I am Singaporean III - Re-Education So okay, there’s been talk about the education system and how it needs to be reformed. I will refer you to the transcript published by the States Times, and it is this text which is analysed and commented. §2-§7 deals with the worldwide situation of education, and the bottom line of what Mr Ng is trying to say is that money is not equivalent to good education. Educational initiatives do not necessarily result in improvement, and public spending does not mean a sound public education system. In fact, the education is like a maze with many dead ends: [2] Universally, there is strong interest and commitment to ensure that the young receive a sound education. But in practice, this yearning has not always resulted in approval when new educational initiatives are introduced. [...] [7] Unfortunately, for many countries, the quest to educate the masses well through a strong public education system has been akin to going through a maze with inaccurate maps or directions. Many have taken wrong turns or landed up in dead ends. The best intentions and socialist ideals did and could not translate into practical and effective outcomes for students. At the closing of §7, Mr Ng asks how the Singaporean education system has performed and how we are going to improve it. I will now deal with §8 and §9, but will skip the history lesson. It is not my intention to deal with it here. In §8, Mr Ng says that Singapore has topped international rankings, and the lowest quartile still performs better in our system than others (but does this deal with the difference in methodology, as in how students are rated? It probably is easier to show that we perform better with poor students when it is based on simple black-and-white questions which can be crammed for than with questions which require thinking). But anyway, Mr Ng goes on to say that the elite schools send more people to top overseas institutions than any other international school (RI is an international school??) and topped other secondary schools (again, see methodology.) Again, Mr Ng takes up rankings in §8 and 9. Unfortunately, rankings do not deal much with other aspects of being a student: it only deals with concrete results. I don’t know how many times this has been said, but concrete results are not THE ONLY marker, it is only the marker which is easiest to analyse. Until someone actually compiles a complete report on the education system and the students, these reports do not say much at all. They say we are good in one aspect but doesn’t say much about the other aspects. Pretty much like a drug which tells you that it is good in treating a disease but doesn’t discuss the side-effects. The success of Singapore is summarised at §40, which i will quote in full: 40. To summarise, our success can be attributed first to socio-political considerations in the choice of English and the bilingual policy and then putting into place sound educational fundamentals of good teachers, instruction and streaming. These are the factors that maintain us on an even keel. We must keep each of these elements, but at the same time, we must also evolve our system to keep up with new challenges and structural trends in the future. I will just mention three broad directions. This is referred to as a ‘Golden Mean.’ Well, I wish it was so simple. This is all based on the premise that concrete results are the most important. Good teachers ARE present, but how many of them are forced to teach less, and do more admin? Instruction is questionable: as long as this fixation on rankings persist, I am doubtful that this is good instruction. Good instruction should build passion, not kill it. Which comes to streaming. Subject banding is now used to avoid the sad situation where the students’ self-confidence is affected by streaming. Steps are being done, but the effectiveness is still questionable. But, maybe Mr Ng is right, because such humanistic ideals and the best intentions don’t work, as he said in closing to §7. The world wants concrete results. Pragmatism is the driving force behind our educational system, not some ideal which students tend to and want to have. The next part, §41-§43, deals with “Great Expectations.” Basically, it means that schools should be given more autonomy and teachers better qualified to teach their students. A better teacher-student ratio is definitely something sorely needed in Singapore. “Employing good enough teachers with passion to teach and nurture” (§42) is going to be a continuing challenge. So how does this come about? The money solution? Teaching is considered by many to be a dead-end job, and unless teaching can be made as financially attractive as, say, business, you can bet that those who come to you are desperate, OR are the good teachers you are looking for. Also, the part on more autonomy: does that mean less red tape, doing less work on the side and teaching more, and the abolishing of the ranking system? If not, there is only a fake autonomy you are looking at: all schools are still caught up in the same quest to be number one. Lastly, Mr Ng talks about “Values” - what values actually? He does not specify them, but he acknowledges that the young are becoming more questioning and they are more apt to go by self-discovery and discourse. Rootedness must increase, but as long as the policies do not agree with the real situation, as long as the educational system remains a system devoid of passion on the side of the students, and the work attitude in Singapore, although good, leaves one yearning for more (not materially, but spiritually), rootedness is difficult to build. People don’t leave just because things are better overseas. People also leave because they are unhappy with the way things are at home. Ideally, Values should also involve the very open recognition of the fact that Singapore is not perfect, and that the leaders are willing to listen and not challenge people with different ideas to come into politics. My suggestion for values would be to instill a passion for learning and to de-emphasise the importance of results. De-emphasising doesn’t mean that it is gone: it is still there, but not the ultimate priority of schools. One way of doing it would be abolishing the ranking system, but keeping application criteria (e.g. PSLE to secondary school, etc) there. That way, students are under less stress from the school to perform for the school, and with the right cultivation of passion, will want to perform for themselves. I am Singaporean II - The Apology Our resident States Times psychologist, Chua Lee Hoong, has deemed it fit to write an apology for Singapore on National Day, explaining why the West hates systems like ours which are authoritarian, but successful: What’s eating them? The easy answer is that both China and Singapore are authoritarian states. The freedoms taken for granted in the West - freedom of speech and assembly - come with more caveats in these two places [...] The real sin: Singapore and China are examples of countries which are taking a different route to development, and look to be succeeding. Success grates, especially when it cocks a snook at much-cherished liberal values. Right at the beginning, our author asserts that the West is jealous of our success despite having another system, one which is authoritarian. I don’t think it is a sin - I think the main problem lies with the West not being able to accept that this is possible. And this is somewhat true in Singapore, because success is measured here in economic terms, not in terms of happiness. Perhaps why the West thinks that our system is flawed is because, well, of the question if we are happy, although it is also legitimate to say that the West is jealous out of purely economic reasons. After all, most politicians are forced to see people as statistics, because there are just too many people for any politician to personally know. Today is National Day, and in the Truman Show-esque Singapore which our leaders want us to believe that it is, we are all smiling. In fact, in 2006, we put on Four Million Smiles, remember? And the guy who did 400 Frowns got investigated by the Police. If all, National Day being today, it should be a time for us to not just celebrate our achievements, but also to remember what has gone wrong. But still, I don’t know why Singapore is always harping on the economic success it has. True, Singapore is economically successful. But successful as a country? Success as a country involves having an identity, and a Singapore Spirit, which up to now, is probably a political construct, seeing as some of the things which constitute the Singapore Spirit, like Singlish, are frowned upon. All for economical goals. I would say the Singapore Spirit is one of earning as much money as possible, because the State sure ain’t gonna take care of you. Come to think of it, that is a rather good idea. After all, that is the only way we can think, right? Hehheh. Mr Kampfner seems in a genuine intellectual funk. He cannot quite understand why otherwise normal, intelligent Singaporeans would trade certain freedoms for economic progress, and accept the Singapore political system for what it is. But perhaps he has got the wrong end of the stick. The problem lies not in the Singaporeans, but in his own assumptions. Namely: If you speak English, if you are well-educated and well-travelled, you must also believe in Western-style democracy. They are a package. Are they not a package? If they weren’t a package, then probably Singapore shouldn’t be called a democracy. China sure as Hell isn’t a democracy, but China is flourishing. Instead of placing the blame solely on the West, perhaps the blame lies partly on the Singaporeans too. Having seen more and been well-educated, they should have the choice to opt for the political system they wish for their country. Instead, Singaporeans let the Government conduct walkovers, because the Opposition is kept in such a weak manner. That the PAP’s political might is partly based on walkovers and that there isn’t an Opposition which can put up true resistance doesn’t mean that our system is necessarily the best, too. One observer draws an analogy with Pavlovian behavioural conditioning. So conditioned have Westerners become to associating cosmopolitan progress with certain political parameters, they do not know how to react when they encounter a creature - Singapore - that has one but not the other. Interesting you should say that. It works both ways, too. Take the baby problem, for example. In a Pavlovian way, we choose to put off having kids and all, because we need the money to survive. Now there’s been talk of going Swedish, and people don’t know how to react because they have encountered a creature - gasp! the West. Lastly, she speaks as if the Pax Singaporeana is something which detractors have to work against and head off. You have to be careful with what you say, because Caesar can cause the people, who fear the state (timor rei publicae) to become very angry (ira rei publicae), indeed. That’s why Caesar was murdered…because the dictatorship was something the people could not get used to. I am Singaporean I - Birthday Wishes Happy Birthday, Singapore! 43 years and going…and welcome to Volume II of ‘I am Singaporean.’ As we celebrate National Day again, one has to ask: are we celebrating the Singapore Spirit? What is the Singapore Spirit? More ERP, Chee in jail, defamation, tax hikes, etc? No, that’s not the Singapore Spirit we should celebrate. I’m thinking the people you’ve known for forever, the food, Singlish, and more. Indeed, my birthday wish for Singapore would be this: that the Men in White start wearing red, and that they see us for what we are - people, not their workers. The Singapore Spirit, and Wearing White Time for another NDP post, since NDP is coming up on Saturday… Aaron is right when he notes that everyone is in red except for the politicians in white. Of course, it could be a freebie which the masses wear out of pure gratitude, but symbolically, i think it is supposed to mean that the people are the blood of the country, and the politicians are white, i.e. incorruptible. I think that’s what it’s supposed to mean, or maybe it’s in the textbooks. But in doing so, the politicians have separated themselves from the people. It’s also a symbolic separation, one which one can probably see today too in the form of policies which have questionable results, although the intention may be good. In other words, the difference between theory and praxis. Also shows in the way some politicians appear to be arrogant and be better-than-thou. So Singapore Spirit is supposed to be celebrated in a stadium where the two groups are fully separated from each other? Probably Singapore Spirits should be celebrated instead. Maybe the politicians wanted to wear red, but, like Pontius Pilate, who ‘washed his hands’ off Jesus’ case, they’ve washed theirs too…they’ve washed off the everyday person’s persona and life, and moved on to better things. Who’s On the Higher Horse? Something for you all to read… Not all in West call for liberal ideals out of jealousy AS A politics and international relations undergraduate attending university in Britain, I have followed the recent furore over perceived ‘Singapore-bashing’ comments in the local press with great interest. I would like to think my views do not stem from just one side of the divide. I grew up in Singapore, and attended local schools. These days, I attend lectures by ‘Western liberals’, and discuss politics with young people of similar leaning. This, thus far, has been my exposure to the ideals of human rights and free speech, among other principles which have received fairly short shrift by sections of the Singapore public and academia. At my university, there is a campaign or protest on the steps of the Student Union at any one time - against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, against xenophobia in Britain, against the atrocities in Darfur… These campaigns are not public nuisances, and they are never regarded as such. To my mind, they are the product of passion and intellectual discussion, and their utility lies in the debate they spark, on issues which are often controversial. Note that these campaigns - often centred on, and calling for human rights, or at least the broader concept of human security - are not propagated by the government. More often than not, these students target government policies, calling for change, and encouraging civil society, in turn, to urge action in Parliament. This is the value of constructive dissent, in itself possible because of freedom of speech - within limits - and the right to protest. My point is this: Not all in the West call for liberal ideals because they are ‘jealous’. Singaporeans writing in and to the local press have asserted that the West must understand that Singapore’s principles are fundamentally different, that here the focus is on pragmatism, on meeting material needs, and on stability. I feel it is also important to recognise that the Western intellectual tradition is perhaps more philosophically oriented, and certainly more vocal. I find most disturbing the accusations that all criticism aimed at the Government must be from ignorant, jealous outsiders. Perhaps this stems from the perception that all radical dissenters in the local political landscape are lunatics. To begin, I am currently working with local women’s non-governmental organisation Aware, and it offers constructive criticism of government policies relating to sex and gender in its 2007 Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (Cedaw) Shadow Report. Former and current Aware presidents have risen to the fore to argue for local and migrant women’s rights, if not for the recognition of universal human rights. Surely they are not ignorant or jealous - but attempting to spark debate, and eventually reform? The worst possible approach Singapore could take at the moment is to go on the defensive and adopt the same moral high-handedness it believes the West is levelling at it. Of course the West is no vanguard of human civilisation; it is ridiculous to assume academics in the West are oblivious to that fact. None of my professors will hold, I am sure, that the United States or Britain presents a ‘perfect’ democracy. But nor does Singapore. It is time to stop pointing fingers back across the water, and start exchanging ideas on what we can learn from each other. Dell Marie Butler (Ms) Indeed, who’s on the higher horse? Personally, I believe that both sides are guilty of moral high-horsing. Being based currently in Germany, I can see that Singapore is a dream when it comes to efficiency, and so on. Why are there student movements in Europe? It is a tradition born out of Continental idealism (especially Kant and the Deutscher Idealismus), and the Aufklärung (Enlightenment) which sees reason as the instance of human activity and judgement. It is this view which the West feels that all humans should have, and thus the West attempts to influence the East. There has been, probably since Classical Athens, no perfect democracy. However, i think the West has, based on these principles, spoken out more for democracy, because Man is a rational being, and in bending to any government (as can be seen in the Orient), Man is chained. And it is his fault. Perhaps the ratio (lat.: reason) of the people should be allowed to shine through more, according to the West. And since there are no more pure democracies (for a pure democracy, again, read up on Athens) people elect their representatives, who are ultimately responsible to those who put them in power. Perhaps this doesn’t sit well with the Orient, because an ideal state here would be a benevolent despotism. Which the Singaporean government, IMHO, appears to be. Thus, we have reached our ideals. However, despots don’t like to listen to criticism, and thus the furore about the whole hoo-ha. I guess this is especially relevant in Singapore because Singapore is two-faced - we feel somehow responsible for (i mean, sure, we ARE responsible for our Government) to the Government, despite Singapore being a ‘democratic’ country. Keep the Opposition weak, and the press cowed, and the masses lost in their materialistic insanity, and you have absolute power. I, too have wondered why people who are jacked up about the whole thing assume that the West is ‘jealous.’ I mean please, get off your high horse already. People in the West, although having to deal with higher criminality, high taxes and low efficiency, are happier. We may be efficient and very safe, but are we happy? Both have their strengths, one born out of respect for the ordinary human being, the other out of respect for numbers. Would Westerners, then, be jealous of us? I don’t think so. Perhaps for certain MNCs which like the very liberal market here, perhaps. But the big question is: is the ordinary Westerner jealous? MM Lee has a big, but fragile ego, but he has earned it with his work. I don’t think Singapore or Singaporeans deserve to have this kind of ego at all. Jealous? Sounds like sour grapes to me! It is interesting how people compare apples with oranges…you can’t compare efficiency against human freedom, because these are two separate standards. Maybe a restriction in freedom is worth it for efficiency. But how far does it go? Politicians in a so-called ‘democracy’ would pay attention to such details. But is this so in Singapore? When you have an octagenarian wave threats in our collective faces? It saddens me that in Singapore, the average human is assumed to know nuts. Amor patriae, or Do You Love Your Country? Do you love your country? After being away for awhile, i realise that i actually DO love my country. Not the politicians who run it, not the traffic jams, and certainly not the mentality, but the country - the food, the people, family, Singlish and all. But do i fit into the definition of ‘loving my country?’ I believe that loving my country also includes being responsible for the country, and criticising the people we have elected to represent our country when things are not right or presenting suggestions when we can. As National Day closes, and loosely-packaged propaganda starts passing through the mainstream media, and even more so when this National Day’s theme is ‘Celebrating the Singapore Spirit,’ i felt that it was time to ask the question: do you love your country? What is the Singapore Spirit? Is the Singapore Spirit one of materialism, working hard in the hope that one day, you will make it rich, and attain the 5Cs, with the accompanying social status, sending your kids overseas for education? I would like to say no, but it’s the Singapore Spirit that the Gahmen believes in. As MM Lee, a staunch apologist for the system he has toiled to build up, said ‘As long as we have a dynamic economy, we can solve problems.‘ But in doing so, people become objects - statistics and numbers. The Government believes that the key to solving problems is a stable economy, and that is an important factor. But in the pursuit of this economical system, every aspect of the country has been geared towards it - the school system, procreation programmes, and the very unpopular theme of importing foreigners at the cost of the people. Is there more to being human than just being a number? If Singaporeans felt that there was, there wouldn’t be procreation problems, and the Government would have fully stabilised its power. I believe there is more. But in a place where this belief cannot be realised, it becomes hope. The Government also wants us to believe in that. Teacher hopefuls applying to teach are promised a chance at ‘moulding young lives.’ But moulding young lives and maximising their potential - in what aspect? Children are exposed to the cruel reality from the very beginning - do or die, dog-eat-dog. And it’s not because teachers don’t want to do more - appraisals are made every year, and teachers have to do more to earn their bonus. Students have to do well, too. It makes me wonder how much is actually learnt at school then. But in doing this, schools are a mirror of society - you don’t have to know more than what is necessary for your grades. Grades. Salaries. Numbers. ‘Objective statistics.’ That’s what Singapore measures everything with. Ministers always give particular public bodies ‘grades’ because of something they have managed to achieve, etc. That’s why most of us are relegated to giving our suggestions on the Internet, where more serious political discourse takes place than what you see on the MSM. Perhaps the MSM, being a Government body, emphasises this aspect of concrete grades, statistics etc., like having an abstract replacement birth rate and all, and the forums are made up of complaints of people who have not been treated as they have expected. But in being fully grounded in the material, the Government’s Singapore has lost one very important aspect - spirit. Spirit is something you can’t measure specifically. And spirit has to be built up. And one wonders why Singapore is so soulless. It is the fascination with the material, with objective numbers, that Singapore is soulless. We don’t have a rich and illustrious history, or a defining moment - even if we did, these defining moments have been lost in the mad rush to develop the country, or even worse, moulded to fit those in power, for history is always written by the winners. Singaporeans are not stupid - we know this as well. A country is like a human being, and to use an example from Aristotle, any living thing is a combination of material and soul. Since the material is already there, shouldn’t the soul be developed as well, so that the entire living creature can be dynamic and can bring forth its fullest potential? But when the mind (analogy: the politicians) remain too fixed on the body, the soul gets neglected, and this is a reason why so many Singaporeans pack their bags and leave. Because the living thing is not getting any better. They don’t hate the country. But they want to be taken care of, they want to be seen as humans. And although the Government prides itself on making difficult moves, this is one move it cannot afford to neglect. Not in the long run. If i return and feel that i am just treated as a tool, as a number, i would pack my bags and leave too. There is more to life than being a money-making statistic. Singaporeans see this and want to believe in it. But for most, it remains an unfulfilled dream.  If we want to love but the lover is shunned as one who hates, then you can’t blame the lover for giving up and leaving.  It takes two, and if we are expected to love the country, we should be loved as well, shouldn’t we?  How can, then, one love a statistic, a number? Deadbeat Kids… I thought one post a day would be enough…but no, the States Times loves posting things which make me go ‘What The Fuck Was That?!’ again and again. And this post is on Deadbeat Children. First of all, what on Earth is ‘deadbeat’?  From what i’ve managed to glean, ‘deadbeat’ according to his definition is someone who has kids and then expects the whole world to pay them grandly because they’ve gone ahead and done a great service to their country.  Just like the higher-class Singaporeans, and the foreign talents who refuse to take up citizenship. Man, this guy is full of angst.  Or he must be an old-schooler totally frustrated at today’s problems.  He’s so full of angst that his diatribe argument is full of logical lacunae.  Firstly, who’s this ‘they?’ Deadbeat people or deadbeat kids?  And then he talks about parents indulging ‘them’ - i can only assume it’s the kids.  ‘Getting (literally) better-off children (married and unmarried) to make sacrifices’ - what do you mean here?  What is this emotional blackmail you talk about? Maybe some structuring will bring some sense to his argument.  My interpretation is like this: “The Swedish system will cause more deadbeats to have children.  They (these people) think the country owes them a living because they have done a great service to the country in their procreation.  Already parents indulge these (KIDS! nice attempt at switching the subject) with blah, blah, and this emotional blackmail.” Life is a commercial transaction.  Welcome to Singapore!  And would you give more than you get?  Maybe he has…he could be a minister, you know.  Moralising or grandstanding or being heartless?  No, actually - i find it amusing.  Probably you are someone disappointed at today’s society, like many are.  But seriously, would you give more than you get?  Isn’t it the same everywhere in the world? Get as much as you can whilst giving as little, especially for commercial transactions.  Aren’t you the one using words like ‘emotional blackmail‘ (which already implies a transaction of sorts)? After all, specifically, how will the Swedish system give rise to deadbeats?  I’m so disappointed that you have so little faith in human nature, that people equate kids to money.  If people did do that, we would have ersatz pregnancies already.  Would a person be so stupid as to have more kids just for the money and the days off, when children are actually long-term investments?  You have so little faith in the human intelligence.  That’s sad. The better-off Singaporeans seem pretty deadbeat…but isn’t that exactly what the Gahmen wants?  (Come to think of it…i wouldn’t be surprised if many thought the Gahmen was quite deadbeat…) Look, the Gahmen wants to boost the birth rate of the intelligent elite so hopefully we can become Brain Island or something like that.  And what of foreign talent?  Are they deadbeat?  I don’t think they are - they do contribute to society, but when something better comes along, off they go.  They contribute their due.  Perhaps you suffer from sour grapes because they are paid too much. Also, family-friendliness doesn’t mean deadbeat kids.  Family-friendliness would instead make society a lot more cohesive, because the very basic unit of society, the family, is secure.  If you still insist on being Miss Anthrope and mistrusting human nature (whereas yours must be sparkly clean), then impose a cap on babies.  Three sound good enough for you? And i wonder what Singapore is for you.  A society of non-deadbeats, then, would consist of ministers, taxi- and bus-drivers, waitresses and factory workers who do not complain and raise kids, since you choose to blend out the better-off, who are pretty much deadbeat for you.  Okay…welcome to the 60s?  Oh, i’m sorry.  Time travel isn’t possible yet.  Have a nice day. 何谓《美满人生》？ 虽然迟了两年，但我也终于看了《美满人生》。 果然，何谓美满人生？在新加坡的社会里，什么才是真正的美满人生？是所谓的5C吗？有了钱，车，公寓，刷卡，和高尔夫会员准正就是人人梦寐以求的美满吗？那么，为什么新加坡人虽不算穷，又不用露宿街头，但又不觉得生活美满呢？ 我以前还在上中学的时候，常常得要写作文。作文题目经常批评西方的腐败作风，但我觉得今日的新加坡也是一样。莘莘学子在作文上写的是西方社会的不好，物质生活所带来的种种困难，但想想我们近日社会。新加坡不是五十步笑百步吗？钱非万能，但是这句话在新加坡多了一个下句：没钱却是万万不能。 有了钱，就有面子。面子未免太重要了吧？我知道对某些人来说，面子可是一切。但是为了面子，而牺牲幸福，值得吗？美满人生成为了一个生活目标：望子成龙的父母也没办法，若自己达不成美满人生的目标，就只好把所有的期望都寄托在孩子身上。人人都憧憬着一个美满人生，而大家都用一样的办法来尝试实现这个梦想， 之所以才会成为钱币的奴隶。 这一切的一切都是为了一个未必能实现的未来。所谓先苦后甜，就辛苦着一下吧。但是要辛苦到何时呢？有些人还为了面子而欠上一屁股的债。先苦了这么久，后甜还未来，这都值得吗？我们也应该自我反省一下。 Κάθαρσις, or the Failings of the So-Called Successful I belong to the so-called class of people whom aunties wish their children would become.  Scholarship in a non-English country, doing a double-major which is half-useless but very intriguing, and half-useful in that it gives you an economic edge, a loving girlfriend, and so on, and so forth.  But something is lacking, and i probably wouldn’t have seen it if I wasn’t surrounded by friends from another cultural background, which has forced me to take a step back and reflect on my very own. Singapore is a rich country, with a high material standard of living.  But are you happy?  It’s worth asking yourself this question every once in a while. Are you happy?  Asking this question and reflecting on it has made me think twice about the country i was brought up in.  Do i want to settle there after my bond is over?  If i was once doubtful, it is now again in doubt. I am not happy.  I am defined by my work, and i am always working.  I am very demanding of myself, because i have an intrinsic fear of failure (probably instilled when i was in Primary school by canings for every mark below 85), partly because of my commitments, and because i have this typical Singaporean idiosyncracy of working now in the hope of a better future where things are more relaxed. I have an exam coming up next week and have been cramming for it.  Girlfriend suggests that we take tomorrow off and go somewhere to sightsee, since i’ve been working all day for the past two days or such, and also because it’s the holidays.  I’ve done well consistently, and she believes that i’ll do well this time.  I am much more cautious about such things because i have a deep-seated fear that things can go wrong, deus ex machina, and you only have yourself to blame for not preparing enough. Sounds Singaporean enough for you?  When you’ve been fed with the truism or the so-called ‘wisdom’ that success can go down in just one day, you tend to start to believe it, especially if it’s been pressed into your psyche from the very first day of school.  I am now under stress, not just because of the exams, but i’m also concerned that i’m being a lousy boyfriend, and also because This Is The Life I Don’t Want to Lead. Am i happy?  No, admittedly not.  If this goes on, i’ll be a person who is defined by their work - always working now and hoping for the day when you can enjoy the fruits of your labour, but you end up getting caught up in the rat-race and you don’t see the end anymore, because there is always More.  The successful seem happy because they are materially rich?  I would beg to differ (although i am by no means successful, just that i happen to fulfill the social criteria for being so.)  Mens sana in corpore sano? The healthy body part probably would be okay.  But a healthy mind?  Few and far between in Singapore. But wait, this is elitist shit.  But no, it’s not.  Who isn’t defined by their job in Singapore?  Who doesn’t just go to work from 8am to God-knows-when, come home to the wife (or to an empty house, or to children who are busily studying)?  Politicians aside, this is something which affects everyone.  University students spend all their time cramming, and the fact that i can throw Tuesday nights out to go drinking with the philosophers (that is the useless, but oh-so-tantalising subject) already means something.  Singapore’s ideal workers have been caught up in the material rat-race, and it doesn’t help that the costs of living are going nowhere but up.  There is always more. And this is perhaps time for you to stop, and breathe.  Are you happy?  I have a sickening feeling that this ‘more’ is something no one can ever reach.  I’ve set a goal for myself: PhD in Philosophy, and then i’ll take what life throws my way.  Teach, or do research.  But i wonder if i can reach this goal.  Prudentia, mihi vim dat, ut temptationem vincat! Quo usque tandem abutere? I am horrified at my life.  It seems like Singapore is too deeply ingrained into my very being - Katrin pointed it out today when she noted that i would never stop working, and i always put work before everything else.  And it horrifies me.  I profess to study overseas so that i have time for myself and not be caught up in the work race all the time, but i seem to have made myself the competitor.  How hypocritical i am.  The sad thing is that i know i’m not the only one.  I asked astee what i should do, and she has no idea too.  And the thing is that it’s not going to be easy to change, because i’ve been socialised like that.  To work hard.  But work until when?  Isn’t that a question the Gahmen doesn’t want to answer because it will ‘erode the work ethic?’ Perhaps i am over-generalising, but look around you.  How many people are truly happy?  How many people have their private lives invaded by work?  It seems that the separation of work and private life has spectacularly failed.  Your private life shouldn’t be a part of work life, but it seems that work life can be a huge part of your private life.  And it starts from primary school.  Homework, tuition, and all.  And it goes on, and on.  The Gahmen always says that Singapore only has human resources…but then again the Gahmen doesn’t treat us with the worth that it says we have.  All in the name of improvement and increasing compatibility.  It boils down to how you control your own life, and not getting caught up in the rat race, but how does one do that when the rat race has been so carefully created? I am reminded of one of Cicero’s orations, and i will post it here in Latin with my translation: QUO usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra? quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet? quem ad finem sese effrenata iactabit audacia? Nihilne te nocturnum praesidium Palati, nihil urbis vigiliae, nihil timor populi, nihil concursus bonorum omnium, nihil hic munitissimus habendi senatus locus, nihil horum ora voltusque moverunt? Patere tua consilia non sentis, constrictam iam horum omnium scientia teneri coniurationem tuam non vides? Quid proxima, quid superiore nocte egeris, ubi fueris, quos convocaveris, quid consilii ceperis, quem nostrum ignorare arbitraris? And the translation: HOW LONG, o Catiline, will you abuse our patience? For how long will that madness of yours elude even us? To what end does your unbridled madness toss itself about?  Does not the guards of the Palace at night, nor the night sentry of the city, nor the alarm of the people, nor this attack on the common good, nor this most secure location for the Senate to convene, nor the looks of those gathered here have any effect on you?  Do you not know that your plans have been uncovered?  Do you not see that your plans have been rendered powerless by the knowledge of all?  What did you do last night, where were you, which people did you summon, what plan did you hatch, which you assumed we did not know? -Cicero, in Catilinam Prima in Senatu Habita Stop this madness.  Or, at the very least, stop the hypocrisy. Are You Confused? Our ‘most popular’ daily, The States’ Times, has once again proved why Singapore is judged to have no press freedom.  Let’s take a look at this letter, written by a certain Syu Ying Kwok: Five Years? MM Lee’s Estimate Was Too Optimistic WITH reference to last Friday’s column, ‘Welcome to scary Singapore, land of four million smiles’, I could not help but disagree with Ms Lynn Lee. It is naïve to assume that all human beings can be trusted to do the right thing, and that we should appeal to the public by their conscience and sense of fairness. While it is ideal to strive towards a kinder and gentler society, Singaporeans must be made to realise the world is actually very brutal. Why is Singapore schizophrenic? To me, it is both a modern-day wonder and an insane attempt to push the boundary of human sociology, political science and human ingenuity. With a population of 4.6 million and no natural resources, Singapore is like a 3,000m-tall giant inverted pyramid balancing precariously on a ridiculously small footprint of less than 700 sq km. To further create instability and complexity, the population is a mixture of races, religions and cultures due to its historical immigrant origins. In some ways, Singapore’s few short decades of peace may bring hope to a millennium of violence in Jerusalem. On the contrary, I feel Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew is very optimistic when he said recently that Singapore can be unscrambled in just five years. With modern telecommunications and banking infrastructure, trillions of dollars can be transferred out of Singapore in an instant if the current leaders and their policies change overnight. Singapore’s economy can become an empty shell within weeks. The grim reality is that global financial investors would have no qualms in rendering us incapacitated in this fiercely competitive world. In many ways, Singapore is a failure due to its own success. Thanks to its ability to provide housing, work opportunities and good economic growth year after year in a First World environment, it is no wonder that most Singaporeans, especially those born after 1965, have bred a false sense of security, thinking modern Singapore is a creation by mother nature. Recently, opposition politician Tan Lead Shake made headlines after a tragic event in his family. But what chills the bones is the fact that in the past three elections, an average of more than 20 per cent of the electorate voted for him or anyone else who stood for election with little consideration of his credentials or abilities. Will Singapore last as long as the 3,000-year-old Great Pyramids of Giza? Very unlikely, when civilisations in history last an average of less than 500 years. But the real answer lies not just in our children but in the choice we make now to ensure a better future for them now. Syu Ying Kwok Whoa.  It seems like our friend has a huge penchant for the dramatic.  In fact, in his first paragraph, he has already literally shot himself in the foot, dug his own grave, and threw himself in. “It is naïve to assume that all human beings can be trusted to do the right thing, and that we should appeal to the public by their conscience and sense of fairness,” he proclaims.  Which is how so very true, but it is questionable how come he thinks that a select group of politicians should be the only people we can trust to do the right thing.  How is it that a small group of people can decide for 4 million people what the right thing is? While politicians are there to represent the people and even to make difficult and unpopular choices, the very fact that this select group of people under one party has dominated for so long implies that they may be misguided, but in every sense of the word doing what politicians do - representing the people, only perhaps without realising what the people want.  So it boils down, effectively, to who is being represented, indeed.  I think this is what is meant in the original article which he attacked. “While it is ideal to strive towards a kinder and gentler society, Singaporeans must be made to realise the world is actually very brutal.” No wonder Singapore is where it is today.  An over-competitive educational system, which mass-produces drones which repeat the same process used to achieve success, albeit only in one meaning of the word.  Which, in effect, makes the system brutal, and primes the kids for being brutal through exposing them to the dog-eat-dog world of Singaporean academia.  The fact that people in school still help each other should be seen as a blessing already. In fact, this sounds like something someone belonging to the political élite (or an aspiring wannabe) would write…after all, Singapore is pragmatic mah!  How many times do we have to be reminded that life is brutal, when we see it all around in everyday life?  Perhaps the Gahmen has failed to see that apart from material well-being, which is an important prerequisite for a healthy mind and mental life, that this in itself is vital too.  I think the Gahmen is slowly waking up its idea, but this author actually doesn’t.  He thinks that because Singapore is rich in terms of moolah (although wealth distribution is in the woods), we should be happy and mentally healthy, so we need a reminder that life isn’t all that dandy.  Hehheh. Here’s more…”With a population of 4.6 million and no natural resources, Singapore is like a 3,000m-tall giant inverted pyramid balancing precariously on a ridiculously small footprint of less than 700 sq km.” Same old argument.  An inverted pyramid is naturally unstable, but only that it makes a big bang when it happens to be 3 kilometres tall.  So you mean, Mr. Syu, that if Singapore collapsed in the 1960s, it would be totally fine with you?  I mean, it would be fine with me, because i wasn’t born then yet.  Then he says ” In some ways, Singapore’s few short decades of peace may bring hope to a millennium of violence in Jerusalem.” Don’t I hope so too.  You must understand, Mr. Syu, that the world is actually very brutal.  You said it yourself.  On top of that, who are you to talk about Jerusalem?  What do you know about the history of Isreal?  Isreal was a plot of land allocated to the Jewish peoples after the Second World War.  Was Singapore allocated an island which once belonged to Malaysia?  You decide.  The land which is Isreal used to belong rightfully to the Arab nations.  One millenia of stryfe has been intensified by this.  I don’t remember reading in my history textbook that Singapore was allocated land by the Commonwealth or whoever, thus making the Malay-speaking neighbours extremely unhappy. And again, “trillions of dollars can be transferred out of Singapore in an instant if the current leaders and their policies change overnight.”  Indeed, which is why Singapore needs this ‘public conscience.’  The lack of transparency means that PURELY THEORETICALLY (emphasis means that this is theoretical and is NOT a statement that it is happening), trillions of dollars could be transferred out of Singapore without us knowing.  Good faith in the Gahmen is important, but how far does this good faith go? Singapore is a victim of its own success.  Very true.  Wouldn’t it be easier to control Singapore if we were small, 3rd world, with most of us struggling to survive on the most basic of necessities?  I mean, in that environment, Singapore would be really easy to control.  The PAP would receive more support than ever.  A false sense of security, thinking modern Singapore was created out of Nature?  The last time i did history, it was listing down all the illustrious acts of one Lee Kuan Yew and his less-important and not-so-often-mentioned friends.  If all, we know that Singapore is a product of human effort.  And not so many of us have a false sense of security anymore, except when it comes to terrorists and their Great Escapades. Recently, opposition politician Tan Lead Shake made headlines after a tragic event in his family. But what chills the bones is the fact that in the past three elections, an average of more than 20 per cent of the electorate voted for him or anyone else who stood for election with little consideration of his credentials or abilities. This is just a cheap shot, made in low taste.  I wonder why the editors even let this get published, when other, more readworthy letters, are cut out due to a ‘lack of space.’  Truly laughable.  The Mandarin saying 近朱者赤，近墨者黑 may be relevant here.  But seriously.  This is chilling.  So we know little about his credentials.  But that he married someone who may turn out to be guilty of murder?  Please.  That’s just a cheap shot.  It is also questionable how come this even got published.  Is this, perhaps, ‘nation-building?’ Furthermore, we don’t know if the PAP politicians have credentials or abilities.  We assume they do, because they are scholars, etc.  But then again, terrorists have escaped, and people have gone overseas using the wrong passport, and there is no responsibility being assumed.  So what are we to believe?  Did we assume wrongly, and heads cannot roll because they don’t have the credentials or abilities? politicos erga: quis maximam veritatem habeat? On today’s news, Dr. Vivian Balakrishnan addressed students on the Internet future. And he put his words wisely: read with your brains, not with your eyes. Determining true and false is becoming increasingly difficult with today’s new media, and we have to be more careful with what we read, so we have to be sceptical and be careful. Bene dicebat! I agree wholeheartedly with him. It remains to see, though, what is right and what is wrong. Indeed, what do our politicians think to be right? Without a second body of power to check them, the PAP has enjoyed a monopoly of the Singaporean parliament, and, indeed, Singapore. In the process of that, we have seen the ideals which propelled this party into power become slowly eroded. A diversity of views did not always end up in a ‘fundamental truth’. New media allows wrong ideas to be reinforced, he said. Did the old media allow the right ideas to be reinforced? What is, here, right? Economical prosperity would be right in the eyes of the politicians. But is working until ‘as long as you wish’ (read: an euphemism for ‘as long as you must’), today’s materialistic culture, political apathy, the reality not agreeing with what is being told to us - is this the right idea which the old media has manage to produce so far? Apart from work ethic and the cruel truth that Singapore is dog-eat-dog, as it is becoming in most places, have all the right ideas come about? Are ‘fundamental truths’ only the truths told to us by those who have power? No wonder Socrates was executed. Is it possible that through the diversity of views, a better truth can be reached than what has been sold to us as ‘fundamental?’ I don’t think the Government has the best truth, or the fundamental truth. Or perhaps it does have the fundamental truth, but this fundamental truth is one which undermines the very truth of our existence - our humanity. This ‘fundamental’ truth can be summarised as such: As little pain and as much pleasure as possible. Small pains are worth tolerating for the greater pleasure. But how many have achieved this greater pleasure? Is it not right for us to use discourse to attempt to find a better truth? The truth cannot be fundamental if what it says is measured in relative terms - with greater pleasure, i want still greater pleasure. And i want even lesser pain. How can this profess to be ‘fundamental,’ when there isn’t an end? Of course, we set the ‘end.’ But with the rising costs of living, when will there be an end? Dr. Balakrishnan also turned against the net, especially those who do ‘outrageous things’: It also raises the pitch of political discourse owing to perceived anonymity online. ‘Because you think you are not revealing yourself, a lot of people on the Internet engage in what I call virtual shouting. ‘They want to gain attention and the best way…is to say something crazy, outrageous, scandalous, maybe even defamatory,’ he said. ‘It is a world in which more heat than light is generated.’ Of course, there are people who say defamatory things. But i wonder what he means by ‘crazy, outrageous, scandalous.’ Words like that are so broadly defined that almost anything could belong to these categories. In effect, we could be those generating more heat than light. ‘Light’ is also an interesting metapher…i find it interesting that he would say that whatever we say could bring no information, or his so-called ‘light.’ Are we that stupid? Perhaps this is a well-disguised way of saying that Internet discourse is just so much hot air. There are people who do that, but they are in the minority. But with light must come heat, and we have to tolerate them, in that we know what doesn’t matter and what does. We were given the education, and we’re putting it to good use. Warning top students that ‘the Net has more heat than light’ would mean that the Net is populated by barbarians waiting to eat you. How true is that? ‘How many of us bothered to say: ‘Wait, who said it, where was it published, are you sure it’s accurate?’ That whole layer of homework which is needed is not done.’ Indeed, like the misidentification of a certain politician with the wrong political party. He said the Government had no problems with it: ‘There is no dirty little secret which the PAP is trying to hide from its people and that’s why the Government is actually very comfortable with new media. Being comfortable with new media doesn’t mean that selection doesn’t take place. It’s just that you won’t get to know what the dirty little secret is about. What they are confident with is marketing themselves, presenting us their truth, which they take to be fundamental and unsurpassable. But is it? Can we shed light? Or is our light taken to be heat? 5 Years to Ruin… So our Great Leader has spoken once again. Namely, he’s threatened that 5 years are all it takes to ruin Singapore. Seriously, though, i wonder if he would rather see a gradual decline instead. One freak election, he says, is all it takes to ruin Singapore. Firstly, what is a ‘freak election?’ From his subjective point of view, a ‘freak election’ probably means the Opposition winning a freak victory, which is shocking in perfectly-governed Singapore, hence ‘freak.’ To him, it is unimaginable. We have to consider, however, why he sees it as unimaginable. Perhaps he thinks Machiavelli is right - the only way to keep control of your people is to make sure they fear you, but not to the extent that a champion arises amongst the people. Secondly, why would we become ‘bored’ and vote for the vociferous opposition (which, as far as i know, hasn’t been especially vociferous of late excluding one party) out of ‘light-heartedness, fickleness or sheer madness?’ Firstly, bored of what? Bored of good years? Or bored of increasing income disparity, bored of ministers raising their salary despite mistakes, bored of what? I don’t know what we should be bored of. Maybe bored of working 8-6 every day without earning the money we deserve. And voting for the opposition in light-heartedness, fickleness or even madness? Such harsh words to think that we would vote for them because we were insane. Politically and pragmatically, though, it is a good way at crowd control. Singaporeans are so used to conforming that if PAP says you must be insane to vote for the opposition, or some other negative adjective, you could actually believe them. The need for a system which ensures that good leaders are produced is a need which i appreciate as well. But that it has worked up til now doesn’t mean that it will work forever. What’s more, although these leaders have been through the system, have they seen the flaws of it? Do they believe they are invulnerable? Do they have a right to be invulnerable? Although the government has to trust these leaders by virtue of them passing the system, it doesn’t mean that the people have to trust them as well. As he said, ‘your existence depends on performance’ - apparently the existence of some don’t. The first of his three criteria is a government which people have confidence in and trust when tough decisions need to be taken. Obviously, this is a reference to the many tough decisions which have been made lately. But it seems like we don’t really see the positive end of the GST hike, or of having more ERP gantries. Ministers raising their own salaries to match the private sector also make their intentions terribly suspect - who else raises their own salary? Secondly, leaders who are above board, making decisions based on necessity, not for self-benefit. No one can really accuse these ministers of making decisions based on self-benefit. But then, how many of the made decisions are necessary? For example, investing in overseas companies and banks which have returned nothing but losses? ‘We have not got richer, but Singapore has,’ he breezes. Erm…so where is the money? Public works? Paving over drainage covers, leading to more mosquitoes? Cosmetics over real help? And we’re amazed when billions are coughed up to help some ailing banks. If Singapore has grown richer, why aren’t we told how much we make a year? Lastly, we need able men. Able men would be able to perceive what the people need, and help them accordingly. Able men, incidentally, would be responsible too. Able men would take it upon themselves to do something, and not continually remind us about what WE have to do. Like stop buying branded food. Or to take public transport. Or to stop being insane. Or to move on. Or to stop being complacent. And so on, and so forth. 5 years to ruin? Perhaps Great Leader spoke with wisdom. We should sit up and think about it… maybe not sending a warning is on the way to ruin for Singapore too. Flipsyde feat. Piper - Happy Birthday *sigh* Why Liberties Probably Don’t Matter…in Singapore Well, after reading this article, which provokes questions and reflections, i felt that it would perhaps be useful to try and see why our Gahmen doesn’t think that liberties are that important.  Play some advocatus diaboli, so to speak…so a point-for-point, paragraph-for-paragraph parallel to this article by Simply Inconceivable. While people are clamouring for Singapore to be a First World Nation, with First World rights, and so on, and so forth, perhaps there are many criteria to fulfill before any country can become a so-called ‘First World Nation.’  In the eyes of the powers that be, Singapore is a First World Nation of sorts, especially from the economical context.  That has been the sole criterion (or if not, the criterion which outweighs all others) in the Singaporean context - from the politicians to the everyday person.  You just have to pay attention to how Singaporeans are threatened with their mothers, wives and sisters becoming maids (read: economic crash) or how liberties will undermine the status quo which makes Singapore a haven for investment. If our civil liberties were that important, then theoretically, Singapore should be in the slums today.  An extreme example would be Myanmar.  In Singapore, the powers that be see liberties as something smacking of Western idealism, which happens to be totally incompatible with Singapore’s hardcore pragmatism.  And a pragmatist would stick to the effective way of doing things - rocking the boat is tantamount to capsizing it, and thus, People Who Rock the Boat Should be Incarcerated.  In the meantime, make other potential rockers fearful enough to control themselves, or give the impression that the boat can’t be rocked, anyway.  We are able to criticise, but expect to be ignored, derided or arrested. The government would like to say it is democratic.  Democracy, however, so long as economic First World-ism is maintained.  ‘To build a democratic society,’ it says in our Pledge.  But is it able to withstand a democratic defeat?  The government strongly believes not. (Egoism? Genuine fear? Realistic Estimation of the Situation?)  A certain Minister Mentor mentioned that he has no qualms calling in the military to suppress a democratic defeat, and people have been sued for trying to introduce Western-style democracy into Singapore.  Singapore is democratic, but according to whose definition? Herein lie two further considerations: It is very possible that this government may be defeated democratically and the citizens thus attaining their liberty.  But that would mean a lot of angry, jobless ministers, from a purely egoistical standpoint.  Which have performed somewhat, bringing Singapore to an economically First World status (in Governmental standards, First World simpliciter) and have introduced the economical aspects of the Western world and made the people materialistic enough that ideals have lost their value for the pragmatic.  These people too wouldn’t want the status quo to be disturbed. What are we going to do about it?  The question is, can people be trusted?  Lee Kuan Yew came to the political front on a Golden Age in Singaporean politics, and he championed the cause of democracy and free speech.  But after he took power, he began to purge his opponents.  For it, however, Singapore is what it is today.  There is a very simplified polarity of liberties versus economic gain.  Is  it any wonder why Singapore is more economic gain, less liberties?  In this sense, the incumbent has been able to wider and strengthen its power base. True, the Government listens only when it benefits them.  Perhaps in misguided self-righteousness, believing that it will profit the country (after all, there is a strict filtration system in place.)  Criticism made known to the masses would be a catastrophe to be avoided at all costs.  And should the votes fail, i wonder if legal pressure is useful, if at all, and international pressure (in the form of press) has been kept out long enough anyway. Valiant cives mei! Sint incolumes, sint florentes, sint beati! (Cicero, Oratio pro Milone, 93) Money, Sex, Words So lately, amidst all the reports of molesters being arrested and all, this blogger claims that she was molested by a friend.  Let’s not start by saying the girl was a cheap slut, but honestly, this was less than wise on her side.  Especially as the guy’s story has come out too.  The girl believes that the guy was a nice guy and she never expected him to do such a thing.  How disappointing.  I feel sorry for your cause, but there isn’t much you can do, realistically speaking.  But more on this later. The guy says he has been chasing her for 2 years. Dinners, movies, maybe just picking her up from work.  She would let him put his arm around her shoulder or maybe hold her waist.   But, to avoid misunderstanding amongst her (possibly naturally gossipy) friends, she refused these advances when they were in a group.  Well and good.  Reasonably speaking, (and we know how paiseh some Singaporean girls can be when it comes to their boyfriends or people interested in them) she never talked to him about it in private.  And she damn well knew that he was interested in her. Fast forward to a trip to Korea - perhaps she was being nice and it makes no sense going to Korea alone anyway, so might as well get a girlfriend to come along.  But none of her girlfriends were free, so she got our protagonist to go along with her.  And let’s see…she felt something rubbing against her butt.  So why didn’t she stop him?  Perhaps it’s natural to freeze.  But she had opportunity to stop him, or to even confront him about it.  And she didn’t.  Okay, maybe she was too shocked.  Then the friendship broke up, and they’re now living their separate lives. There are some things she didn’t mention, though.  There’s 48 grand involved in this fiasco.  Was it on her original blog post?  Hell no, it wasn’t!  So why publicise this all of a sudden with all sorts of shoddy details?  Not to be misogynistic, but the fact that 48 grand was involved really undermines her credibility.  It makes people wonder if you’re exposing him just so that he’ll back down about demanding that 48 grand back.  Legally, you really don’t have a case.  It’s deplorable that this must happen to you and just you, but think about it.  If he sent you the wrong signal about accepting the 48 grand as a gift, you sent him plenty of wrong signals as well. Like asking him to go to Korea, allowing him to take you out and spoil you, and so on, and so forth.  I wonder why you didn’t expose him on the spot, rather than wait for a year and cite nightmares.  I mean, it’s plausible and dramatic.  But maybe your financial situation got so dire that you decided to do a tell-all?  To me, it seems like a recipe for disaster - you can’t really prove that he did anything to you, can you?  He didn’t have sex with you.  And the story behind your story makes your original story so suspect.  Are you out to get 48 grand off your back?  And at the same time get back at him? As for the guy, he really shouldn’t have done that.  All that doesn’t give you the right to go further.  But then again, at least he didn’t force himself on her.  However, you could have explicitly said it was a loan.  But then again, love or infatuation tends to make things different.  You are at fault, but in the aftermath, you are the victim. Disincentives So more ERP gantries have been activated, and more CBD gantries are charging even more. I have just one question: Why, har? Must be because ERP gantries are sibei expensive. So must raise the charges to buy more ERP gantries. Or maybe cos people complain that MRT is damn squeezy and the train also sometimes CMI, and what’s more COE is not that high some more…so need a balance somewhere. Then again ah, it could have been a lightning bolt. Either way, how come tup pai is always we all tio?  Bus fare increase, MRT fare increase, everything also increase.  Gahmen say too many cars liao, take public transport.  But then public transport also more expensive. I also don’t know why some public organisations are so locked in their ideas, cannot wake up one.  2008 liao everything still want to use disincentive…incentive not better meh? Like our school system like that.  Always got a lot of incentive one.  Study hard so u can get into a good uni. Then can get good job. Then can get good life. Always got incentive one. Except sometimes don’t do well go home got 藤条 waiting for your ka-chng.  That one disincentive.  NS also got incentive.  U don’t ji siao me, i don’t give u jialat-jialat. Maybe even give u early book-out some more.  See, got incentive to behave well! So why always say aiyah Singaporeans not sensitive to ERP rates, this kind of thing…of course we sensitive la! ERP here, ERP there…we just got used to it and stopped complaining only mah! Actually i didn’t know LTA so sensitive one. Nobody complain then they think we insensitive. Maybe their PR department too free, whole day kiao ka yo l*m par… so need something to make sure they work! I mean of course cannot give them money for nothing right? But why they only sensitive to this kind of thing…cannot be sensitive to MRT too crowded, things like that.  Then hor, they also cannot be sensitive to the fact that people want to go home after work. But maybe Gahmen wants that la.  Work longer hours! In fact last time they said we should work longer years also ma…so a few more hours also never mind lor. Then more people stay in town, Singapore sibei vibrant. Always got people in town. Nehmind that they look so dulan…more people is what Singapore needs! First-class city! So very good for LTA, 响应政府的号召! So it’s not disincentive lah. Maybe it’s incentive. Work longer now, so next time u used to working longer. Good for you. But then hor, i want my peace and quiet one lei. Think must go look for bicycle liao.  Must faster get bicycle…sekali Gahmen announce Bicycle tax, cos Singaporeans don’t drive anymore. Then bicycle come with ERP beep beep beep also.  Anyone got lobang? requiescant in pace Another two soldiers have left this world for another. And i wonder why? Why hasn’t anything come from MINDEF? Are these soldiers fated to fade away in anonymity? Whenever this happens (and sadly it’s happening more often,) you only see ‘pronounced dead at x.xx am/pm.’ Where is the coroner’s report? I mean, MINDEF doesn’t even have to explain it in the newspapers. And keeping zip-lip doesn’t help, because it just gives the impression that such things will be swept under the rug. What to do, it’s happened. Let’s move on. A tragedy for you, but life must go on. In some way, this is true. But the impression being given is wrong. The impression being given is one of a system which couldn’t care more, a system where deaths must, statistically at least, occur, and where the bereaved and the public, who are very active members of the armed forces, don’t receive any information about Just What the Hell Happened. Of course, it may not be SO in the objective sense. But public emotion is moved very importantly by impression as well. The powers that be in Singapore, it seems, tend to believe that just because things are SO, thus they are right. But is any information filtering down to John Smith? Does John Smith know that the government, or the armed forces, or whatever actually CARES? The impression is that they don’t care at all, because nothing substantial has been done to prove anything to us. A symbolic move, or making the coroner’s reports readable in the archives, or per request, would mean a lot as to these deaths in MINDEF. There is no obligation to put it on the front page of the States’ Times. It’s a small step for MINDEF, but a large step in PR. But, two more have walked towards the light. requiescant in pace. “Don’t Rock the Boat!” As a Singaporean, i think this is worth a read. You know, of course it’s not the time to nitpick and blow things out of proportion. This author, Chin Hwa, thinks that we’re playing with fire by rocking the boat. Here’s the full text… This is not a time to nitpick and blow up matters out of proportion. Singaporeans enjoy more than 45 years of plenty under the rule of the PAP. Today, instead of crushing under the weight of the heavy global oil and food prices like many, many larger and resource-rich countries, this tiny resourceless and no-economies-of-scale little red dot continues to give out goodies to its people - Progress Package, Growth Dividends, Inflation Bonus, etc., to the envy of many countries. Thanks to the good management of Singapore. No one wishes to unconsciously stir up the ground from any thread. Look what’s happening around the world today. It’s volatile like kerosene and can spread out of hand. It that what we want? Street protests as advocated can turn to anarchy where looting and violence is the norm. Tourists for example will be too scared to come here then. What then will happen to the livelihood of the thousands of our taxi drivers, hotel people, food & beverage people, etc.,? Moreover, investments thrive on a peaceful, safe & secure environment. It may then not be easy to turn back the clock. Playing hero or Robin Hood is. See what’s happening time & again in Thailand. Don’t play with FIRE. There’s no starvation, no food riots, no NEP, no torture and what-not that plagues others in Singapore. In the 80-20, it’s bad to play up the 20. No one will benefit in the end, save our rivals and enemies. Don’t bring back the Lim Yew Hocks (one who sold Pedra Branca [Christmas Island]), Ling How Dongs, Cheos, etc. Don’t rock the boat. If we didn’t know. The faces in government come and go after they have made their contributions. They are people like you and me. They are not entrenched in stone; only the party’s name. Leadership faces self-renewal and self-regulation. The only founding member remaining is our grand old MM. No one will deny that he deserves the seat for as long as he can still contribute to the well-being of the nation. Contributing, beyond self and family, he is. It must be hard for a loving husband to leave his beloved sick old wife to go to Russia to seek out business for Singapore. Bother to give that a thought? Altruism? Need he? Look at the bigger picture, Singaporeans. Be grateful. And finally, there’s no utopia and paradise on this dog-eat-dog planet. Firstly, let’s look at 45 years of plenty. Have we HAD 45 years of plenty? Or 45 years of just enough? YOU may have had 45 years of plenty. But there are many who haven’t. Ditto for costs not being necessarily crushing as yet. As for the handouts…well, the Progress Package was doled out just before the elections, something which the opposition could not do. Growth dividends was a payout of the shocking 7.7% budget surplus, and the inflation bonus was given out in response to inflation in May 2008. Isn’t it rather surprising that many of these correspond with rather significant occurances in Singapore, like the General Elections, the freak budget miscalculation, and Mas Selamat’s Great Escape? Hogwash, you could say, these are just coincindences. It shows that the Government cares for us, and that Singapore is well-managed. Well, if Singapore is well-managed, then why did Mas Selamat escape and the people only given bits and pieces of information LATE? Why would the PAP give out money just a few months before the General Elections? It’s because these small amounts of money are meant to appease the population, so that the voices may be silenced. Money can buy many things. Unfortunately, it can’t buy us, well, not yet, at least… It’s interesting to assume that if the boat is rocked, it’s sure to capsize, which is just what our author does. This, of course, proceeds by arguments which word precisely on one premise - namely that we’re weaklings who do not have any reason at all - what’s happening around the world is like kerosene, and it can spread out of hand. This as a reason is used to explain why street protests can turn into anarchy, with looting and violence. Thus, foreign tourists will not dare to visit us, and what will happen to the livelihood of thousands? And for a negative example, we really should look at Thailand! Granted that Singapore is relatively better-off than Thailand, but since we are better, isn’t it good to demand more? The Government always exhorts us to work more, anyway! And, by the way, the belief that rocking a boat will capsize it has been used by the PAP to explain most of its prophylactic policies. To think that the education system has failed to teach us one thing - reason - that they have to take so many preventive measures against us! Play with fire? What fire? You mean Armageddon for Singapore? I would say au contraire, not doing anything is playing with fire just as well. And playing up the minority - how does our author know what that we’re in the minority? For all i know, Singaporeans really love complaining, so i don’t think we’re in the minority at all…furthermore, who are these enemies? Is it the ‘fictional enemy’ scenario which is muchly ingrained into NE classes? Demonise everyone who isn’t a model Singaporean citizen - that means our neighbours (which is why NS is important), a certain opposition head, netizens (don’t listen to what they say! It’s anonymous and has no credibility!), foreign press, and much much more? Do we need such clear boundaries with OB markers, or do we need a graduating amount of acceptance, with the extremes (like fundamentalists or murder) definitely within the OB markers, whereas others which don’t really fit in are neither accepted nor persecuted? The faces in Government come and go. This i have to disagree with. Lee Kuan Yew will be immortalised after his passing as the founding father of Singapore as we know it, and he will be glorified in the history textbooks, just like how the video of him breaking down after we got thrown out has been shown again. And again. I don’t declare that Lee Kuan Yew isn’t important, but i wonder what Singapore is to him. Is it like a hobby, like a model plane which you can’t ever finish building, or is it like a real-life SimCity? In this sense of the word, i don’t think the world ‘altruism’ comes in. Altruism would be, however, a convenient explanation which everyone would like to hear. But perhaps real altruism is in firstly in perceiving that your citizens are human too, not inferior creatures with lesser rights than you. Only then can you be altruistic. (But seriously, what am i talking about? Money gives you rights in Singapore, silly!) Be grateful, Singaporeans. Be grateful for what? The Singapore in the Straits Times? Look at the bigger picture. What bigger picture? The bigger picture that we are told to see and have exams over, or the bigger picture which is the ugly truth which you’re not supposed to know about? Hört sich wie Eitelkeit an! Im Spiegel 21/2008 wird mit Prof. Kishore Mahbubani, Leiter der Lee Kuan Yew School of Policy an der NUS, ein Gespräch geführt. Es geht darum, dass die Okzident schlicht aufhören solle, die Orient in jeder Sache zu belehren. Mag wohl stimmen, Herr Mahbubani, und Ihre Meinung, dass die Okzident eine Menge von der Orient zu lernen habe, mag auch wohl stimmen, aber dies dürfen wir nicht behaupten für Singapur. Sie haben’s selbst gesagt: es gibt kein Schwarz und Weiß, sondern ein Kontinuum demokratisch-autoritär, in das jede Regierungsform je nach “Gesellschaft und ihrem Entwicklungsstand” passen würde. Ferner haben Sie über verantwortungsbewusste Führung gesprochen - das selbst finde ich schon ironisch. Viel zu oft hat unsere Regierung uns deutlich gemacht, was sie für Verantwortungsbewusstsein halten. Es werden Statistiken und Daten der Bevölkerung “aus Sicherheitsgründen” verweigert, und wenn etwas ganz Schlimmes passieren soll (wie etwa der Ausbruch eines gewissen Mas Selamat) schien doch kein Minister dazu bereit, die Verantwortung zu übernehmen. Stattdessen gab es eine Untersuchungskommission, die nicht nur nicht unabhängig war, sondern sie brachten am Ende ihrer Untersuchungen mehr Fragen als Lösungen ans Licht. Ist das also Verantwortungsbewusstsein? Vielleicht besteht jenes Verantwortungsbewusstsein doch darin, dass die Politikern ihrem Geldbeutel gegenüber doch verantwortungsbewusst sind. Sonst gäbe es keine Gehaltserhöhung, die sie selbst bestimmen. Ferner: Wird die Regierung im strengsten Sinne demokratisch gewählt? Wir sind uns bewusst, was hinter den Bühnen abläuft. Die Grenzen der Wahlgebiete werden vor jeder Wahl verändert, und Geld wird vom PAP vor jeder Wahl ausgeschenkt. Warum gibt es ferner denn auf dem Wahlschein eine Seriennummer, die man gegen eine Wahlbeteiligungsliste vergleichen kann? Warum sind Medienberichte über die Opposition so eingeschränkt? Warum werden Gegnerpolitikern angeklagt? Ist das denn demokratisch? Haben wir ferner ein effektives Sozialsystem, wie Sie es dadrstellen? Inwiefern ist das effektiv? Meinen Sie, dass wir kaum Geld vom Staat bekommen werden, und dass das Geld, das wir anlegen, unser Geld ist? Das ist von der Perspektive des Staates höchst effektiv - aber ist es für uns effektiv? Während es wirtschaftliche Inflation gibt und alles so allmählich teurer wird, wurde im Parlament darüber gestritten, ob Sozialempfänger 20 Euro mehr im Monat bekommen sollen! Da hat doch ein Minister gefragt, ob diese Empfänger im Restaurant speisen sollten. Pressefreiheit ist wiederum ein Problem - Pressefreiheit wurde doch weiter eingeschränkt, indem nichts Kritisches über die Regierung oder die Politik geschrieben werden durfte. Jemand, der so etwas schreibt, muss mit seiner Entlassung oder rechtlichen Folgen rechnen. Die Gesellschaft sollte doch in der Lage sein, öffentlich über ihre Probleme zu reden, aber dies dürfen wir nicht. Es wird trotzdem darüber geredet, aber diese finden in der Presse und Medien keinen Ausdruck. Heißt das also, dass dies “Andersregiert” sein soll? Sie, Herr Mahbubani, sagen, dass dies darauf zurückzuführen ist, dass unser Land “ein der fragilsten Staaten der Welt” sei. Das möchte doch einmal gewesen sein, aber lamgsam hat sich die Lage verändert. Unsere Nachbarstaaten werden nicht immer uns gegenüber freundlich sein, aber es hat nicht nur mit purem Neid zu tun. Wie oft sind unsere Politiker ihnen auf die Füße getreten? Diese Begründung wird heute auch als eine gute Ausrede verwendet, die PAP in Macht zu halten. Materiell sind wir verhältnismäßig sehr gut ausgekommen, aber auf welche Kosten? Wissen Sie, Herr Mahbubani, es hängt nicht nur vom Volke ab, ob sie Demokratie überhaupt wollen oder ob sie schon dafür bereit sind. Es hängt auch von der Politik ab, nämlich ob sie die Kontrolle ans Volk übergeben wollen. Und in Singapur sehe ich das nicht. Ihr Argument vom Anders-Regieren-Müssen zeugt davon, was Sie von Singapur halten. Wir sind die jammernden, idiotischen Kinder, die ständig erzogen und belehrt werden müssen. Na also. Haben wir denn nicht schon von Ihren Belehrungen genug? Das mit Toleranzlernen ist noch witziger. Die Okzident möge doch dies lernen - aber nicht von uns! Singapur kennt wenig von Toleranz. Die Regierung meint, dass weil die unterschiedlichen ethnischen Gruppen sich aushalten, dass wir also Toleranz halten. Es werden auch Gesetze wie das Sedition Act in Kraft gesetzt, um diese Toleranz zu bewahren. Aber jeglicher Kritik gegenüber ist die Regierung höchst intolerant. Es werden Zeitschriften von der Regierung wegen Defamation angeklagt, weil sie etwas erscheinen ließen, was nicht mit dem Geschmack der Lee-Familie so ganz übereinstimmt. Man muss manchmal Acht geben, was man auf seinem Blog schreibt, denn jemanden persönlich anzugreifen (oder mindestens irgendeine Interpretation, aus der man diese Tatsache schließt) wäre echt unklug. Es ist auch eine Doppelmoral bei Ihnen, Herr Mahbubani. Sie können Sie sich in ihrer Eitelkeit weiter sonnen, und wie der weiße Ritter auf Ihrem höhen Ross reiten, aber viele von uns Singalesen haben Sie auch durchschaut. Democracy and Disasters? So in the Forum, there’s a piece against the democracy of the United States. I’m not really supportive of the democracy of the United States, because freedom is made so important (or so it appears to be) that bureaucracy is everywhere, preventing efficiency during disasters. But, did this not show one of the strengths of democracy which are not present in authoritarian countries, even a benevolent dictatorship like Singapore? I believe that it is the fact that the weaknesses of the Bush administration were exposed which led to the current American electoral situation. The failure of the Bush administration was broadcast for all to see and it became clear that as much as the US professes to be a democratic society, differing sets of rules apply to its citizens. Despite claiming to have the world’s greatest army, it could not see to the needs of its own people. So one must ask the question: Are the Americans better in their vision of democracy and a system of government they seek to stamp on the rest of the globe? In so far as the response of their ‘freely elected government’ to the plight of the residents of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina is concerned, I would say no. The Americans may not be better in that particular event. But this exposure of governmental failures and shortcomings is something in a democracy which many countries sorely lack. Katrina has showed something, namely that the current government is not up to the task and that it is time for a change. Do we see this happening in Singapore? It’s just Xiao Lee announcing More Good Years Ahead, but not everyone is receiving the goodies. The reality you see on the streets, and probably your own financial situation, would suggest otherwise. But the lack of a democracy, the lack of the representation of the people, shows through. Everything is controlled, and the lack of exposure shows only one thing: What we think shouldn’t matter in the running of the country. To sit back and simply say we cannot interfere in the internal affairs of another nation is unacceptable. Asean should step in to offer aid and assistance for the common good. Yes, it is unacceptable. But it may not be just pure democracy which may be standing in the way. Every country has an agenda, motivated not just by politics or the respect of freedom or one’s rights. The European nations are all for airdrops, but what about international relations? Will Myanmar see this as an infringement of their national boundaries, and launch an attack? Singapore trades with Myanmar. Will interfering as the chair of ASEAN lead to the withdrawal or hindrance of these trade relationships? For a writer who professes to proclaim that the “proof is in the pudding”, he shows a surprisingly shallow analysis of the situation.  I am of the personal opinion that Myanmar should be punished.  But it is this deplorable lack of democracy, or the lack of the perceived worth of what the people feel, that no such action will be taken. What the devastating earthquake in China has shown is that despite being branded as a government that does not offer its citizens the freedoms so dearly espoused in the US, the Chinese government has shown the world through its actions that it is connected with its citizens and that they can count on it. [...] Beijing has shown itself to be a worthy government of the people. Beijing may be, now, a worthy government of the people, but China has been opening up. Beijing may be especially focussing on aid now, because the Olympics are coming. Big money! What’s more, it is a disaster. Any government would be pledged to be reliable in this situation. But is this because an authoritarian society cares for its charges more than a democratic one? Are there not other motivations in the background? The world’s eye is on China now. Beijing has to be smart, so that the West does not do anything drastic to curtail the rise of the Dragon. It does not mean that Beijing is the ideal government for the Chinese. I am for democracy, whereas Mr. Mohajer seems to be against democracy, especially democracy with the US brand. But it is this system of checks and balances which are vital to ensuring that power is not monopolised. He may be right in that the proof is in the pudding, but a good pudding doesn’t mean that the pudding is ideal or incapable of improvement. You need bad puddings, and the complaints of the diners, to force you to improve. The good pudding argument, as in Singapore, with 40 Good Years and more, is a formula for stagnation and for the good getting better, the bad worse. What’s more, a good pudding breeds arrogance amongst the cooks. You don’t need a disaster to know that. Mr. Mohajer is right in one last vital point… As much as we feel for the plight of the victims, we are not the ones burdened with the loss of a loved one or the destruction of our homes. Well said! So do we have to wait for the loss of a loved one or our eviction out of our homes, because we can’t afford to pay for them anymore, before we sit up and listen? Little Boy Beggar “Talks…” Okay, take a look at this. While our author may not be able to get any answers to her questions, and yes, a smoking kid beggar IS a sad thing to see in what we pride ourselves as First-World-Singapore, what i have a bone to pick with is the video itself.  That boy, beggar and smoker as he is, is still a person, not some scientific curiosity which just stepped out of a spaceship and demanded to be taken to our leaders! But she was ostensibly amazed that there was a child beggar who (gasp!) SMOKES! What’s there to be amazed about? I would find it very sad indeed. And even worse, interviewing the boy, asking questions about where he comes from, where his parents are, and stuff like that.  It’s pretty obvious he’s not going to talk, and he didn’t talk that much, did he?  And was any action taken after taking that video? Or did the taker happily go home and show it to her sister who blogged in horror? Truly, what’s amazing here is that nothing was done. And here come the standard questions. Why? Why do the parents do that? How could they? But isn’t that the reality of meritocratic Singapore? Perhaps we should be asking why wasn’t anything done? How did our author manage to infer that his father was working? And she ends off with a rhetorical question: are his parents really that poor that they need the boy to go out and beg? Then, our author draws parallels with the older generation, which have neither the education, nor the strength to endure hard labour.  But this is a young boy. I’ll bet that he doesn’t have much education, and he can’t endure hard labour as well. In fact, in Singapore, even education is not going to get you that far. Just look at the number of people with a tertiary-level education which are forced to drive taxis,  And what’s more, does that mean that we should pity the boy more than we should pity the old, when the boy still has A future and the old maybe not? As for the future of Singapore… Well, dear readers, can you see this happening to Singapore soon? With our policies regarding overseas employment and foreign talent, won’t the already-worsening employment situation be exacerbated?  It’s sad, but it’s a problem which affects each and every one of us. And some Singaporeans do feel that such cases are scientific curiosities!  I think i’m sorry, MM, but complacency is an aspect of Singaporean culture which has been indoctrinated into us since we begin school, and which permeates every level of society, from the top to the bottom.  Is this shocking?  It’s happening! Respect and Respectability So there’s been talk about abstinence education in Singapore lately. Can we link STDs with more teens having sex? Absolutely. But is preaching abstinence really the way? Sex happens. Sex is, also, a way of expressing love and closeness. But, isn’t sex a private, personal choice? If it is, then how can these writers say that abstinence is the way to respect yourself and to express human dignity? Perhaps in the case of the sex addict, yes, but for teens who made a choice and are sexually active? I know people who have sex regularly. I also know people who abstain from sex, because they believe it’s something for marraige. Both of them have made a choice. And the people who have sex regularly aren’t really people who’d sleep with others for money, or people who sleep with just about anyone. Respecting yourself is about saying no when you don’t want to, but why do Singaporeans just believe that much teen sex is something born out of peer pressure? Teenage sex with peer pressure or coercion amounts to rape. Similarly, respecting yourself is saying yes when it’s time. Abstinence is, thus, only self-respect when you are not doing it because you don’t want to. If you wanted to have sex all along, or if you are in a committed happy relationship, or are married, then why not? If we wanted to preach abstinence, we should make chastity belts available in Toys R’ Us! Abstaining because you have a chastity belt doesn’t amount to self-respect, as well. And, finally, whose concept of self-respect are we talking about here? Is it personal self-respect, or that of society? Let’s see. First, you have A, who’s surrounded by friends having lots of sex, and with legs which open wider than the soccer goalpost on the school field. A’s in a committed relationship, and had sex for the first time, because she loved him. A and her boyfriend use condoms regularly. And then we have B, who’s been taught abstinence. Shes always been curious about sex, and she has a boyfriend too, but she’s always been told that sex is something for whores and people who don’t respect themselves. So, B bends to social pressure and abstains, because she doesn’t want to be a whore in the eyes of her peers. Who respects herself? Is self-respect only making sure that you remain respectable in the eyes of society? We assume that teens don’t know what sex is about, and parents are amazed at how much about sex teens know. I believe it’s not so much about teaching teens how to worm their way out of a sticky situation, but learning what true self-respect is. The safer sex paradigma comes in here. It gives teens the facts they need to make an educated decision. But it’s not like we’re teaching safer sex to 10-year-olds; we’re teaching them at 14 to 16. The less you know, the better? That would fit in with a generally human, but especially Asian mentality of doing things the familiar way. If something is not known, then stay away from it. It could give you a nasty venereal disease.  Is this the hallmark of a mature society, the mature society that Singapore prides itself on being? Being mature is about making your own choices, not having them told to you in a school textbook! Over-Reliance So the results of the COI board is out.  And despite hoping against the odds, what we expected happened - the heads of some small fry are about to roll.  I mean, we really should have seen it coming.  Where is the ‘responsiblity’?  Obviously not with the political leadership, because our leaders are infallible, or even if they aren’t, they must be given a chance.  Come on, Singapore, give Can’t Sing a chance.  Maybe he will sing better next time. Still, this doesn’t do an iota towards helping us quell a huge source of disquiet - that of governmental responsiblity.  Instead, the Straits Times has very lovingly heaped blame on the blogosphere with their angry rants about this and that, about the bloodthirsty masses in the dangerous realm of Online Land.  So, dear readers, please read the Straits Times, and be happy that we have such an infallible government that they will fix the incompetent! The Great Escape of Mas Selamat, however, is not really about whose heads should roll anymore.  Let’s look beyond the pure reactionary movement and consider the bigger picture. This is reflective of the Government’s over-reliance on the system of filtration and grooming our so-called ‘future talents.’  Granted, it probably should work, but is it working now?  The helicoptering of ex-military generals into important leading positions also isn’t particularly reflective of a system which can breed confidence in the people.  Your aspiring minister probably has a PSC scholarship (let’s not talk about the other scholarship boards - chances are that you will go somewhat far, but not all the way anyway), has studied at some atas UK or US university, and probably will be idealistic, young and bright-eyed in the beginning, but perhaps frustrated at every attempt and then, jaded.  Success is redefined from achieving your ideals and realising yourself to getting as much money as possible, everyone else be damned, live a comfortable life, and worry about the rest later. To do that, you have to keep to the party line.  Gahmen will take care of you after that, and you’ll be able to work in many fields (or, suborgans) in what is called Singapore, Inc.  Why does the Gahmen take care of you?  Because you have 4 A’s, which says something, but not everything about your aptitude and attitude, went to a good school, blah, blah.  So theoretically speaking, you have passed Uncle Lee’s ‘test’.  Well done.  But is it wise to invest such unwavering faith in your infallability? Yes, the angry scholar would say, because i am in control of myself and i am a person with integrity.  But are you?  Will you even make just a formal attempt at resignation when something goes wrong?  No, you won’t.  Habit changes in the most insidious of ways.  And to make sure that the angry masses have as little ammunition to use against you as possible, you handle the investigation and case behind closed doors, release information sporadically, and all.  You’d rather be blamed for releasing the information late, because the whole truth on how he escaped would probably be your downfall. After all, the mouthpiece of your party are all wandering around writing things jealously protective of your ass, so just call your old scholar friend and ask him to write something in your defence!  At the same time, they’re established, so use them to demonise the online community who are baying for your blood!  After awhile, it pays to ask the question: are you, or are the political leaders actually interested in continuing the survival of their party, the survival of their government, or are they actually just interested in their own tenancy?  Get paid, and get lost.  Have a one-page obituary when you die. In keeping the system closed and being over-reliant on a selective mechanism, and then protecting the Chosen Ones fiercely by protecting them from public cricicism, i.e. by not giving others room for expression at all by simply ignoring them, i wonder: is the Gahmen plotting its own downfall?  Many of these so-called politicians have never been through a political campaign.  Are they politicians, or do they walk around every 5 years shaking hands and saying ‘here’s to another 5 years!’?  Politics is to them perhaps just another job - Work hard, but more importantly, work in your own interests. Meditatio de Religione So lately in Singapore there’s been a case of a couple getting charged under the Sedition Act for spreading an Evangelical publication, The Little Bride, in Singapore. You’re not getting the link to this, because if you do and somehow get offended enough to want to see me in court, then i’m going to be in trouble. However, here’s the States Times version of it, for your perusal: ST April 15, 2008 Couple charged under Sedition Act By Elena Chong A COUPLE were charged on Tuesday with distributing a seditious publication to two others. Ong Kian Cheong, 49, and Dorothy Chan Hien Leng, 44, are alleged to have distributed The Little Bride, an evangelistic material, to Sembawang resident Irwan Ariffin last Oct 19. They are also said to have distributed the same publication to one Madam Farharti Ahmad at her home in Woodlands on March 6 last year . It is not clear why they face the Sedition Act and the Undesirable Publication Act when the publication is the same. Ong, who works in a telecommunications company, and his wife, a bank employee, were represented by Mr Selva K. Naidu. The police prosecutor sought an adjournment of the case pending a Health Sciences Authority on handwriting specimen. The couple were freed on $10,000 bail each. Their passports were impounded. The case will be mentioned on April 29. Under the Sedition Act, the maximum penalty is a $5,000 fine and/or a jail term of up to three years. The maximum penalty under the Undesirable Publication Act is a fine of up to $5,000 and/or up to 12 months. I have no sympathy for these two people, despite the convictions they carry in spreading the faith courageously. For ‘though i walk the valley in the shadow of death, i shall fear no evil, for Thou art with me.’ I have no sympathy for them, though, because they seem to be so believing that they have effectively decried all other religions as fake and evil. At the bottom of every pamphlet of The Little Bride, there is a little box saying how “The Bible says there’s only One Way to Heaven’, and so on, and so forth. I read an issue dealing with Islam, and Islam was portrayed as a religion full of false prophets. I won’t say that this is controversial. I’m going to say that it’s downright fundamentalist. Everything is based word-for-word and then mangled to fit the Christian view that their religion is the only religion which can give Salvation. For did not Jesus die on the cross for our sins? But it is a refusal to interpret, the fear of going off by interpreting wrongly, which leads these fundamentalists to commit the very error they profess not to make. They mangle other texts to fit their only interpretation. And that is the very reason why this can be seditious. Why this can be dangerous. I mean, probably there isn’t another way to do it for these people. Yet, Christianity is based on a systematic way of closing out the gentiles, as St. Thomas Aquinas describes these people. For faith is based on a choice - the choice whether you accept God into your life, or not. And for those who choose to accept, they can and will be saved at Judgement Day before the Apocalypse. But how can God be ultimately good, if he only chooses to save those who have decided to accept him in a way which is hardly divine - through a human religious organisation which claims to have the divine mandate? Does not God love his creation in its entirety, even if he does not have to? And it is said that love only works both ways. Which is true. But then now, wouldn’t a better explanation be that God loves universally, and we love God in our own ways? I am not a Christian. Nor am i a Muslim. But i believe in a God, where it is insignificant, if he loves or not. The issue is this: how can you say that God loves us and not you, and you are evil and will be punished, because God hates you? Do you even have the right to give God human emotions and characteristics? If God loves, man kills. For a religious person can love, and out of love, he tries to spread the word and tries to save others as well. But isn’t there the intrinsic, subtle belief or precondition here that this religion is superior to that religion, and thus my God must be superior to yours? God is dead, because another God has killed it. But there probably isn’t a theological war amongst the Gods - it is Man who has killed all other Gods in the name of one. And why? Because the Bible says so. But then again, belief is a choice - do people have the right, then, to force others to adopt their choice? No, they don’t have the right to, because they have a fundamental choice to make. Perhaps the key to finding God is, firstly, recognising that there are many ways to the same end, perhaps an end which makes all religions unnecessary, because it is an end beyond religion. Stomp STOMP. Take a look at this! So this is what not being complacent is about…it is good to see that some STOMPER is all about following up on MM’s message about not being complacent! After all, if we don’t care, there may be soldiers drawing rifles and running all around Singapore. Then jialat. Confirm cannot catch all of them…what’s more they have rifles, not like Mas Selamat, who had nothing. At the same time, it’s a nice way of smearing the online community for being nothing more than places where Singaporeans sabotage each other and get each other into trouble. Yes, even those who are out hunting for our escaped friend! Also, it’s a nice way of portraying how some people who post messages to STOMP have no brains, thus, following the slippery slope logic of many, most Internet bloggers have no brains/are incapable of common sense and thus they are unreliable! The State’s Times is the only Bible we can rely on! What’s more, your friendster picture could come up on STOMP and then you’re royally fucked…then how? I mean, come on. I’m sure you can draw your SAR 21 and go out. I mean, if you’re mentally unstable and want to show your rifle to the pleasures of civvy life (how’s a date at Cineleisure?), that is…i’m also pretty sure that if the STOMPer was right, then SAF posters should be like, banned, because they all have rifles and are all in camouflage! What’s more, they’re at the airport! Here’s a taste for y’all… STOMP this! Pah. What a numbskull. National Education: On Complacency So in the aftermath of Mas Selamat’s Great Escape, the blood the online community has been baying for has not been spilled. Nor has there been any assumption of responsibility. Instead, as we are all used to in sunny Singapore, the blame for his escape has been converted into yet another National Education lesson. I disagree with theonlinecitizen’s point that the blame has been shifted. Indeed, at a point of time where finger-pointing would have been most rampant, the major politicians of our country have decided to clam up in the face of all the flak. By doing so, the government refrained from placing the blame on anyone in particular, namely, the DPM, Can’t Sing. I mean, sure, probably his ears have been pulled by MM already. But there is no public admission of guilt, no assumption of responsibility which our government has been attempting time and time again to inculcate in Singaporeans. Instead of having someone assume responsibility, the government has managed to make a National Education lesson out of it. And what better person to dish out wisdom than the country’s founding father, MM Lee? Singapore is not infallible, he says on the March 7 edition of the States Times. Thus, it’s a lesson for all of us to work hard because we’re not infallible! Yes, let’s all stop being complacent! Hmm. But then again, Can’t Sing hasn’t been punished. Perhaps he’s not infallible as well, so give him another chance lor. Must make sure to twist his ears this time. Or cut his bonus. But the fact that there is no punishment reflects one thing: The Government will have to eat its words soon. And then, MM Lee strikes again by creating blame. He says that Singapore grew complacent because we’ve grown used to success. And then, he goes on to say that Singaporeans who believe that nothing can go wrong in Singapore are living in a World of Make-Believe! Well…let’s see. the States Times is always trying to paint such a picture, anyway. I mean, if MM Lee wants Singaporeans not to be complacent by showing them that Singapore is not infallible, how about telling us that the GIC investments have gone up in smoke? More importantly, the blame wasn’t shifted. It was created and placed on us. So now we’re complacent for complaining. So we shouldn’t complain and be dependent on the government when things go wrong, but we should depend on them, our Infallible Leaders, when it comes to the elections? Poor us. We should stop whining and get out of their elite, uncaring faces, because they don’t care at all. They only care when their votes are on the line. And out of all this, we’re supposed to make a National Education lesson out of it?! Do not be complacent, work hard, and quit whining, so it goes. It’s our fault, not that Mas Selamat escaped, but it’s our fault for giving a damn! You know why? Because the government is not taking responsibility, therefore WE HAVE TO! ad Londinum! Diu Augusta Treverorum non defui.  Nunc ad Londinum eo eamque urbem expugno! -Holidays ’til 1st April. Reachable via MSN. quando felix sum? When will I be happy? It’s a question that people don’t ask anymore. It’s a question which is deemed as wasting time, so carry on with your job or your paper chase, do your best, and hope for it as well. Shut up and study hard. Shut up and go to school. Shut up and get into a good university. Shut up and get a good job. Shut up and get married. Shut up and have kids. Then what? We are unhappy because we are profoundly aware of something we lack - we lack perfection, we lack immortality; we lack wisdom, we lack freedom; we lack money, we lack the few marks which my friend got and we didn’t. But we always hope, à priori, that Things Will Be Better. Will they? We always dream for a better future, a future where we have good marks, more money; a future where we are free and wise; a future where we are immortal (in God or in medicine, that’s really your choice), a future where we are perfect. But will we ever be? Good marks and money are attainable; Freedom and wisdom is too, but to a smaller extent. Immortality and perfection, we will never attain.  And it is this awareness of what we lack which pushes us on to hope that one day, someday, we will be happy. But be it out of force of habit, or plain competition, we push this aside; happiness is always beyond our reach. We attain a goal and are happy - then the illusion is shattered.  There is more lying in wait - as my parents said when i was still in school: ‘your results can always be better.’ Perfection is always the standard against which we measure results - but the further we go up the scale, the fuzzier perfection becomes. It’s easy to say that 100% at every test is perfect. So what’s the perfect amount of money? And even more, what is the perfect idea of perfection? Quando felix sum? Quando felicies sumus? Politicians Biting People - A States’ Times Letter Dear Editor, I read lately that some SDP politicians kena arrested again during a protest for consumer rights. Wah lao eh, they also got rights mah…but then again, SDP always like to do this kind of bang balls thing. Not that we don’t support them…they sometimes kind of thing we see liao also wish we got the lum par to do. Too bad lah. Anyway, more importantly i saw in the States Times that Chee Siok Chin bit a policewoman! Unbelievable sia! But then i don’t think she want to bite one lah. Probably is kena possessed by some Spirit of Righteousness. So hor, i think next time SDP got this kind of thing again, police should be smarter. Wah lao eh, kena bitten also must say…police damn not rambo enough. So nua how to have confidence? But never mind. Nua is okay…must use brains. I think next time police should bring one of those temple mediums. You know those 乩童 u go and see when u need advice from tua peh gong…yah that type. Maybe they can help to exorcise the SDP protesters so they won’t bite people anymore. You know kena possessed sibei jia lat one. So of course must help to reform the evil spirits so they don’t bite. Must tell them ‘tolong, here is Singapore, you also not above the law one. Our Great Leader soon will go down and sue you for defamation you know?’ Maybe the spirit will tio stun and run away…cos down there got inflation also. The fambly members here burn money until pok kai then can pay the defamation lawsuit i tell you. In fact, i have know a very good tang ki…you can try the one at the tua peh gong temple in Geylang there. He only charges ministerial $alarie$…lately his area also tio upgrading, so bo pian lah. Call him lei! +65-EXORCISM. He say you pay enough next elections confirm PAP will get strong mandate! Got tua peh gong protect…still need wad? A Concerned Citizen