. But maybe, just maybe, mankind will one day find the courage and intellect to shatter the hourglass, and live free of it. That day, though, lies far off in a fuzzy future, to be written by man, and man alone. Seven Days to Enlistment On the 11th of January, I will be enlisted for National Service. I'll be posted to Pulau Tekong -- and that's all I will say on that matter. Maybe I would meet one or two of my readers there. More realistically, I would just be one more anonymous face in a grey crowd. While my confinement period would last for two weeks, I do not expect to have access to my home computer when I do come back, as I expect it to be used by my mother, given the volume of work she processes on the computer on weekends. I have no idea when I would be able to update after the 11th, if at all. As for comments, my comment moderation policy will remain. Comments will only be published if -- not when -- I manage to find a working computer with Internet access. That, I believe, is the only solution I have left to me, for I have nobody to monitor my e-mail for me, and I have no wish to find spam or inappropriate commentary here.I don't know if this would be my last post for a while. But if it is, then all I have left to say is, I'll be back when I'm back. The Shape of Things to Come...? The year 2007 is now coming to an end. It has been a watershed year, in more ways than one. In the Singapore context, one can extrapolate the shape of things to come in the near future. While I am not a fortune-teller, I believe certain issues would come to dominate and/or underpin future socio-political discussion and thought.Firstly, the footprint of 'new media' would grow. The previous few years have seen a sharp rise in interest in the popularity and eminence of blogs, podcasts, citizen journalism, user-generated videos, and the sort. Take, for instance, The Online Citizen, which operates on the concept of citizen journalism. Its most remarkable period was in October to November, with its coverage and analyses of the situation in Burma from a citizen's perspective, and from a Burmese perspective. More crucially, it exposed the connections between Singapore and the Burmese junta, a connection that the mainstream media failed to cover. In addition, it talked about and organised various actions by civil society, from protests (legal or otherwise) to petitions. While the government has not yet retracted from its stance that bloggers are less credible than the mainstream media, the fact remains that the people are becoming increasing wary of the traditional media, because they believe that the press is controlled by the government. This comes from a variety of factors, such as new information from alternative media, analysis of news articles, and the sort. It is my belief that a greater number of intellectuals, Opposition figures, activists and advocates will take to the Internet, in the form of blogs, podcasts and the like, in order to get their views across, due to this perceived bias in the media. This would lead to a growth in the importance of alternative media, and its power, as more and more influential people make their voices heard. This would lead to the expansion of the marketplace of ideas and the growth of the Political Internet, that part of cyberspace dedicated to political affairs; consequently, it is possible that alternative media may soon be a key instrument in local policy-making and elections, as greater numbers of people learn more about local events. The government has, in one way or another, recognised the emerging importance of alternative media, and has established the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS). In Q1 2008, it will convene to review the regulatory framework of the Internet, without including end-users. This convention will become a milestone in Singapore's political history, as it would define the limits socio-political bloggers and activists, among others, may have to adhere to legally to spread their message on the Internet. I suspect that greater regulation, or even mere retention, would lead to so many of such people blatently ignoring these regulations that there is no way the State can comfortably prosecute all of them. The Internet, in summary, would become a key communication and dissemination tool in the public sphere in the future, with the power to influence politics in Singapore.Secondly, there might be greater and more high-profile incidences of civic action. 2007 saw a greater number of (illegal) protests, such as the ones held by Burmese nationals in support of the abortive Saffron Revolution and the ones conducted by the Singapore Democratic Party outside the Istana. In addition, events like Black September (a demonstration against compulsory public annuity at Centrepoint on 8 September, by people wearing black) and the formation of a working group to pre-empt AIMS by ordinary citizens without government backlash is indicative of a growing trend of civic action. It must be noted that the State, despite retaining the power to neutralise such activities, did not do so. This suggests that the government is following a policy of restraint, so long as the activity in question cannot be seen as a crime by even the most legalistic interpretation of the law. This probably emerged from a possible political strategy to avoid alienating the middle- and upper-class of society, which are more inclined to such behaviour in Singapore so that the government can press unfavourable policies later, and to release pent-up pressure in society to prevent or minimise udnerground dissent. Civic action would probably go hand-in-hand with the Internet: the latter is used to organise the former, the former banks on the latter to inform the people, and so on. I foresee an increasing number of political discussion groups, blogs used to organise civic actions, greater numbers of petitions and demonstrations, and the emergence of activists in the public arena. But this, of course, is dependent on just how far the government is willing to go to minimise political dissent: it may choose to take a policy of non-interference, crack down on the most prominent activists, or even ban civic actions altogether. The criteria that would govern such a move would probably include the number of such activities, the impact of each activity, the prominence of the leaders, and the potential costs and benefits of letting them continue as opposed to stopping them. Activists would therefore have to find the sweet spot that would allow them to achieve the support to effect the change they wish to see, without prompting the government to take harsher steps against themselves.Thirdly, questions of morality and ideals would play a greater role in the public sphere. As Singaporeans become more well-off, they can afford to consider morality and ideology as part of government policy, as they would be less dependent on the government for their daily sustenance. At the same time, the increasing number of foreigners in Singapore, and the governments' increasing willingness to accept more immigrants and foreign talent, would spell increasing contact between differing cultures, which would inevitably spark discussions and debates, and possible conflicts, of the supremacy and utility of a particular culture's ideals. This influx of ideas would naturally include elements of Western liberal democracy, one of which involves being prepared to pay an economic price to uphold its morality. I submit the increasing number of Western sanctions on Burma as an example, and an audible Internet call for Singaporean sanctions and diplomatic actions against Burma by Singaporeans as another. In Singapore, this sentiment would most probably be expressed by a greater call and commitment to democracy and tolerance by civic action groups, activists, and others. There would also be increasing public sentiment against what is deemed as unfair and injust, such as the second phase of the ministers' pay hike in the face of rising taxes, coss of living, and income inequalities. While bread and butter issues would still continue to decide politics in the short term, an increasing awareness of the current situation brought about by the Internet and alternative media, coupled by civic action and information, would lead to the public forming a new framework of morals by which to judge its rulers and politicians. This effectively means that the public will take a greater number of criteria into consideration at the polls and outside Parliament, based on the morality it creates from the values of the times. Fourthly, we will see the rise of the Religious Right. Globalisation will intensify the influence of Western materialism, secularism and other such 'values' in the East, especially Singapore. The Internet would provide the Religious Right with a communicative medium to further spread their message. An increasing awareness of relativity, the lack of a objective truths, and uncertainty would propel people further into the arms of religion, which offers concrete truths and values that are unshakeable, by its teachings. Right-wing nationalism and/or conservatism is entrenching itself across the world, such as growing right-wing populism even in Switzerland, in the guise of the Swiss People's Party. In Singapore, we see the Church taking a firm stand on issues such as the petition to repeal or retain Section 377A. Perhaps the most damning evidence of all can be seen in the speech made by Member of Parliament Thio Li-Ann here. Here we find a rehash of some key arguments raised by fundamentalist Christians, notably public morality and conservative values. That her Parliamentary colleagues applauded at the end of the speech suggests that the influence of the Church may be stronger than expected. From this, I believe that the Religious Right, most notably in the form of Christian fundamentalists, would take a more active role in local poltics, by appearing int he news, alternative media, and the sort. I also believe that the Religious Right will fight for the status quo, to maintain the system so long as it benefits or is indifferent to them, or fight to change it when it thinks that such a change would benefit themselves. Whether or not the Religious Right is right is another matter altogether. Finally, we would see the rise of a new generation of leaders, activists, and politicians. Singaporeans are by and large apathetic where politics is concerned, largely because the government has been taking care of the country reasonably well for a long enough time. However, some young Singaporeans, fuelled by ideology, values and others, would stand up to effect change in Singapore, propelled by what they see is a clash between their ideas and those of the State. They have lived without the memory of race riots, government suppression of dissent, and credible Opposition figures (outside the persons of Chiam See Tong and Low Thia Khiang). I speculate that their elders, especially the conservative ones, would 'advise' them not to take on the government or to go into government, drawing on such arguments as experience and wisdom. The young ones would naturally not listen, for the most part, and do what they believe is right. This would probably be framed as a clash in the political values between the old and the young. Inevitably, I think, the latter would emerge victorious, championing a synthesis of values caused by this conflict. The final shape of that synthesis is still in the cards, but I expect it to include elements of liberalisation, democracy, and freedom of speech.It's been a long year, and a very short one, filled with eventful non-events and insignificant events. History will tell which course Singapore ultimately takes. But it is ultimately written by man. The Nonexistent Moral Weight of Supranational Organisations Yesterday, the United Nations moved to pass a non-binding resolution calling for a worldwide moratorium on the death penalty, with a view towards its eventual abolishment. Singapore was reportedly the leader of the opposition camp, campaigning for its necessity. Singaporean bloggers like Mr. Wang have expressed their distaste over this issue. No doubt some of them would rejoice over this event. But I see nothing in it.In the international arena, there exists no moral hegemon. International groupings like the United Nations, ASEAN, and the EU are in reality little more than a conference of states wishing to discuss matters of mutual interest. Diplomats would argue that any resolutions passed by any supranational organisation carries moral weight. But the only weight it carries is the weight of peer pressure.Consider this argument: the whole world believes that capital punishment is immoral; therefore, it is immoral and we should do away with it. This is not a reason to abolish the death penalty; it is simply a surrender to international opinion and norms, without finding an actual reason. There is no inherent morality in this, because the state that follows such an argument is not taking up what it believes is right, but what others say is right. This situation is akin to agreeing that stealing is always wrong, because society says that it is wrong, not because of personal conviction. Society is generally silent or divided on certain incidences of stealing, such as a small group of raiders stealing food from their enemies to feed themselves in times of war, or a poor man stealing medicine for his ailing wife. Because of this, having a personal moral compass to guide one's actions is, for the most part, superior to going along with the majority of people. Similarly, agreeing to abolish the death penalty because the UN says so cannot be considered a moral act, or moral argument, unless it happens to coincide with a reason derived as independently of the world body as possible, such as concern for human rights. The 'moral weight' of the resolution is the morality of a fallacy. The bandwagon fallacy is described as an argument based on what other people say is true. There exists no appreciable difference between the bandwagon fallacy and the average non-binding resolution at the UN. But we should not discount the morality of the UN on logical principles alone; formal logic does not, after all, govern international relations. Perhaps the reason the UN is held in such high regard is because it is seen as more than the sum of its parts, and from this perception of power comes the UN's moral weight. This can be attributed to the practices of the United Nations. Take, for example, the status of nations in the various assemblies. Small states in the General Assembly are treated as the equals of superpowers, seen in the fact that the delegates of every member state have the same voting and speaking privileges, and therefore the same power in any democratically-run assembly. Thus, Brunei has the same power as the United States in the General Assembly. Even in the Security Council, small states have the opportunity to influence world events because of the rotating nature of its non-permanent membership. Singapore, despite being one of the smallest countries in the world, has served on the UNSC. This equality elevates the status of small countries and prevents large states from bullying the smaller ones in the UN, giving it a sort of authority.Yet the UN is still nothing more than the product of the major forces within it. The real measure of the UN and its influence, or indeed any international body, is the actions it has taken and will take. The direction the UN, or its agencies, has taken throughout history is little more than the direction such players have taken it. In 1950, an American decision to liberate South Korea was approved by the United Nations. From the 1960s to 1980s, the UN paid a lot of attention to recently-decolonised Third World states at their behest, creating agencies and committees like an education campaign in the Third World sponsored by the Economic and Social Council. This effort was passed in part because the United States and USSR were courting support, and votes, from the Third World. In 1991, the United Nations sanctioned a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi occupation, an effort proposed and led by the United States of America. The direction the UN has taken throughout history was initiated by one or more of its member states, with a significant number of powerful states following their leadership.This is because of the anarchic nature of international relations. There are no supranational authorities with the power to regulate international relations. Any power given to the UN is granted by its members; such power can be taken away at a moment's notice. Peacekeeping operations, for example, can only be carried out by the UN with the consent of all parties involved. If the host state says no, then the peacekeeping team must withdraw. This was the case for the Suez crisis in 1957: UN peacekeepers were introduced into the region by the UN in 1957, but were withdrawn by 1967 on request of the Egyptian government. This ended the UN's influence in the area, allowing Egypt to ally itself with Syria, Jordan and Iraq to invade Israel. In such an environment, international relations is governed by states attempting to secure personal interests through interaction with each other. The United States, for instance, could garner Indonesian support for the Global War on Terror by promising aid to develop existing police and military capabilities, among other benefits.In such an environment, power disparities between nation-states become more apparent. In bilateral and multilateral negotiations, the strength of states becomes a key factor, sometimes allowing the strong to get their way or enabling small states to fend off pressures from larger neighbours. Singaporean diplomatic strategy, for instance, involves the maintenance of the region's most capable integrated military force as a deterrant measure against invasion, and threats to sovereignty by foreign proposals. Backdoor diplomacy, conducted away from the UN General Assembly and prying television cameras, also influence world events and the behaviours of states; in such cases, power disparity becomes a real issue, which the respectability and dignity of the UNGA does not suppress. Such interactions form the unseen backdrop for the decisions of states at the UN, as states strive to maintain the goodwill of patrons, friends and clients while looking out for their own interests. What authority the UN, or indeed, any supranational authority possesses is a by-product of these interactions, and little more.From this perspective, the moral weight of the UN is simply a mask. States that choose to vote against a resolution or defy one are not subject to the authority of the UN. They are, instead, exposed to repercussions from powerful, interested states with the capability to infleunce their decision, through sanctions, military actions, diplomatic gestures, and the like. States must be both powerful and interested in order to achieve an actual effect. Nepal might have condemned the 2006 nuclear test by North Korea, but it does not possess the ability to influence any decision by North Korea beyond the hope that its condemnation means something. Similarly, the American condemnation of the crackdown on anti-government protests in Burma earlier this year didn't mean much, because the USA does not have the same influence over Burma as China or Singapore. The UN has no power, but what a select number of its member states give it to fit their interests. Likewise, what power other supranational organisations, such as ASEAN, possesses is simply the power granted to it by its members, who can be influenced by interactions with other states to withdraw that power.The 'moral weight' of the United Nations is really little more than peer pressure and the power of a select number of powerful, interested member states. What moral condemnation nation-states may issue under the mandate of a United Nations resolution is therefore nothing more than words. There is no reason, really, to give in to world opinion for its own sake, because it possesses no inherent moral weight. States must find their own reasons for doing something, or not doing something, in this case support for the death penalty. They must create a moral compass for themselves, for supranational organisations do not have one. Activism and Advocacy Activists act. Advocates speak. But the one thing they do have in common is that they are pushing for something to happen. In Singapore, activists and advocates talk about all manner of issues, from environmentalism to legal review, to human rights and political reform. Their actions are all too familiar: the occasional public forum, closed-door sessions, online essays, petitions, and demonstrations by certain people. Quite often, their efforts to effect change have been stymied by the government, or ignored by the people.Let's face it. The people don't know and don't care.This combination of ignorance and apathy is bound to defeat just about any attempt at convincing the State to do something. The status quo remains because it is in the government's interest to maintain it, and there is no incentive or disincentive to do something about it. The odd letter or tiny protest would not convince anyone to do anything, given the government's position that it is always right unless proven wrong, seen in its constant criticism and legal action against all its opponents. The only way it would ever admit to being wrong is if a critical mass of people believe so -- in the Cabinet, not in the population. The government has always insisted that it would take unpopular action if it believes that that action is right. This signals that it will break away from the people at times in order to do what it believes is the right thing. Therefore, advocates and activists must aim to convince Parliament and the Cabinet to change, instead of merely letting the people know that something is wrong. This requires a three-step strategy: Organise, Alert, and Act. This strategy would shift between these three phases, depending on current circumstances and the climate. Even the final step is not in itself an actual conclusion. There is no conclusion until the desired change is brought about. And even so, the process is dormant until other activists take it up.Thi strategy is already effected by the singular activist. Take Alex Au, for example. He writes essays and posts them online. He gives talks on certain subjects in various forums. He attends various conferences, either as a speaker or a participant or both. He grants interviews to the media. In this, we see the strategy. Organise: he comes up with a strategy to influence public perception on an issue. Alert: he acts to alert the public about something, by writing or talking about it. Act: through his previous actions, he directs his proposals to the government, or them to act. Admittedly, the act of a single blogger/activist/advocate cannot possibly hope to achieve much against an entrenched bureaucracy and government. This can be seen in the lack of action undertaken by the government or its affiliated agencies every time someone talks about something.What is needed is organisation on the macro level. The state can afford to ignore individuals, even if they have similar beliefs, because the power of a given individual is limited at best. It cannnot, however, overlook a collective effort so easily. A group, after all, commands more resources and respect than a single person, be it a political party or a direction action network. From this comes a greater variety of options, to achieve greater impact on society.Organisation here means a gathering of like-minded activists and advocates, to plan a future course of action. This can be seen in conferences, closed/open-door sessions, forums, and the like. Its purpose needs to be clear, realistic, and achievable, given the group's existing resources and constraints, and the current circumstances. This group needs to be tightly-knit, with a common agenda that everybody is willing and able to work towards. At the same time, its members ought to have sufficient independence of thought and action to produce a plan and see it through with maximum efficiency and cost-effectiveness. This means that a diverse range of views should be represented, though too many would lead to too many disagreements and quarrels. Furthermore, too many people would lead to inefficiency, while too few people would overstretch resources.I propose the small-unit model for this phase. The group must have no extraneous members, with everybody pulling his or her weight. People have to specialise in a particular aspect of the unit, though they might also be required to take up a secondary role if necessary. Time and resources need to be utilised efficiently and effectively. While diversity of views ought to be encouraged, it must be understood by all that the clash of ideas is supposed to lead to a superior synthesis of ideas. Conflict for its own sake, or to impose a view on everybody else without just cause, would only harm the group's overall effectiveness.Where large groups are concerned, the federation model should kick in. This effectively means a collective of small groups, working towards a specific purpose. Once a plan of action has been decided, small groups should be formed to execute it. They should act as independently as possible, to reduce time, energy and resources wasted on adhering to rigid guidelines. I believe that each group should simply be given a goal and as few guidelines as possible, and left to act by itself. Of course, that group might also need a strong leader to push things through if the members are not up to such a task. There should also be a group dedicated to coordinating affairs between the groups, composed of the federation's leader/organiser(s) and people with the right skills for the job, so that no component of the federation may inadvertently lose track of its task or work at odds with another group.Regardless of the actual structure of the group, it should be run democratically. The leader of the group would work with the members as much as possible to create an optimum strategy, based on input from everybody. By shutting out perspectives, one runs the risk of overlooking flaws in the current strategy -- unless there is good cause to do so, such as irrelevance or illogic.When the organisation phase concludes, the alert phase begins. The group should strive to alert the public of its actions. In the case of a petition, the group responsible for it should publicise it as much as possible, through press releases and online advertisements, for instance. At the same time, the group must be prepared to act in a higher profile, by publicly advocating its perspectives and views. If necessary, it would also have to defend its perspective against detractors, and perhaps modify them in light of new information or opinions. Therefore, the group members must be prepared for the limelight of publicity. At the very least, the group should have a public face or team to put forth its arguments to the people.Popular support is a virtual necessity, but not the end goal. There is no need to achieve majority support in order to effect change in society, no matter how democratic it may be. What is needed is simply a critical mass of people who support the cause, whatever it may be, and are willing to do something for it, be it signing a petition or participating in a demonstration. At the same time, given the government's proclivity to ignore the populace in many issues, popular support must be deemed a means to an end. It should be used to demonstrate the superiority of the activists' plan, advertise the failings of the current system to everybody else, and as a Sword of Damocles over the Establishment. In effect, the target of the plan must feel threatened by the amount of public pressure focused on it, as a significant disincentive would result if the target fails to comply with the change. A boycott of a certain firm's goods, for instance, would only work if the boycott deprives the firm of enough consumers to seriously damange its profit margin. At the same time, change would only occur if the activists take action to make their proposals heard. Thus, the alert phase should be directed towards this goal: mobilising public support to complement the action phase.The action phase is the culmination of the group's goals. Here, the activists and advocates present their proposals to their target, in order to effect change. The medium they choose depends on their strategy. It could be a Parliamentary petition, signed by several thousand people. It could be a public demonstration, manned by thousands of citizens. The Alert and Action phases go hand-in-hand, because they build upon each other. A demonstration sends a message to the Establishment, while raising awareness for an issue, which in turn fuels the demonstration and adds strength to its cause. Regardless of the medium, the action phase should be considered a high-risk, high-payoff event. The chances of failure are very high: no one petition or demonstration in isolation would effect change. But, should the action fail, such as a demonstration failing to change public policy, it would at the very least raise public awareness of a certain issue, which could make similar demonstrations in the future more effective. But should the action succeed, then change would have been implemented, hopefully for the better.Should the action fail, there needs to be follow-up. Otherwise, the cause will simply fade into obscurity, as more and more people stop paying attention to the issue in favour of others. Any direct action taken by the activists should generate enough publicity for it to make the newspapers. From this, should the action fail, the activists would have to plan their next course of action. This could mean a repeat of the direct action at a later date. It could also mean that the group would strive to win over even greater public support, and convince the people of the righteousness of their cause and the neccessity of their proposed direct action. It could even mean that the group would have to re-organise and re-strategise, in order to achieve better results.This strategy has been used throughout history, consciously or otherwise, by its great men and the movers and shakers of the world. Hitler, Mandela, King, even Lee Kwan Yew used it in one way or another. Where Singapore is concerned, we first need organisation. There is as yet no cohesive organisation dedicated to actual socio-political change in Singapore. Without organisation, the State would not listen. It is that simple. Once that organisation is founded, it then needs to attract public attention. It needs to overcome public apathy and ignorance through messages to the public, in the form of videos, podcasts, essays, letters, forums, and the like. Only then can activism and advocacy in Singapore have a chance of success, through their selected medium. If not, then it must be prepared to try again and again, until it finally succeeds. Notice for December On the fourth of December, a group of bloggers and film-makers will meet to discuss an upcoming review of Singapore's regulatory framework over the Internet. There are two sessions, one on the 4th and the other on the 11th of December, at the Substation. This meeting is open to all, with a maximum attendance of 20-25 participants. In my opinion, there is a very real need for such a meeting. It is the first step towards greater citizen participation in an emergent democracy, especially since there is little reason to believe this 'review' would lead to greater liberalisation, or even maintain the status quo. The word 'regulate' in of itself is very suspicious, given the authorities' proclivity towards censorship of even mildly questionable material, such as the short-lived ban on the video game 'Mass Effect' for a scene that was perceived to be a promotion of lesbianism. The government, it seems, is only interested in consulting the experts. None of them are bloggers or Internet film-makers of any credit, if at all. None of them would therefore be directly affected by any changes to the regulatory framework, or could be counted upon to fairly represent the perspectives of the growing Political Internet community, necessitating the above-mentioned meeting. I am quite aware of this meeting's ability to influence government policy, or lack thereof. But such chances of success are infinitely higher than before, given that nobody in the past has done anything quite like this before. Furthermore, this meeting, no matter the outcome, would be a cornerstone in Singapore history: it would be the first time people on the ground would make their voices heard on the Internet. If you're interested, click here for more details.That aside, regular readers might note a distinct lack of content for November. Don't worry, I am not dead yet. I'll be going through my archived posts and modifying or deleting them as necessary, should they no longer represent my perspectives in life, or violate the law in any way. I'm also going to revamp this blog for better readability. Finally, I'll be trying to work out a way to maintain this blog for the years 2008-9, given that I'll be serving National Service at that time.Keep an eye on this space. The Human Condition "Man is condemned to be free."Jean-Paul SartreSo the A levels are over. That's it. Twelve years of formal education have culminated in eight papers in October and November. Five days ago, they ended. Just like that. 'Anticlimatic' isn't a strong enough adjective to describe it, and 'numb' barely begins to capture my state of mind. Maybe it's because I never really considered the A levels as the end, or some kind of goal.What is the purpose of the A levels? To get decent grades. What is the purpose of having good grades? To get into a decent university. What is the purpose of going into University? To get a good job. What is the purpose of getting a good job? To earn money. What is the purpose of earning money? To survive in life. So what is life, then? And why is it so important? When you think about it, most people in Singapore are just interested in tying down a job, maybe get married, have 2.1 children, get better jobs, secure a better standard of living, and so on and so forth.But, is that how I want to live my life? The system is superb at churning out clockwork men: people who are good at doing something for money, then live grey lives of mind-numbing routine, without questioning anything, just moving along day after day after day after day, following the clockwork man above him who winds him up. There are only a few exceptions, and I find myself extremely fortunate for having known some of them. I suppose one can take comfort in routine, and it is easy to not think about something; in fact, I know people who are already like this, who take the path of least resistance through life, becoming just another clockwork man.I am sick. Everywhere I go, I find myself surrounded by the clockwork men, marching along to whomever winds them up. I can't bear to interact with most of them; I have so little in common with them, leaving me nothing to fill the awkward silences or deflect the inquisitive stares. I find myself unable to be like anybody else, no matter how hard I try to blend in. I've been learning human behaviour for the past eighteen years, and still I find no explanations for many, many, many oddities without reducing everything to emotions and illogic, or an unquestioning attitude, or some other reason. No matter what I learn, I find myself not knowing or perceiving so much more until I find out. Every day, I confront my failings, finding ways and means to overcome them, with varying degrees of success. Everywhere I look, I am inevitably out of step with everybody else. It is almost akin to perpetual nausea, interrupted by headaches and migraines, and alleviated only in the briefest of moments.Maybe it is this nausea that propels me away from the conventional route, tread by sheeple and clockwork men. The A levels, university, and other formal education holds little interest to me any more. The only difference between passing and failing the A levels are the different options I have to choose from. And none of them are good or bad, only what I think of them in relation to my ultimate goals, whatever they may be. If I pass, then I go into University, and take a course that may or may not assist in my future life. If I fail, then I either go somewhere else or enter the workforce. Neither seems particularly interesting, but I have to stomach it until I am free of the system.My life is mine, all of it, and it is for me to use as I see fit, to do as I want, to attain what I wish to gain. Any and all consequences of my actions are borne directly on my shoulders, without falling on anybody who is uninvolved in the decision-making process. Every action is made freely; external events can only persuade someone to act in a particular fashion, but never force. The essential condition of man is freedom; from this freedom comes angst, a profound apprehension of the future, in recognition that there one is condemned to choose an action, for good or ill.It is this angst, then, that births the clockwork men. We seek ways and means to make the uncertain certain, to reduce risk and apprehension, and so find a measure of tranquility. In so doing, we become clockwork men, unable to take risks for their uncertainty, unable to grasp concepts bey