Democracy for Thee, But Not for Me About forty to fifty years ago, if we were to take an average Singaporean and send him back to the Singapore of the 1960s, he would have witnessed a very different Singapore from the one he knows now. The obvious sights that would greet him will be the signs of poverty, old small shophouses, the deprivation from basic human welfare, and the dirty roads and rivers. But among all of these, he would also have realised something that has not been spoken about in the history books. For one, he would notice small and large scale protests and movements against the British colony. Perhaps, he might come across the ethnic riots that he has been constantly reminded about. That might trigger his rusty knowledge of Singapore history. But he would also witness, to his surprise, a different kind of protest and movement. He will not only be privy to the protest against the British colonists, but also the protest against local parties, such as the PAP. Perhaps, even to his shock, he would notice protests against the leader highly regarded to be responsible for Singapore's success, Lee Kuan Yew. In other words, there were protests of the kind he is familiar with, and there were also counter-protests of the kind he has no knowledge about.Fast-forward to contemporary 21st century Singapore, our time-traveller, upon his return, will have to face a deeply problematic question: what has changed throughout these years of development that, by now, protests are not only extremely rare but also illegal? What or who has also been responsible for the drastic change of the socio-political system? And, if he has concern and interests for his peers and community, what has been the net effect on the general population?These questions are fit for a few PhD theses, hence I won't cover the extensive history here. But, without ignoring these questions and putting them in context, let us review the current situation that exists today.A shameful atrocity has recently been the catalyst for recent developments in Singapore, which illustrate a similarly shameful record of human rights and freedom here. The Burma crisis, of which is a poor label for what could be close to a massacre or mass killing, deserving of legal prosecution of a state, has sparked the sentiments of decent-minded and humane Singaporeans. Among the various events were a single-man protest by Dr Chee Soon Juan, a gathering of (seemingly dominant Western) expatriates, a protest leading to a petition by Burmese nationals residing in SIngapore and a multi-school campus coordinated protest. These efforts have been met with state police resistance, all of which have been documented parsimoniously by Alex of Yawning Bread. Despite the improbable likelihood of having any effect on the plight in Burma, and even more unlikelihood of changing the Singapore's state generous treatment of Burmese officials, these efforts should be encouraged and applauded. Instead, the repressive measures taken against these groups have been justified with the excuse that it has a "higher potential to stir emotions and controversy" and "law and order concerns". One can contrast the irony between both countries with laughter if the Burmese government justified their brutal and ruthless crackdown on the Buddhist monks for reasons of "stirring emotions", "law and order concerns". Unfortunately, somehow in Singapore, that hypocritical line is taken seriously.The hypocrisy becomes more unbearable when we then examine intra-state policies towards dissent. As documented by Martyn See, history has been strangely fortunate to provide contrasting examples. A protest for consumer rights has been approved and allowed to proceed without any hiccups. Apparently, the government or police has not been reading the outpour of "stirring emotions" from the newspapers or forum newsletters about unethical consumer practices or rising transport and basic utilities costs. And in its bid to woo over foreigner talent, expatriates have been given the liberty, a priceless freedom that can't even be afforded by its own locals, to hold their own entirely legal gathering while locals have to bitterly suffer the repressive state measures against them.Returning back to our time-traveler, were he to be so enlightened and interested to review the history of repression against local movements (whether for poverty, gay rights and women rights), he would only come to the conclusion that the entire democratic system in Singapore has been reversed on its head. Whereas years ago, contesting political parties, ordinary citizens, and members of the community from all sectors would have the liberty to hold gatherings and protests, by now, everything has been subverted for the contemporary interests of the day. Namely, the duties of citizens are to consume, perhaps fighting for their rights to consume more! In terms of their social status, they don't even hold the same amount of rights and privilege as someone from a different country, as long as they don't serve the over-riding burden placed on them: make more money than everyone else in the world. Everything else is secondary, especially people who suffer from severe crackdown by gun-wielding soldiers. One almost wonders if these kind of ruthless and atrocious actions are tacitly endorsed from a state leader who gave his thumbs up to the Tienanmen Square massacre and also ruled in favor of Burma's leading democratic activist to stay in house arrest.Among academic circles, a popular topic has been the prospects of democratic change among Southeast Asian countries. In reference to Singapore, it was hoped that the middle-class (given their overwhelmingly majority) would rise up to the cause and champion for their rights. A prominent political expert on Singapore was, however, dismayed and found that they were only willingly to fight for their consumer rights, instead of the fundamental rights that have been the foundation of citizenship under the nation-state system. Though Alex's article ends on a more optimistic note that these prospects still exist, and they certainly do, it is still open to speculation if most other Singaporeans will be offended by the hypocrisy that lies in front of them. And if they will be offended enough to campaign for democratic change. Vacuous Evidence & Emotional Heart-Pulling In the midst of the current debate, one that is clearly one-sided in its presentation of evidence and showing, there has been a serious lack of intellectual and logical analysis from those who would esprout and support the fictitious notion that wealthy political leaders can only perform better when they receive huge generous salary increases. Yes, there are particular members of our class-stratified society who deserve pay increases (i.e. social workers, teachers, and the more "unglamorous" positions of the civil and social service sector), but what has transpired is pure robbery from the rich political elites of those who truly serve and contribute to society. There have been some who have been bought by this seductive line of absurd reasoning, which is not only disturbing but also requires a strong and indisputable counter-response. Unfortunately, in the current socio-political climate, the consistency and strength of well-constructed arguments do not guarantee the right outcomes, but nevertheless we all have our part to demolish this sad artifice of implementing policies backed by vacuous evidence and emotional heart-pulling. The latter is directly easy to answer. As typical of the ruling elite, their weapon to opposition voices and dissent is through personal attacks and just as similar, their defence is to position themselves as personal saints. The key warning here to all is that one should not be deceived into believing that it is ok to support ridiculous salary increases simply by virtue of the Prime Minister's flowery display of charity. By that same rationale, the poorer-income families, who have been shown (through years of research) to donate a more disproportionate amount of their household income to charity organisations, deserve to have enormous salary increases as well. These are the games of a politician pulling on his supporter's heart-strings, to convey an image of innocence and benevolence, but at the same time refusing to acknowledge that he is also the benefactor of a huge government corporation from his family members. The moral ground is not on the same platform for if he is allowed to plead for recognition of his virtuous character, then he is also entitled to be personally attacked for a false show of hypocrisy (e.g. why donate your surplus salary now in this political situation, rather than before? Why don't you donate more? Which independent organisation is going to ensure that you adhere to your promise?) and more than likely, false promises. Even if it were to be true that these ministers live up to their words, it wouldn't in the least bit prove that increasing their salaries over 30% is justifiable. Charitable acts are only praised when performed in the risk of personal deprivation, and not when someone is trying to gain social approval for an unacceptable proposal.That's where we get to the central argument which echoes like this: Unless political leaders receive this pay rise, which is competitive with the private sector, we will lose talented politicians of all kinds and the entire government will crumble in the face of civilisation. Or as a concrete example as expressed by an interlocutor, nobody will work in the civil sector if there are more monetary benefits in the private sector, e.g. banker, lawyer, corporate manager. Of course, the whole obvious question about why people work in occupations that are not the best-paying, but provides other satisfiable personal goals (e.g. job satisfaction, passion and interest) get thrown out the window, and we are led to assume that people simply go where the money is. If that's true, then fine, one can be led to accept the argument that the best teachers, police officers, road sweeper, hawker food store man, admin assistant and whathave you are those who receive the most pay. What is the objective? To ensure that we have an educational, health, retail and administrative service that works for the people of Singapore. But somehow this argument fails unless the lines are changed to Ministers and Public Service. But even before accepting this poorly concocted sense of reality, there is a really simple hypothesis being adduced here; Namely, provide conclusive evidence, whether through causation or corrlelation, that higher pay salaries will lead to improved social benefits. And obviously, this is a gigantic task to prove, because by increasing the salaries of the entire government, by direct effect, the public should expect better healthcare, more efficient transport costs, a booming job market or economy (that is more than just an increase in contract retail jobs) and higher (but easier) standard of living. But more importantly, all of these performance indicators have to be measured by the people independently. Unfortunately, for our misguided ministers, asides from self-produced propaganda or lazy research and analysis, they will not find any study that demonstrates the stated hypothesis. No country or society has yet to experience a 50% increase in their health well-being, personal and household income, or a easier standard of living by stuffing in more money into the pockets of politicians. In fact, ironically, in other parts of the world, I believe they call it another word. I leave it to you to think for yourself what it is. Further, not barring the excellent criticism and analysis produced by Alex from Yawning Bread, in regards to the bench mark system, there remains the simple question: why should the Ministers' pay be tallied against the private sector? Certainly, the production of their labour is different; for the corporation, it is profits, and for the public sector, it is the well-being of the public. There is no basis as to how or why Ministers deserve the same credit reward from the results of the private sector. The reverse logic certainly doesn't apply: the corporate sector don't attempt to set their salary figures according to the public sector range, and if they did, they wouldn't be able to produce any deducible reason for it. The cry for talent is also a tool of deceit and dishonesty that ought to be teared down. The problematic feature in this argument is that somehow, there is a recognizable set of traits, skills, intellect and expertise when it comes to politics and governance. But when one is invited to have a closer look at the real picture, the citizen will start to realise a few things: 1) as far as any talent is displayed, it is not from the sole mentor-and workman-ship of the Minister but the collaboration of many social workers, research analysts, and other concerned members of the public, including voluntary workers, who reach out to these high men and women in high chairs for their political will and action; 2) the system of governing a country involves not any special set of skills and leadership but simply the bestowment of political and economic power; 3) that even if these are the most untalented, incompetent and ungifted Ministers, there wouldn't be any democratic and accountable way to ensure they suffer the consequences of their policies. Let's make it crystal clear. One does not need an argument against increasing the wallets of big fat (lying) cats, you only need an argument in favor of this policy shift, of which is not only ludricious but is void of any sound logical reasoning and empirical evidence. The analogy is perfectly plain: If a member of the family (for sake of example), the father were to proclaim that he deserves to own and utilize a higher disproportionate amount of the household savings, because he has crafted a safe and harmomious stable family through his brilliant intellect and talent, we would simply laugh, because the truth is so clear: Not only is there no basis on such a judgment, but his performance as a caring member of the family is not determined by how much resources he owns. We certainly would think there will be far better men equipped for the role of fatherhood in the case. On a microlevel, the picture is not so significant but when you move up to the socio-political realm, where there is curbing of freedom of speech, where there is no independent verification of the performance and results, when people are not enpowered to hold these powerful men to account, then you know it is a lot more serious than just stuffing some priviledged elities with more money.The principle of democracy, one that is barely upheld here, rears its head once again. For if a majority segment of the population can't even organise, design and propose their own countries' policies with transparency and accountability, then talk is cheap. Unfortunately, the citizens of Singapore are paying outrageous prices for it. Critical Reading of 'Just Follow Law' Before I proceed to criticise social commentator Jack Neo's latest film "Just Follow Law", let me preface my argument with a few comments. As a movie-viewer, I did find certain scenes humourous, but I nevertheless think this is one of the poorest film Jack Neo has made. Although it is intended to be a comedic take on Singapore and the government (or more specifically, civil servants), it is well-understood that Jack Neo attempts to covertly (or not, depending on the scene) communicate a social message through his films. Lastly, as I have been away on such a long hiatus, I wish to "take "baby steps" by writing this critical piece, considering that I may have lost my "edge" after so long. For reasons of work and confidentiality, I will have to blog more carefully. Nevertheless, I hope this entry will be of entertainment and educational value to you. Obviously, there will be some spoilers, since this is a critical reading from a movie review. "Just Follow Law" is basically a movie that attempts to capture the life of civil servants in the Singapore government. It's basic premise is the lives of two civil servants, one played by Gurmit Singh, a working class electrician, and the other is played by Fann Wong, a high-flying career-woman in the Events and Promoting Department. Their workplace is a pseudo-workfare agency set up by the government. Throughout the film, the two will learn more about each other's lives, and as typical of all Jack Neo's films, they learn the value of family, children and though not as emphasized, marriage. If you've watched this film, you would be familiar with the ridiculous plot twist that provides the catalyst for the two to learn of each other's lives. Never mind that I personally found it poorly executed and a copy technique (many other Hollywood movies have executed the same "soul-switching" plot device), but what little resemblance of reality that continues from there is absent. What the viewers are treated to is a farcial view of the civil sector and a poor representation of politics and the law in Singapore. Further, Jack Neo, who represents himself as a "voice" for the heart-landers or working class, only performs a severely bad dis-service in helping his constitutencies. The single and largest misconception or myth that the film has perpetuated in its portrayal of civil sector is that it is made up of a bunch of old and dirty crooks all out to swipe and backstab each other, with flying daggers (or arrows in the film) shooting all over the place, and incompetent bosses who have no control over their subordinates' cunning and mischevious actions to undermine each other. While there is no denial that there are politics and possibly the "covering of backsides" (as the film calls it) in every work place, the reality of working in the civil sector hardly matches up to its celluloid counterpart. For one, the civil servants themselves are very aware of the ideological apparatus that operates within the government sector, and that is a given for there is extensive training (and indoctrination) to ensure they perform their roles. Even if the civil servants themselves wish to resist the ideological grip, they can't fail to escape it as there is daily feedback and discussions back-and-forth regarding their work. And that is the second biggest myth the film perpetuates, that civil servants are going to undermine and risk the retrenchment of an entire work department, much less one person, in the workplace. Sorry Jack, but whatever place you are working at or got that idea from, this is far from your wildest dreams. If anything, the civil sector has to be kept under such a tight and strict work culture that anybody daring to undermine a person of authority or an entire department will be out of their minds. Even if someone were to harbour such intentions, the constant flowing back-and-forth bureaucratic work process would have released such a "cat in the bag". There are also some nit-picks to address. An electrician working in a government agency is not a civil servant, in the strict sense of the term (though there are admin and support staff). Senior authorities can not cancel bonuses without prior justification (not to mention, the paperwork involved). Neo's caricarture and generalization of career-women as cold and heartless with no compassion for family values is extremely one-dimensional and silly. Further, his innocent and saintly picture of the Minister really doesn't do anything but perpetuate the myth of the "baby-carrying" and "luck-giving" happy-going Minister. I won't comment any further than to say that it is a major distortion of the fact that politicians are not just mindless happy-go-doers but have certain interests in mind and follow a consistent set of ideology that will raise hairs on the backs of most ordinary people.But even more important is the shameful portrayal of the working class by someone who claims to speak up for them. The character portrayed by Gurmit Singh is too blantantly a bum and a fool who is narrow and self-centred. With such a character, it doesn't matter how handsome or rich or charming the individual is, there will be very little reason to sympathize with such a off-putting character. On the other hand, to indirectly insinulate that working-class individuals who can't afford to pay for expensive hospital bills for their own children as "useless fools" is not only deeply insulting but illustrates what a poor understanding Jack has of his fan-base's needs and hardship. Many working class individuals, even despite being re-educated and working nonstandard work hours, contract work schedules, OT hours, or slave day and night picking up bottles and working in McDonalds (just like his "lao ze bao" in the film) survive day and night on their measly earnings and wouldn't be able to afford such medical costs anyway. What is Neo's solution to this whole national mess? Entrepreunership. To show off his antidote, he has the same clumsy working class individual absent-mindedly and mistakenly conceptualize a "device" that eventually wins him an award in creativity. I truly fail to see how such a ad hoc and risky venture can possibly be the cure-all for structural poverty and further, it's based on such an unrealistic solution for working-class families to get out of poverty. Just invent something, you dumb and useless ass, and you will get rich. Interestingly, this has been a constant theme in all of Jack Neo's films (such as the car washing finale in Money No Enough!). Is there anything to savage from this carcass of lies and propaganda? Well, namely two scenes could have been its saving grace. The first is that scene where the old lady mishandles some documents and places them into her bag, which is an obvious reference to a political fiasco in the last elections. The second, which really should have been expanded on and awoken people's consciousness, is the finale, where one of the workers seeks employment in an ex-civil servant's company. How did this government worker eventually own a private corporation since it is against the law? Through his wife, the ex-civil servant speaks. If that obvious reference escapes being undetected without irony and laughter, then it is really a sad case of how much the general populace in Singapore accepts such propaganda being shoved down their throats. If anything, that reference should have sparked off a national debate. But no, perhaps the film-goer will quietly laugh and accept the "common sense" being portrayed and communicated to him/her. S/he will then be brought along for a ride, yes, a funny and humourous entertaining ride, but sadly one where the person will confuse the difference between reality and fiction. Deep down, Jack Neo is nothing but pro-PAP, and also a staunch supporter of consumerism, elitism and commercialism (Want to count how many corporations are behind sponsoring his film? Watch the end credits) and a member of the (famous Marxist term) bourgeoise. Yes, he does point to some contradictory and ironic positions the government has taken, and perhaps there are a few initiatives the government should take to reform itself, but to give advice to a totally fictional picture....is simply bad medicine and a trick of the hypnotist. The problem isn't that people follow the law. The problem is that some people are more equal than others when it comes to the law. 45 people...a country do not make If you really want to learn about media propaganda, next time when you see a report that says "(Insert country's citizens label, e.g. Singaporeans) Split on Decision to... (Allow Barred Activists to Enter)", I highly recommend you check how many people were interviewed about their decision. Last I checked, 45 PEOPLE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A COUNTRY BEING EVENLY SPLIT.Unless of course, we are talking about a very privileged and wealthy minority. Then, we are really shown in crystal clarity which subgroup of the population they are catering to....NB: Yes, this is a reactionary post. I will hopefully post something more substantial in the near future. Two Important C's I had intended to write this piece a long time before the General Elections (GE) was to be announced, but an overseas trip had prevented me from doing so. Now that the GE is coming closer, my message is more poignant, but not entirely complete given the short period of time. Nevertheless, the issue being addressed is of a basic fundamental nature that all should be concerned about, least of all not only during election times.In the Straits Times' introductory article on the new PAP candiates, it was promoted that these 'fresh' people were following a very important C-criteria: Non-conformity. This was seen to be an impressive and brilliant move by the ruling leaders, who wanted to stay in touch with the new generation of Singaporeans and to address issues of social concern. In a poll taken by the Straits Times (let's leave aside the objectivity of the poll, for now), it was emphasised that ordinary young Singaporeans have no concern for political ideals, and that 'bread-and-butter' issues are most important in their decision about the elections. In other words, the other five C's still matter: car, cash, condo, credit card and country card membership. In this entire debate, there are yet two very important C's that have deliberately been left out: Citizen or Consumer? For too long, people have failed to ask the question if they should wish to participate in social and political life as mere Consumers with only materialistic needs, or as Citizens who are able to have their own voice in the societies they labour and live in and depend on for their social needs. As a Consumer, the neccessity to question, debate and take part in social policies becomes frivolous and a chore. In such a scenario, the Consumer has no place in learning more about the social problems their fellow Citizens might face; the Consumer has no interest in political, legal and social systems that might oppress and steal his most basic fundamental rights (asides to consume); the Consumer need not apply the basic faculties of critical thinking and introspection on crucial social issues, rather he is happy to comply and serve the hands of those who feed him. I would like to think that the Citizen, in so far as he/she is sincerely interested in who his neighbours are, how they are faring, and concerned for their welfare, no matter what social, racial, ethnic, gender or sexual category they belong to, and further knows that he/she deserves to participate in decision-making for his own community, would revile with disgust at policies which are designed for him to be a more efficient Consumer (and Labourer) and keep him away from disrupting the status quo. The Citizen would ask why are the current social and political systems of decision-making fiercely concentrated in the circle of one elite technocratic-meritocratic circle (a term that can be debated);why is every Citizen of this nation not allowed to vote (also why others are allowed the double of votes),; why is every Citizen not even allowed a voice as well?One shouldn't be deceived about the various defences from the ruling government that people are 'allowed to speak freely' or that the government is 'listening'. They are always listening, but that doesn't address the issue if they are ready to give the people a chance to manage their own lives. Neither should we even think that people can exercise freedom of speech, which would entail the freedom to call the elections 'unfree', or criticising the government for their complicity in mismanaging the NKF scandal, or giving marginalised social groups (be it homosexuals, ethnic minorities and even opposition groups) the opportunity to counter the type of propaganda that shapes the dominant impressions of their attributes.The fact of the matter is that even if every opposition member is voted in, this would only marginally change the systems of power currently in place. There's a good reason to call them "incompetent" (another C word); they are too 'incompetent' because they cannot get their own media channels to challenge the state-owned media; they cannot get themselves a first-class PR company to market their image; they are not conceding to the capitalistic demands of major corporations; they aren't trying to shape everyone's view that we have to fear the 'scourge' of AIDS from homosexuals and rescue ourselves from lax 'moral' values derived from teenagers recording themselves having sex on mobile phones. Instead, they are wasting their time criticising the government, for the "sake of opposing", that the regulatory systems were not in place when it came to the NKF fiasco; that people don't have freedom of speech; that to curb the rising costs of transport costs, a public federalized system should be in place; that people should have an independent union force to defend their work rights; and that people should even have a right to elect for their own President. Those are the issues Citizens shouldn't be facing; rather, let the current incumbent government handle it as they have the "right answers". All of this is supposed to be intuitively true with no evidence in place. As I mentioned, this election will pass by without so much of a hiccup to the overall political system, and that's even if every opposition member miracuously gets voted in. For that reason, opposition figures have never been the answer. While many blogs are advising their readers to vote with "conscience", the underlying statement should be made: If you want to be a Citizen, act like one 24/7 everyday. There is no reason to succumb to the 'priviledges' of a Consumer; as difficult and challenging as it is to be a Citizen, there are far more rewards compared to having the latest Wide-screen TV. The Danger of Discourse It's not a matter of "dangerous discourse", as Senior Minister of State Balaji Sadasivan says, but a matter of danger that discourse itself should ever show itself in the political climate, where ruling elites may have to escape from academic rhetoric and fancy language, but have to contend with serious debate. An authentic discussion on serious issues of the day is not a laboratory experiment; that is, there are no such things as a controlled environment, or the removal of certain factors nor would we even expect a higher imposing authority figure dictating how the rules should follow. But that's how intimidating dialogues and debates are supposed to be for us. That is, we shouldn't be engaging with the voices of the many, rather it is much easier to follow the 'rules of discourse' dictated by the few. Politically-conscious citizens, actually normal decent human beings who want to participate in society without eternally wearing the lens of any one ruling group, will need to be persistent in seeking, questioning, debating, answering and challenging fundamental assumptions that arises in social issues. Only a figure who has either distaste of democratic participation or wish to create conditions of minimal opposition to his/her power would chase after those who "persistently propagate, promote or circulate political issues". The end goals are quite obvious: rhetoric about promoting active citizenry and facilitating open dialogue is quite meaningless if people are not allowed to take part in the social, economic and political realms of their own society. Furthermore, it is particularly striking that this issue arises at a crucial period where their power is at risk, even if only marginally. Given the arbitrary nature of what constitutes out-of-bounds dialogue, not to mention the many issues that Singaporeans need to educate themselves about, such as trade agreements, labor conditions and human rights, it would come as no doubt that these political issues are bound to apply pressure, which is extremely unneccessary, for the governing class to surrender their power to. To be worried about the spreading of propaganda on the internet is correct, but it is not propaganda about racial and religious extrememism, or Marxist conspiracies or class discrimination. For those things, you can either choose to apply grossly extreme legal coercion such as Sedition Acts or choose to call them entertaining, such as when pop blogger XiaXue justifies outright racial discrimination. Rather, the type of "propaganda" that warrants serious regulation are those that are critical about the fundamental premises behind corporate or governmental policies, values and ideologies. Remember, the few individual blogs, such as those outlined in the article, such as Singabloodypore or YawningBread or Talkingcock, pose only minimal danger to the powers that be. There is some critical analysis, some newsworthy articles and good writings, but these blogs can't "propagate, promote or circulate political issues" as strongly nor widely as grassroots organizations. But those who could stir up public support, that could undermine the credibility of those they criticize, are quickly subjugated to the bureaucratic and sanitizing effects of "registing at the MDA", police monitoring such as Martyr See and other surveillance mechanisms. I fully agree with the Senior Minister's response that "it is better and more responsible to engage in political debates in a factual and objective manner". Indeed, nothing would please me more than to see active debates held by citizen panels, discussing about facts that are not concealed by the subservient obedient media and objective enough that it is not one-sided Q&A monologue. Struck to the point of not being critical A significant lengthy period of time has passed since my last posting, and I would imagine that very few readers, or probably none, will continue to patronize my blog. I should say that it's a little more reassuring this way, as I am unfortunately sorting out personal issues in my life that could have an impact on the status of this blog. For now, I just wish to turn briefly to a matter that illustrates how, contrary to the marketing campaign by the Straits Times and other branches of the mainstream media, un-inspiring "dissent" books are. A new book, titled as "Struck by Lightning: Singaporean Voices Post 1965" has just been released, which captured my attention in Book Kinokuniya. Subsequently, today's (16/03/2006) Life newspaper section reviewed the book as its main feature article, alongside with interviews of the four ST journalists. What this book purports to show is (as quoted) "aims to reflect the moods and mores of a generation raised in a time of peace and plenty and shielded from the nation's birth pangs", and to allow the "[registeration] at one point or another their concerns, even unhappiness, with the system and policies, and lived to tell the tale", "express views and issues that truly reflect the concerns and hopes of our post 65ers" and "debunks the myth that Singaporeans are starved of the freedom to air political views". All of this would probably have come across as a living embodiment of a joke spread by fascist commissars or well-branded propaganda, if only the underlying assumptions weren't so apparent. A quick brief survey of the columnists behind this book shows that they are barely what you would call a representative sample of post-65ers, all four born in the span of 1969 to 1976. Surely, no self-respecting true blue post-65er would dare to dream that these four national journalists represent the voices of a generation that has to live through economic depression and other social woes. Secondly, for the claims about voicing their "unhappiness" and "lived to tell the tale", how much suppression do you expect from criticisms such as not having a multi-lingual hotline during a dengue fever outbreak or scolding a young teenager for not taking her so-called "rightful" place in society and opting for an elite school? Does the average sensible person expect the standard ST journalist, who has to maintain the official status quo, to be caught and questioned by the ISA or other monitoring police forces for airing these kind of political views?In one of the articles in the book, one writer reminds the readers that some of our PAP leaders do not come from humble backgrounds and in fact comes from a concentrated social circle of elite power in our class-stratified society. How is this "critical" point dumbed down? The standard answer reveals itself all too clearly, with a simple rapport that they are, nevertheless, "understanding" of our lower working and other class members and "have them in their hearts". It is quite correct that having a critical eye does not entail to "an exercise in fault-finding, as the writers maintain", but as the title correctly points, these writers have been "struck by lightning" to the point that they can not be accepted as having that critical sharpness and mental courage to write for an entire generation, much less for a Singaporean. It will be an interesting "exercise" in itself, if someone were to approach SNP International Publishing (the publisher of this scandulous book) and inquire about the production of a book that contains political perspectives from a representative sample of post-65ers (meaning including voices that are born after 1980s), people who are NOT involved in the mainstream media, people from all walks of life, including social class, educational levels, ethnicity, etc, and to throw in writers who are NOT strictly supporters of a hegemonic political party and even include voices of those who have left Singapore? Any sensible person will think that's a more authentic piece of work than a book churnished by the powers-that-be, compiled with the rantings of four members of a well-protected and indoctrinated class. Barring very exceptional cases, one shouldn't expect to find a "dissent" book in an authoritarian state. Furthermore, those "dissent" books that are further promoted on front-page newspapers and glamorised with professional photographs of the authors, are hardly challenging the relations of power and priviledge in that particular society. The rightful treatment that should be accorded to this book is to pile it along with the other propaganda materials by other authoritarian and totalitarian states, and dismiss it for the falsification of a authentic democratic voice of a population, no matter how pretty and fashionable the book looks. Ed Note: Incidentally, there is another book on my hit list, titled "Thinking allowed?" by the ST journalist Warren Fernadez. Suffice to say, I won't include my editing list of distortions and pompious analysis but to rate this book an "F". The Real Loss Today marks the day where one young man has lost his life. To many, that particular loss is justified. Principally, because it is to prove a point. A show of face. And to that same "majority", that has been interpreted as a sign of courage. Perhaps a demonstration of sensibility, rationality and justice to do the "right thing". For that man has been condemned as a deviant, an outsider, a criminal, and fortunately demands no respect or sympathy from us. That's how, in fact, this same "majority" expects all of us to treat people whom are labelled as that sort. So the loss of this person's life comes as no challenge to our conscience.This man has lost more than that. He has lost the ability to live a fulfilling life, one that few of us take privilege of. He has lost the ability to experience the moments of joy, happiness, anger, anguish, sadness, and other indescrible human moments that we also have reasons to cherish. He has lost the experiencing these moments with his friends, family, peers and other fellow human beings that we probably stll have a lot to learn from. All of this has been stripped from him, because we have lost the priceless ability to judge our fellow human beings with some degree of humanity, but rather treated him like a statistic that will "save us all".That's great reason, just as this man has passed away in a most "barbaric" manner (as described by the Attorney General in Australia, Phillip Ruddock), to reflect and introspect on our position in this situation. But it's also an indication of a prerogative, that has not always been demanded of us, to sit back and observe ourselves for who we really are, and how much of a more sincere and more cooperative society has been diminished due to our ignorance and our fears. The execution of Nguyen Tuong Van is, as blown up as it is, a microscopic event that has shown our fallability to fear campaigns and propaganda, and rather aptly eroded our better judgment and conscience.I will not repeat the same points I made in my below article, but suffice to say, I wish to demolish a central claim that has been made about the death penalty acting as a deterrent to drug trafficking. What this claim asked us to implicitly assume is that behind every human being, there is a rational being who is taking a cost-benefit analysis to his/her everyday decision. That surely, death must be the most scary thing of all, and that the rational human being would construe no benefit that exceeds the spectre of death. This rather simplistic assumption is, naturally, the ethos of every public policy in Singapore, thus condensing all our complex psychosocial factors and phenomena into a robotic cog in a machine, who only knows how to make the rational cost-benefit analysis in his/her head. What this silly assumption has been truly done is to rationalize drug users/traffickers as well, ignoring that drug use is a multi-faceted complex social phenomeon, that goes beyond the benefit of "getting high", and actually requests that we "solve" this problem with more than just a rope, but with more indepth understanding of how do people come to take and transport drugs.A researcher (whose work is as yet to be published, hence I can't cite) who has interviewed drug traffickers, came to the conclusion that 1) these people were mostly poorly-educated about the laws of drug trafficking 2) were in desperate situations that forced them to undertake this illegal activity, and 3) even if aware of the harsh penalties, had decided to continue with the activity for various reasons or factors (i.e. no other way to make money, threatened by the drug lords, etc). Does the person who perform acts of murder, arson, and other criminal activities perform the "cost-benefit" analysis before the commercement of the act? Does the suicide bomber who pulls the cord think rationally of his actions, or even care about the cost? In fact, do we, as normal human beings, always act as calculating robots in all of our decisions?The death penalty, as a social practice (one that is interpreted symbolically but never supported empirically), is a dreadful practice that we would like to imagine "works". But it has never worked, except to strip our humanity and our ability to go beyond the retributive bias in our heads. Whatever the debate is between Singapore and Australia pro or anti death penalty supporters, one undeniable point is clear: to ask that someone be executed for a crime that is disproportionate to the act, to take away a person's life to construct a symbolic meaning but has no empirical utility, and to label someone with a stigma without understanding farther, only diminishes our humanity. Singaporeans, or Australians, who only imagine there is no alternative, have become almost identical to those "holy" men who engage in vicious, gratitious witch-burning in the past.Singaporeans may gain a brief moment of relief that this man has been killed. They would also continue enjoying feeling "free" from the scourge of drugs. They may think they are protected, and that this state-sanctioned practice may affect them in only positive ways. But as they churn and turn in this mechanistic society of ours, as they continue bringing in the dough, either struggling to make ends' means or secure more financial stability, as they continue relatively unfazed in their every day, not in search for meaning and understanding but in unabridled pursuit for wealth and material goods, never have they thought that the loss of their compassion, reason, conscience and humanity is the most priceless thing of all.This post is dedicated to Nguyen Tuong Van and his family and friends who have to contend with more than the loss of their son, brother and friend, but the loss of faith and trust in fellow man. Tri-Contribution (A Commentary on Drugs) Related Article 1: Death Penalty 101 Related Article 2: Stop Hanging People!Related article 3: Death Penalty as Deterrence - The Easy Way OutI think there needs to be more support for the cessation of the death penalty, which requires wide-spread education of the people, and also a downplaying of 'misguided' fears and misconceptions about the nature of drugs and their associated drug effects. This recent topic was also brought to my attention two weeks ago during a discussion with my peers, and I have decided to paraphrase my argument (along with theirs), as I think it's time to approach this controversy topic as a layman. The above two articles have contributed a lot to dispelling the myths about drug harm, which is valuable and crucial to understanding the debate (I really stress that you read them), thus I really can't add much more substance to it. So I will approach my view of the topic with a different focus, for what I am interested in is: Are there valid reasons to justify the widespread fear of drugs?Before I begin my point, let me address this vexing issue. In every discussion about drugs, the individual is regularly posed the inescapable fundamental question about his/her position: are you for drugs or not? So before you wish to read my commentary, let me establish my stance: I disapprove of drug use. In fact, you will find that I adopt a more extreme position than other drug prohibitionist: I disapprove of legal forms of drug use, i.e. alcohol and tobacco. However, I am just as quick to recognise that these pleasure-seeking activities do not warrant, nor in any justify, the taking away of a human life, and neither do they even warrant the coercive punishment, such as imprisonment. What I like to argue is that as much as we may dislike, loathe or hate these kinds of activities, that doesn't give us any right to sanction the practices that probably do more in exacerbating the kinds of harm that we are afraid of. I shall elaborate on these further.What is the first intuitive notion people have about drugs? Very quickly, people are able to answer the following: they are "bad" because they are "addictive"; they are responsible for crime; they only encourage and facilitate the tendencies of people to indulge in time-wasting, insolent and loafing behaviour; they are a social "nuisance" who threaten to break up the community and etc. My intention here, is not to bring up every single imaginable objection to drug use, for I just as much recognise some of the legitimate concerns here. Hence, I do agree that overall, there is a disturbing trend that drugs are related to crime; that they do seem to cause addiction; that they are used primarily for pleasure maximization and perhaps they could even be detrimental to health.However, there are also many misconceptions regarding these statements as well. Drugs are not the cause of crime; by that, we mean that people do not engage in criminal activities simply because they have started their use of drugs. The ironic relationship here is that if drug use is constituted as an illegal activity, then we have directly misapplied the label of "criminal" on an activity that need not otherwise be. The other facet of this relationship is that first-time drug users eventually get acquainted with the criminal justice system, and through their inevitable imprisonment, and association with other deviants, they have become "criminal" because of the practices of the state to send them to a place where, for better or worse, drug users become familiar with the world of crime. We should also do better to take note (and this is an empirical fact) that most drug users have no history of criminal records until their entrance into the criminal justice system.Even if that were the case, however, a lot of people point to the 'addictive' nature of drugs as a possible precursor to the relationship: after all, isn't the vicious cycle of drugs-> money -> crime -> drugs all too commonsensical by now? To a certain degree, that is true, but what gets ignored is why ? Why do we forget to ask why are they addicted to drugs, when we can readily explain why people are addicted to alcohol or smoking? While addiction to smoking and alcohol is explained as "relieving stress" or "getting drunk", in all three cases, the social contexts becomes sidelined and ignored. Is this perhaps a sign of plain ignorance or deliberate evasion of the obvious indicator: that just as much as drugs could be potentially addictive, when people are pushed to the margins of poverty, unemployment, social isolation and marginalization (partially because of low education or other social factors) , their recourse to drugs become an escape from their brutal reality. But video-gaming, and movie-watching, just as they are also forms of activity that promote the "escape from reality", don't get the big stick. And that's even if you are addicted to them.What also becomes apparent is that addiction is not a socially neutral concept. Addiction, much like drug use, are socially contextual activities, and are dependent on social and historical circumstances1. We can easily talk about shopping addictions, eating addictions, sex addictions and all other forms but we also need to easily recognise that they all constitute different relationships: there is no biological basis for having a shopping addiction, just as much as there isn't one for internet addiction. There is a tremendous misunderstanding that the addiction to drugs carry very little scientific evidence: scientific evidence have shown consistently that narcotics use, even regular use, does not directly lead to addiction. For instance, Hanson et al (1985) found that "heroin users also participate in many conventional activities", and also "make use of a wide variety of drugs, and not only casually or in desperation". In fact, even from the high number of men who came back from Vietnam, in which they were highly addicted to heroin during the war, only 1/8 became readdicted to heroin again. Contemporary events also confront us with this same fact, as we find high elite 'productive' members of society, such as media celebrities (excuse those who were not found guilty), chefs, advertising agents, continue to make use of coccaine, and yet get arrested for it.Why then are we so afraid of drugs? Perhaps it is because we think they are 'sick', or we think they are 'sinners' or we think they are 'evil'. But none of that can be further from the truth of the manner, that drugs-taking has always been a normal activity throughout history. Whether we talk about the ancient opium-smoking days of the Chinese, the heroin drug use during the Vietnam War, or the use of psychostimulants for American soldiers to boost their stamina, the definition of drugs as 'legitimate' or 'illegitimate', 'proper' or 'improper' are socially constructed. Despite the widespread fear of substances like coccaine and heroin, they have never caused death, whereas alcohol and tobacco, both of which are legal and belong to the markets of big companies, have been responsible for lung cancer and liver/kidney failure. We also can not ignore that certain social conditions, or cultural circumstances, such as unemployment or the anorexic image of female beauty, all contribute to developments of the use and abuse opportunities (Kellehear & Cvetkovski, 1998).What, in esence, am I arguing for here? Namely, that just as much as the use of death penalty is an arbitrary decision, and one that is substantiated by invalid moral, social or even empirical explanations (which all the above articles have shown), our ideas about drug use are just arbitrary as well. There is no doubt that some degree of social harm does arise from the phenomeon of drug use, and I do think there are legitimate concerns about how drugs can be abused, such as in rave parties and etc, but we need to get our act straight. We need to examine the reasons for drug use, the political economy of drugs (which includes alcohol and tobacco), the right kinds of treatment for drug use, and even understanding the relationship between social harm and its precursors. Unless we get this right, executing people on the basis of an arbitrary definition of what's "socially harmful" makes for a worse crime (as defined under UN International law standards) than drug use itself.Footnotes and References:1 Stanton Peele, a reknown psychologist, has written much about addiction and narcotics. Refer to his website for more on his writings.Kellehear, A. and Cvetkovski, S. (1998). Grand Theories of Drug Use in Drug Use in Australia: A Harm Minimisation Approach. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.Hanson, B., G. Beschner, J. M., Walters & Wish, E. (1985). Life with Heroin: Voices from the Inner City. Lexington: MA. Blog Hiatus (Small Note Before Temp Leave) I will not be blogging till the end of next month (October) as I am now in the final stage of my academic year, finishing up my thesis. Of course, my blogging was never based on a consistent schedule, but nevertheless it's just a small heads-up.Before I take my temporarily leave, I simply wish to give a small commentary on the latest developments in Singapore. A lot has been said about the recent "Sedition Act" case, where three bloggers (although they are not necessarily bloggers per say), one who is only 17, have been charged for broadcasting racist commentaries online. There has been some proposals, discussed in the news, to fine commuters for cheating on their transport fares. Then of course, you also are starting to see police investigations into the display of eight cardboards of white elephants.There's pretty more cases one can pick and choose, but the message the Singapore ministers have perpetually emphasised is to respect the rule of law. They have argued endlessly that no matter how urgent a message you wish to sent out, whether you have pursued by altruistic causes or not, whether it relates to the community or not, you can never transgress the rule of law. It is held to be an absolute, and it is deemed to be the bar which all must account themselves to. It is the rope that ties all of us.To the average joe, this little sacred truism seems pretty standard, and intuitive. Who wouldn't want to obey the law? If there was no law, wouldn't society fall into chaos? There is no doubt, to some degree, laws provide a common foundation where the members of society adhere to. It is the rockbed that everyone lives on, and one wouldn't wish to rock that bed. But we need to pose a lot of questions regarding how that "bedrock" is used: who is in charge of constructing law? What functions does the law have? To what extent can it fulfill these functions? Whose interests does the law represent?This is a treacherous view, but one must take notice that the law can not provide the "end all-say all" for our social problems. Merely, what the law essentially acts as, is a state apparatus that is only able to provide an ideal, but doesn't explain or dictate that how it should be best utilized. It is one thing to apply policies that are in accordance with the symbolic expression of the law, it is another to judge if these policies are fulfilling these expected aims. It doesn't explain if the method applied is effective or not; or in other words, we need to start examining the utility of these acts.Law does not apply order unequivocally. Order is maintained by a true consensus to achieve a certain level of discipline in society. However one may choose to punish racism or cheating commuters, as according to some legislative objectives, we lose sight if the punishment is of relevance to the goal. Punitive coercion doesn't always invoke motivation to change. nor to applease social unrest. but can come off with side-effects, when the punishment is not justified. Disorder is not the result of "not using the cane enough", rather what one needs to look at is how unequal and unfair standings and policies engender further disequibilrium.Hence, there is good reason to object to the application of harsher laws on further groups who do not merit that type of punishment. Individuals who epouse racist lines, however distasteful one finds them to be, is nothing compared to institutional censorship of critical discussions on race, religion and culture. In fact, I would think government censorship of minority races having an independent voice of their own is a far greater crime than the lone individual who doesn't come close to having the power to institutionalise policies that may result in their social marginalization. It is further ironic that we expect them to be put in jail cells to rehabilitate them, when the criminal justice system has been applying the principles of restorative justice (a doctrine that promotes shaming of the offender and integration of the shamed offender into the community) to youths. And let's not forget that one of the bloggers is only 17.In regards to the fining of commuters who cheat on transport fees, the argument is far less sound. I simply want to make a small observation and allow the reader to decide for themselves. All you need is to come to Melbourne and have a look where ticket inspectors are given the power to fine commuters, and witness how sheer carnage has occured as commuters attempt to escape the ticket inspectors. Further, a fine should realistically be imposed on offences that do some ostensible damage, and while one would argue that not paying for proper transport fees does commit financial damage to the transport companies, the current system of simply catching them and telling them to pay the proper fee works, in the proper sense of the word.There has been a lot of other things begging for me to comment but I shall stop here and resume at a later time. Nevertheless, I would urge that people be advised to keep a more critical eye on the kind of progress this country makes. Not every movement would necessarily propel the society forward; and certainly not every rule is always for the best. These may be old truisms that an egocentric society may hasten to ignore, but the plausible consequences, if weighed and scrutinized more, will demand of us to consider.NB: I wish to give a small gratitude of thanks to all the people who have contributed to the discussion in my previous post (the debate with Shianux). It was a fruitful discussion, and one that I hope will serve to show there are better ways to discuss serious social matters without using the "rule of the law". There is only one rule in this case: the rule of ethical, open and critical discussion. Tri-Debate Part II Shianux's reply: DINAPW- Replies, Rebuttals and RefinementsRelated Post by coup de grace: An Open Letter to Wannabe LawyerI am pleased that Shianux has replied to the commentary on his earlier article, as I expected he would, and certainly he has clarified, to some extent, the logic and reasonings behind his arguments. I am afraid that while I am enlightened about his position, and further on how free-market fundamentalists (though Shianux does not posit such a term) see economic issues and social freedom, I am hardly persuaded to change my original position. I should probably state that this debate can probably continue forever, and I will simply do my best to sum up our differences, and leave the reader to continue his own exploration of the topic. As I mentioned, debating on economic theory is not one of my strongest point, and I will simply dwell into the area I know best. Mainly, what are the consequences for a society dictated by free-market principles?I think the biggest line of difference, no doubt is Shianux's contention that the corporation is not a "pro-dictatorship" device, and in order to contrast that, he puts the government as a much more powerful institution. However, I think again, here the line of reasoning isn't sustainable. The implicit assumption is that "Get rid of the government, or at least their interference in the market and you will achieve justice and freedom. In other words, control should be abolished." This principle is totally unsustainable to me, even if governments were in some way, abolished or at least through free-market policy, paralyzed enough to deem them useless, what becomes of the law? The very problems that exist right now is not that corporations don't have control over governments, it is precisely that governments are subordinate to the corporation's greed for profit. Do corporations not have the power to take away life, liberty and property? They do, though again the domain can be different, which is through market power (though they are smart enough to co-opt political power as well). It is incredulous to expect corporations to wrestle power benevolently and that consumer power is the antidote to corporate misdeeds. Did Exxoon Mobile get put out of business, despite its abuse of power? Is Nestle, Cargill and ADM suffering from business profits for their child labour abuses? Anyone remember Enron? Did anyone think the Enron crisis was due to less government intervention or too much? Ever heard of SLAPPs? I think the amount of examples of corporate crime and deviance is enough to convince anyone that corporations are hardly a benovolent device, or at least restrained adequately through current measures, much less an invisible market.I suspect that the counterargument would be that corporations are working in cahoots with governments, and thus it is the presence of governments that are to be blamed. That's not a fair line of reasoning, as it is through public participation and pressure that has actually forced corporations to address their misdeeds and violations of human rights. But the reforms that are initiated through public pressure usually end up becoming "white-wash" or "green-wash", and substantial reforms are not established unless the government steps in to either legislate or force the corporation to take action.In fact, who are the public groups that are pressurizing corporations to take action? Labour Rights Groups. And these are the very groups that are going to be serving against the needs of the corporations to maximise profits. What has been the principle consequences of policies enacted by the WTO, World Bank and IMF? What forms of " freedom" have been spread by these global financial institutions? Why do labour rights groups continue to wrestle with their free market policies? Because they do recognise that corporations have the power to radically alter their lives. And that alteration has spelt more loss of freedom and human rights.Corporate power is real. In fact, no matter what one makes of governments, they are at least an institution that is publicly accountable to the people. Their role has always been to serve the people to some degree, even if we have enormous discontentments against their self-serving roles. But the government is the very foundation we should be reforming, to ensure that public citizens are able to take full control of their lives and society. You can't reform the corporation without at least tampering with the instituitions of the state, and that's where direct action should be focused.I believe, just as much as Shianux does, that real world evidence and pragmatics should also built up our arguments. To me, the most funamental ethos of living in human societies has been ignored in this debate: power. Our ways of living, whether in the social, economic or political sphere, and our freedom will always be controlled, restrained and modified to some degree by structures of authority and hierarchy. Corporations and governments are both instituitions that wield that power to constraint our freedom, and closer and closer, we are finding them to hold objectives less different from each other. In other words, although Shianux's world of non-governmental interference is approaching closer and closer, we still aren't witnessing the very benefits that free-market theorists advocate. Certainly, the Third World is yet to witness their "golden goose", because it hasn't and never will.Now, that doesn't mean I make out all corporations to be evil institutions that are beyond redemption. There are many measures one can take to rehabilitate their their structural properties, but these efforts can only be enforced by a central authority, that want of a better word, is the government. Ethical shareholders possess little power, when they are confronted with a boardroom that has majority of members pursuing their own self-interests. Likewise, rehabilitating corporations may involve ensuring shareholders are responsible for the actions of their companies, instead of absolving them from liability. Another alternative is always small-family businesses. In this sense, I should have clarified with reference to 7-8's statement that "If you are pro- business, then in a way you are pro- corporation, and hence pro- dictatorship." I don't agree that being "pro-business" indicates that you are "pro-dictatorship". Trade and private enterprise has always been an enduring aspect of human civilisation, and by no means an eradictation of the activity promises a new future. Rather, it is imperative to study the best forms of process and measures to regulate private enterprise.Let's also be clear about the concept of freedom. It is a paradox to argue that private property rights are any more, in principle, gems of freedom as compared to state ownership. Both forms of rights constraint freedom, and the corporations' right to amass more land, in service of their goals, is a more frightening picture than state governmental ownership who at least has to account for sharing that land with its people. Rather, the conglomeration of public land would be the most appropriate form of ownership, as that would ensure public communities act according to their own interests if they wish to see a large Wal-mart in their space or a national park. The public community should be deciding for themselves what, how or why the land would be used instead of decreeding it to the mandates of a corporation who has no cause to pander to their needs. Given the enormous power of the corporation, a small public community has no means to straighten their accountability.It all boils down to this: Shianux's notion of individual freedoms versus my notion of individual and communitarian freedom. Taking away governments and reorganizing human societies to live according to market principles will indeed, expand individual freedom but at a cost that is more paramount than before. Imagine the private commodification of human rights, security, food, water and shelter. People in Bolivia are already frustrated with the corporations who have sat there, with little to none governmental interference, and taken away their access to public water and even rain water. Maybe one day, some schmuck may own a corporation, and maybe through his/her own personal ethics, not pursue such socially harmful policies, but that's a sign of blind faith, and in fact hardly reliable. In fact, the irony is as Shianux puts it: "If the CEO is incompetent, make him/her bear the cost of their ineptitude. Stop paying them, or make them repay their gains, or even charge them with criminal sanctions." Exactly, who has that power to charge criminal sanctions or stop paying them? Certainly, people to some extent but more than than, a self-governmental system made up of the people themselves.Communitarian principles and freedom are just as important in their own right. Does anyone think measures to deter global harming is going to be successfully implemented by corporations who have no accountability to the public community, local or global? Their only interest is to shareholders, who already are individuals who use their freedom to forcefully extract as much resources to own for themselves. The gross inequality in this world is due to the unrestrained power of people, such as Rupert Murdoch, Bill Gates and other CEOs, who utilize much of the world's limited resources for profit gains. Sometimes, I think people (especially those in Singapore) forget that a real world exists that only has a limited set of resources, and whether you like it or not, you can't have it all for yourself. How we go about designing a fair system of distribution is certainly a difficulty question to tackle, but in principle, we wouldn't want to increase the very foundations of the problem: namely, to allow more individuals hold more private power to own these resources.Personally, I understand one central tenet of Shianux's argument: we both see the current government system as flawed, authoritarian and intrusive into the lives of ordinary people. I fully agree that some radical reforms are much needed, and I would also come close to abolishing this system of governmentality. But I differ with Shianux in respect to what that remedy is. Asides from the idealistic issue if a government could ever be successfully overthrown/demolished, the solution, to me, is to ensure people have more say in the organization of their own society, and if that includes a need for a government, so be it. However, that system should not be owned by any set or class of elites, who have narrow interests to serve and nonetheless, fend off themselves from public scrutiny and accountability with power of any kind, social, economic, or political.Afterthoughts: Shianux has explicitly stated that he is a believer in Hayek's economic ideals. It goes without saying that there exists this concrete divergence between us, and while I have no sense of hostility towards his position (and hopefully, vice versa), I understand that this chasm won't be reconcilated through blog entries. These differences are much more fundamental and cuts between different philosophies of human knowledge, human nature and social organisation. Thus, I will simply state that the world will, in my opinion, be a much more scary place than as it is today, should free-market policy take rein in this world. In my world, that would involve the commordity of security, weapons, violence, health care, water, food, shelter and possibly air. I see a world where people believe in some abstract notion of price mechanics, invisible 'free' markets, and abusing economic freedom to punish the social freedom of the have-nots; imagine a world where subjective desires (i.e. a taste for fast food, Britney Spears music, and glossy diamonds extracted from mining fields utilizing child labour) have acquired a firmer status than before; and where those who struggle in the bottom ladder (yes, hierarchies will still exist) continue to question the justifications for their oppression (their answer would be because they aren't valued for their productivity thanks to the subjective tastes of the majority); and if anyone is still in doubt, those who are unsatisfied with the system will only find greater access to acquiring means (weapons for the highest bidder) to challenge those in power (well-deserved or not).I apologise if this is a caricature of what a free-market world is supposed to look like; it is, but the potentialities in living in such a world grows only a few steps closer if one believes in ideals and principles that, to my mind, are seriously neglecting the complexities of human existence.Postscript: I gave more thought as to if there were any present capitalist corporate structures I respect, and the closest is Brazil's Ricardo Semier whose version of industrial democracy has been called either a form of anarco-socialism or cutting-edge capitalism. And certainly Ricardo is able to state that "...the basic issues of the free market are there, which is - tell us how much time you want to work, tell us how much you need to make, tell us what you need in exchange, how you gratify yourself by doing something like this, and this does away with the political ideology issues which of what ism does this fall under because its just respecting anthropological issues instead of political ideas." Perhaps this is supposed to be the ideal model that is followed with the principles of free markets, and as I said, there is certainly scope to incorporate these forms of individual freedom into bureaucratic structures. My skepticism though, is that one is still left with the question of how private structures of power should moderate community needs and social issues, in other words, we still must contend with the consequences of the expansion of private power on public sphere. Tri-Debate Original Article: Democracy is not a populist whoreRelated Article: Market Fundamentalism I have been intrigued with a debate that has been sparked off firstly by Shianux of Wannabe Lawyer who has written a piece deriding the SDP policies. In relation to that, another blogger, 7-8 has examined his argument and scrutinized certain fallacies. I must confess, rightfully that my understanding of economic theory probably is not of equal standing as the above two authors, instead I approach this debate with a different focus: namely, what is the kind of economic organization a society can benefit from? While I understand there are idiosyncratic standards for different countries and cultures, I will try to follow on an idealistic principle, before considering the pragmatics. I will also contend with some of the ethics of argument that has been raised in the debate (i.e. these points were raised in the comments section of both articles).I will start off by saying that I am more in agreement with 7-8's argument than Shianux. What worries me about Shianux's argument is that he proclaims that his criticism towards both the PAP and the SDP are for their "socialist and communitarian tendencies", and it is not clear to me, if he is opposed to these tendencies per say or that these tendencies are simply incompatibile with the broad economic framework of both parties or the nation or the global economy. Shianux also earlier identified himself, through my own inference that he is a "libertarian" and this would indicate some confusion regarding his political-economic position. In addition, he supports Tyler Cowen (of Marginal Revolution), whose economic policies are usually of the neoclassical and free-market variety.Quite possibly, Shianux would belong to the group of "libertarians" in the US, along with people such as Stirner, who dedicate themselves to free-market capitalism, and this would, in my opinion, be the minority among the larger tradition of libertarianism, such as the European libertarian socialist. It will be difficult, and definitely impossible in this small space, to elaborate and argue on the possible misfits of market fundamentalism theory, but nevertheless I will state my basic grievance with the theory. Firstly, the invisible hand of the market is an impossible concept that captures the complexities of human rights and needs, and comes close to commodizing nearly all aspects of human life. Secondly, wage-capitalism is close to being a form of slavery system, and certainly isn't free by any means. It isn't solely responsible for the contribution of inequality, but a significant contributor nevertheless. Thirdly, the basis of human social organisation shouldn't be transfering power to the hands of the few who have incredible power to dictate the social life of individuals (regardless if we speak of political or economic domains of power), but to distribute them equally. And market fundamentalism doesn't provide that platform to work on.Therefore, I do agree with 7-8's postulation that a reliance on free-market theory is very risky and dangerous, and simply attacking the SDP and PAP for tendencies that are otherwise contrary to free-market theory, is misdirected in the first place. What we would want to ensure for any political party should achieve is to surrender power to the population directly, and ensure they are involved in the decision-making process themselves. The market was never the right domain, politics can still continue to be the right arena, what should be modified is the structure and ethos of political power, then we will reach for a more equitable and just democratic organization. There are many proposals as to how to reach this consensus, but my support isn't with the force or mechanics of market theory.In the midst of the debate, a thorny question has been raised: Given the dominance of the PAP, should Shianux be excused for his harangue against the SDP, or insidiously, should we continue to be overtly critical to the Opposition? There are a few assumptions behind this equation: 1) the PAP is big and bad enough. We should give some minimal form of support for the Opposition, even if they aren't as competent as we would like them to be. 2) The Opposition is not perfect, but that doesn't mean they are that horrible. 3) Shianux is free to engage in constructive debate about the economic policies of the SDP but he should refrain from the profanity and cursing as that crosses the line.These three basic assumptions are, to my mind, inter-related and as such, I won't answer them sequentially. Instead, I think the rather broad theme is, no doubt, the reference to Shianux's title, democracy. Namely, what does democracy entail? Does that mean the distribution of power, even if the members are undeserving of it? Does that mean free speech and rights should be accorded to members of society who might be deemed incompetent, stupid and "dumbass"? And would democracy also indicate the unabridled freedom of throwing in vulgarity and emotional angst to substantiate an argument?My brief answer, as I wouldn't have the time to extrapolate it into 10 or more pages, is that Shianux is completely free to accuse the SDP as malignantly as he pleases. If one speaks of democracy, or rather free speech, then one is freely able to label any individual or organization an idiot, donkey-ass or moron as he/she chooses. However, the exercising of free speech doesn't imply that value judgements should be excluded from the process. One is still able to address if such language or speeches contribute to the productivity of the dialogue or communicative process between parties. Hence, calling CSJ or MM Lee as first-rate dorks may not be prohibited but it certainly doesn't substantiate your argument any better (NB: unfortunately, psychological research has found that the use of vulgarity or crude language tends to add authenticity to the argument). Likewise, the reader's contention of Shianux's article should not be with his use of language, but rather his argumentive points, which 7-8 has graciously engaged with.Hence, when it comes to supporting either political party, the fundamental issue, which shouldn't be deviated away from, is whose arguments or policies do you support with? Shianux deserves the full right not to side with the PAP or the SDP, if he deems both parties to craft policies antithetical to his liking or position. Any member of society should decide for him/herself the kind of social policies compatible with their fundamental beliefs, even if it is as grossly outrageous as supporting a fascists dictator, such as Hitler. Thus, when an ST newspaper report earlier covered on some young students supporting Hitler, our right course to action should not be to lecture them on the evils of supporting Hitler, but to spur them to beg the question of what would be the consequences of their beliefs in supporting fascism [Oddly, in this regard, the leaders in authority did the right thing by asking them to complete a research project on the history of Hitler. Sadly, this course of action should be encouraged and undertaken for all, especially on dissents, instead of suing them for libel].What does all this imply for the political scene in Singapore? Throw in the towel since the Oppositions are too unfaithful or give them support nonetheless? Neither. This means that every individual should undertake the freedom to change the political means, through any means they see fit. There are several ways, a myrid of tactics one can consider, each bearing their own weight, costs and consequences. Supporting the Opposition outright wouldn't necessarily lead to a direct victory over the current system of oppression and domination, and supporting the PAP might also lead to dire situations that inflate their control [or the corporate managers' control]. Simply, I don't see any contradiction if everyone chooses to support neither, but participates in pushing both parties to adopt goals that are synonymous with achieving a system of social equality and liberty. For instance, I don't think both sides have addressed the rights of gay people in Singapore, and it makes no difference to me whoever sits on the top branches of society [although one can argue, in theory, that if the SDP is able to supplant a more open system of democracy and free speech, then there is potential to open up discussions on these social issues]. I also forsee the possibility, however remote, of opening up gaps within the current political regime to change aspects of social policy (e.g. the PAP's strong support for "feminism", though this is contentious in its own right), to me, the possibilities of change should not solely be in the hands of political power exchanges. Instead, a social movement, here and elsewhere, should always be based on distributing that level of power equally among people and in my mind, this will only be achieved through various means, and will simply not be tolerated by the minds of the narrow-minded. 'Peanuts' I like this term now. Peanuts. It so exemplifies how grossly distorted significant social problems become, and how heavy-handed tactics are utilized against what becomes 'legitimized' as a social problem.Recently, an announcement has been made about assisting lower-income (or lower-skilled) workers. This includes "two possible ways: grants to their Central Provident Fund (CPF) accounts for home purchases and through Medifund, which helps the needy pay big medical bills." Along with this, it has been stressed that this is simply a following pattern of globalization and that "[f]or the lower-skilled, whose incomes are not increasing like the highly-skilled, the Government can top-up their assets" as well as "[giving] equal education opportunities for their children." Now of course, I wouldn't ignore the other uptopian-like ideals of "changing the educational system to increase critical thinking", "encouraging the growth of new small and medium enterprises", and "conducting a network of free trade agreements" and etc.To the uncritical eye, this might seem like a bright and optimistic proposal, but this is truly a "peanut"-approach to a systematic and global problem. The global widening gap between the rich and the poor is not solved by supplying them with the means to make an easier home purchase nor to bill them with less costly medical bills, but requires an inquiry and, nonethless, an examination of economic, employment and labour policies. Equal education does not promote equal opportunity (i.e. what kind of education are we speaking? What trade skill? And for which industry? Viable in which country?), in fact, it is likely that they will be re-educated to take in jobs that are favourable to the "competitive" employment environment, none of which might lead to their desired goals, or either a natural consequence of their qualifications. Wasn't it not too long ago that a national report stated that undergraduates were among the most "unemployed" representative?Free-trade agreements don't solve poverty problems (or at least gaps between the rich and the poor), and surely perpetrated it instead in other Third World Countries. If the educational system truly encouraged critical thinking, we would bear witness to see local issues being scrutinized, debated and criticised. The NKF fiasco was quickly swept under the carpet, again law and order came with white wings to close the case. No inquiry, no recommendation, no commission was made to address the genesis of the issue, and neither would an independent, a truly independent power that was free from the tangles of co-opted political, economic and judicial interests, inquiry be initiated. No, critical thinking is simply the reproduction of herd mentality, to improve economic growth (that may not necessarily translate to an easier standard of living), and probably wonder in confusion where that so-called economic benefits is supposed to flow to.Instead, let us contrast this blinkered approach to helping lower-working class people with the powerful and excessive approach to a peaceful protest of 4 people. Let us ignore the legality of the act (though we should be reminded that they did not commit an illegal act) , and perhaps the truthfulness of the event (i.e. that someone had called the protest a nuisance act). Let's apply some critical thinking here, shall we? If I were to see a group of gangsters fighting with each other, and lets put the figure to 8, which is easily twice as much for this protest, should I expect to see 80 members of riot police in gear? And surely, a protest, even if it had turned to, at its most extreme violent name-calling, would it be any less harmful than deviants wielding knives and broken bottles? Also, how are concerns related from a member of the public usually handled? Certainly, unless that said person specifically mentioned a chaotic and catastrophic riot or protest, should we expect to see the deployment of 40 riot police. So one must imagine that the kind of drama and fear this special "member of the public" must have concocted to alert our friendly neighbourhood guardians of social order.In time, both of these events will fade in memory. The lower-income class may receive some benefits, as I am no doubt they are used to the usual benefits that arrive to their help at every economic predicament, regardless if it is growth, decline or recession. The riot police may not surface again, and probably not at these numbers for sometime to come. Instead, the message from both these events remain fixated in the minds of the citizens: The leaders of this country will always remain the absolute judges of the magnitude of social problems, and in determining their response to it. Disobedience, and challenge to their fundamental rule will not be tolerated.That's the 'peanuts' moral story of the day. Away for a Research Trip I will be away for a research trip. Will be back by August.Feel free to update me with any recent events by leaving your comments. The NKF fiasco is interesting, no? A Breach of Research Ethics Source: Take Survey or Face Fine, Everyone ToldThis is quite an intriguing piece. For the first time, a household survey, that is for all intents and purposes, strictly used for research, must be mandatory and completed or else there will be dire consequences. What is surprising is that not only that the research members actually persist in having your input, (that was just for the phonecalls), but they even pay a personal visit in the late hours to persuade you again. Apparently he need not fill in his address details in the survey.The main concern is that, whatever instuition, be it a government or an intelligence agency, if it intends to carry out what it deems to be "research", must proceed with a code of ethics in mind. It doesn't imply that a simple adherance to rules and guidelines is sufficient, but the participant must be also approached ethically; his/her consent must be obtained, his well-being (even for a survey questionaire) must be assured and in no way, should a participant be coerced to volunteer any information he/she is not comfortable with. Call it what you want, but if a threat is needed to elicit private information, then clearly it's not an innoucous collection of information for a survey. It's something else altogether.Afterword: Au Waiping has also written a very important and verxing piece on the issue. It truly deserves to be read. "Truth" or Truth by the State? This is a brief entry because it is a response piece to one ST Forum letter, "Anarchy if people speak without a care for truth". This article presents an opportunity to scrutinize and deconstruct unhidden assumptions behind voices that support violence to freedom of speech, and not reconceptualize it to emanicipate oppression among the people. The author wrote in regards to Christopher Choo's article "Libel lawsuits may stifle opinion". Incidentally, Hui Chieh also demonstrates how we can critically examine and argue philosophical questions about truth. Instead of leeching off his work, I will state my position succinctly.Erroneously, though paradoxically, the author states "I do not think that A*Star's action will have any impact on the issue of freedom of expression in Singapore. It has actually galvanised a healthy debate on what freedom of expression entails. I am encouraged to see more and more young people in our universities taking an interest in commenting on the perceived injustices in our society." No doubt the issue did raise a ruckus, or controversy among the community, but controversies do not ipso facto demonstrate a unhindered sphere of freedom of speech. Rather, one can still, and I think this issue illlustrated very well, judging from the heated discussion the blogosphere has invoked, how distorted and unbalanced the powers of representations are in our communication outlets. Not only has the media misquoted or misrepresented its sources (ST on the blogosphere) but also there is still a lack of hearing from the "outside" or the "other". All too often, the national press is only interested in sanitized, status-quo, pre-defined representations, and not the grave fundamental issues everyone should address. In this case, there is a real issue about freedom of expression in Singapore, and only a blind fool will think otherwise.However, the crux of the author's stance is this: "Freedom of expression must be accompanied by a responsibility to have your facts correct, and, if they are proven otherwise, to have the maturity to admit you are wrong, make an unreserved apology and move on. It will be total anarchy if we have freedom of speech without the need to speak the truth. Every individual has a right to his opinion, but no individual has a right to be wrong in his facts. In a civil society, it is not necessary to have 'a heated debate and raw engagement with an opponent' for new ideas and ways of thinking to emerge. Nothing lowers the level of conversation more than raising the voice." In just a few paragraphs above, the author unreservedly states "I am not privy to the exchange between A*Star and Mr Chen, but, from press reports, it appears that he was given an opportunity to make an apology. The initial apology was considered inadequate by A*Star and the threat of a libel lawsuit persuaded him to make an unreserved apology." I think the case can be strongly argued that the press reports don't possess truth. It never did, and neither was the whole truth belted out on the national press. That's "truth" shaped and manipulated by the state press, and not the unequivocal truth one seeks to learn. Indeed, it comes with shame and pity that one is able to argue for an oxymoron that one can speak "truth" without asking himself if s/he even has the "truth". Is it "truth" that we will be in a state of chaos and anarchy if one speaks without in possession of the "truth"? How do we survive since nobody can be said to have access to all-knowing "truth"? The author shouldn't be concerned about the "raising of voices". Our voices are already far too soft as it is. Corporate Take-Over In one remarkable day, you could have a good bird's eye view of the corporate culture hegemony in Singapore. Two articles published on the ST allude to the silent but aggressive agglomeration of neo-liberal economic "cost-benefit" ideology, one that pertains to NGOs (New Body to Help NGOs Stay In Place) and the other to what used to be the services of the state (More Jobs to be Farmed Out by Govt Agencies). No doubt some may view these instances as a positive step, it certainly is portrayed as generally a progressive development but there are some dangers one should be cautious about, some not as intelligible and easily overlooked.The role of NGOs in any society should be to serve its own interests, and not to pander to a dominant institution that may seek to control and intervene into their operations. While it may seem at first glance that the organization and structure of NGOs could be strengthened to be more efficient, no doubt a benefit all may welcome, the inclusion of a overarching body (Society of Associative Executives) will not only erode the spirit of NGOs but quite possibly prove disasterous to their organisational goals. Let's study the goal of the SAE which is set up to "conduct courses, provide professional certification for staff and organise regional conferences for those in the industry to exchange knowledge" and ensure "these professionals will be neutral, transparent and get the job done at the best cost and time". Some of these initiatives should be beneficial, such as coordinating more regional conferences or conducting courses, but the other objectives are not as benevolent as it sounds. A quick inspection of these objectives on the body's website reveal that not only do they "encourage association executives participation in community service organisations, or governmental commissions" but also to "fully integrate research findings on “best practices” and market needs into products and services" indicates, to a broad degree, how much more bureaucratic and rigid such a compliance would lead, not to mention the implementation of a "market-based" approach to solving community problems. The packaging of community support into "products and services" that serve a "cost-benefit" analysis will grind whatever possible flexibility and autonomy these "not-for-profit" organisations have into oblivation.If that didn't seem worrisome enough, the second article presented an affirmation of how the state is dealing with employment. However, it clearly extols the virtue of "neo-liberal" ideology, as the state contracts out its services and amenities to private corporations. Among them include the putting down of stray animals (trust someone else to do the dirty work), searching for AWOL enlisted men and other civil sector jobs. This isn't the place to list down and describe the dangers of private outsourcing of services, but needless to say, it certainly is a more frightening picture that probably deserves introspection and debate which will sadly not surface for time to come. Asian Values Revisited As expected, after the news report that judges may be given discretion when it comes to capital sentencing (Death Sentence? Let Judge Decide), the national press has set up a poll and published three letters, one that welcomed the change, one that was neutral and one that was dismissive of the move. The importance of studying the negative response is to follow the arguments of relativism, and the notion of human rights, and it is here I will publish snippets of Lim's letter. First, 'human rights' encompasses a broad umbrella of rights. Even 'cruel and inhuman' is imprecise as a standard - is it measured relative to the evil the perpetrator committed, or against how a member of civilised society should be treated? More broadly, which single society, or eclectic characteristics of a sample of societies, should be used to define human rights? It is a loose concept and more care is needed in defining the basis and scope of the alleged breach. The argument that international human rights need to be respected ignores the fact that the values underlying these rights are heavily influenced by the ideals of victorious Western powers following World War II, rather than a global consensus. More importantly, it says nothing of the efficacy of this proposed move in favour of 'human rights' in relation to the costs to public safety and crime deterrence.In one sense, Lim isn't wrong when he says that the advocation of human rights has been most aggressively promoted by Western powers. However, he also misses the point that the international declaration of human rights was agreed by several other communities, none of which are Western and belong to other indigenous and Asian societies (edited: a controversial element is mentioned in the comments. I don't think it necessarily demolishes my argument but thats up to the reader to decide). If that is the case, human rights are not at all the sole possession and creation of a single society, but as it should be, a global consensus on the treatment of individual life and liberty. It is not any different from the global consensus on the global warming, hence the need for the Kyoto Protocol (which Singapore, Australia and the United States has yet to ratify).Regarding the costs of crime deterrence and public safety, let me address that point further down. Second, the focus on discretion in mandatory death sentences misses the crucial point that statutory calibration has been made within the Penal Code to reflect any extenuating circumstances, thereby reducing the offence to one of culpable homicide. Further, the distinct provisions reflect society's calibrated response, according to how heinous a killing was. Allowing a convicted murderer to serve the same sentence as another who committed a less blameworthy crime unjustifiably conflates the two. If, following a conviction, the outcome proves unjust nonetheless, the Penal Code provides for clemency via a presidential pardon. Therefore it is hard to see how Mr Rajah's proposal provides a less 'cruel and inhuman' alternative simply because that decision is rendered judicially.A weak argument is one that says, "there's already an avenue to address the problem. And that's enough." That's how social problems get pushed under the carpet because the masses are led to think that particular avenue is adequate in resolving the concern. In this case, one should be critical and intelligent to point out that this so-called "statutory calibration" is not a failsafe mechanism. Many times, clemency has been consistently denied and not to mention the entire procedure is a harbouring, grueling, tedious and painful process. Indeed, the argument goes both ways, let's concede that Lim is right about both routes (whether it is a clemency plea or a discretionary judgment) being identifical, that it becomes instantly obvious the latter is a more efficient, less time-consuming and, one might argue, a more formally powerful statement. It means that even despite due considerations, the judge has no other alternatives but to deliver a death sentence. There is nothing to suggest that by retaining the mandatory death sentence, Singapore 'will be left out in the cold' as Prof Hor suggests. On the contrary, countries like the United States and Britain which have traditionally championed 'human rights' have considered or adopted anti-terrorism legislation similar to our Internal Security Act, which has also often been described as a breach of 'human rights'. Draconian policies on road pricing and chewing gum have been similarly considered or adopted because they have proven effective. In an age where Western-style 'human rights' has given rise to uncontrollable classroom behaviour in Britain and schoolyard murders in the US, the argument for harsher measures can only be stronger, not weaker. (...) Ultimately, the worth of any policy must lie in its effectiveness. Singapore's safe environment remains the envy of the world - arguably due to its tough stand on civil and criminal wrongs. Those who seek legislative change must show convincingly why such a change is desirable, and how the benefits outweigh the costs. Here is the backbone of Lim's stance. There are two central points he is making here. One is that even in Western countries, like the United States, not every legislation is motivated by "human rights" causes, and sometimes are subversive of them as well. He then juxtaposes the existence of "human rights" as the cause for social harms, such as school shootings andunruly classroom behaviour (quite an absurb statement, but one I will contemplate seriously...for now). The second is, as followed up by the notion of crime deterrence and public safety, legislations must be effective to deliver these results.Although it is true that no country can be said to be represent a perfect embodiment of fulfilling all the clauses of the international human rights act, it is a mistaken to assume this means it should be an acceptable behaviour to be welcomed by the population. Many Americans are contesting the PATRIOT ACT (and its successors), which should be the core moral lesson that citizens should not accept dubious reasons for state coercion and violence just because the state concocts an imaginery fear that it is for their own good. We already have our own Internal Security Act, which Singaporeans have a good idea how it is truly used, and while some choose to accept that as an inevitable trade-off for security, the discretion for death penalty is nowhere in the same category. In other words, if we choose to enforce state violence, we should be more thorough and conscious of the consequences.Draconian measures may be effective but there is also the moral imperative a society should consider. It is rather one thing to suggest that a ban on chewing gum weighs the same accord as hanging a man/woman, and another to suggest that the effectiveness of one draconian measure ensures another's guarantee for success. To be clear, all empirical work so far has shown that capital punishment has never been an effective deterrent, and nobody has produced results to the contrary. Singapore's death penalty has never undergone independent research and so far, every argument that purports to demonstrate its effectiveness has been regurgitated by those who accept haphazardly the rhetoric from the state government. Even for those who defend the death penalty rigorously, a moral message has been absent, or it's a moral message of fear.Which leads to my hypothesis that the national press, and all other institutions supportive of dominant orthodox, has never ever, in the least bit, considered other alternatives, that can be less punitive than death penalty. Arguments about decriminalization (as shocking as some find it) or prisoner-exchange legislations, misconceptions about drug harm, gaps in the current legislation about what constitutes "drug trafficking", all these issues still get shoved off the debate, as not even worthy of entering the scope of discussion. That's how the debate will continue to be manufactured, and that's why any discussion on the death penalty continues to be shallow and supportive of governmental doctrine.Though Lim is carefully not to advance the bugbear "Asian values", he is still revisiting the same currents that were the foundation of the term. I don't plan to buttress an entire argument here against the term, but rather to say that no doubt, some degree of relativity can be accepted but it is important to bear in mind, societies have the capacity to reach objective standards of justice and ethics. In another letter (Relook sentences), Low stresses that a crucial characteristic of Singaporean society is to "inculcate a more civil and caring society." Rhetoric is fine, everyone is all for the building of a more civil and caring society, the question is who should be pursuing our interests in this case? What some higher authority purportedly says, or our own inner moral convinctions? Because if it is the latter, that will mean a more careful investigation and consideration of what they are and how we choose to exercise them. Rebel & Heroism (A Review of Singapore Rebel) Much like Convex Set, I have also watched the documentary Singapore Rebel. While I highly respect Mr. See (not to mention being deeply concerned about his affairs), and though I believe this film deserves the right to be screened for the public to watch, I would like to criticize, even if only they are only slight perturbations, and postulate what are certain shortcomings in the film. I don't pretend to think I can make a "better" film, and I think Singaporeans at least should hear the words of Dr. Chee, however I am uncertain as to how the movie was represented and framed. In other words, my review is simply a judgment on asethetics and production of the documentary. As I believe Mr. See will read this, I would like to establish again that I congratulate him for making the film and I enjoyed watching it.Overall, my general skepticism lies with the homology the documentary shares with a "Michael Moore" film, only in this case, the political bias is blatantly represented and portrayed. My contention is not that Dr. Chee doesn't deserve to speak, but that an entire piece devoted to him could be counterproductive, when others could construe the piece as deliberately sympathizing with a member of opposition. The legitimacy of this piece of work was, in my opinion, unintentionally broken down by what was initially a professional voice-over narrator degenerating into a "comedic goth-rock" type of satire. Perhaps the most dramatic piece of footage was the May Day rally Dr. Chee tried to hold, where he and his colleague was quickly subdued and arrested. However, certain statements by Dr. Chee in the piece, particularly the one where he asserted Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong pointed to his pocket when asked about the loan to Soeharto regime, was antithetical to the recognition of the treatment Dr. Chee shouldn't have received in his public protest rallies.In other words, I will not be coy and say this blankly. If you are hoping to, as sociologist Weber might posit, construct a "charismatic authority" figure, Dr. Chee was not the right man, though the film certainly came close to building that persona. Embellishing Dr. Chee as a family man was, in my opinion, low-brow, not to say that he deserves the penalties (in fact, I think it was grossly undeserved and over-punitive), but that served very little purpose in this documentary piece. Painting Dr. Chee as a human person is crucial, no doubt but I think more important than that, the ideas Dr. Chee has of Singapore society and governmental polices should be the focus.Contrary to my unsatisfaction with certain portions of the documentary piece, I don't condemn it but rather insist that viewers should remember Dr. Chee isn't the only rebel in Singapore. I thought Jeyarethnam should have been included, and perhaps many others who not necessarily belonging to a political group, have resisted and dissected the ruling elite's ideology. Dr. Chee is a remarkable individual, though I disagree in his final point that "those who choose to leave Singapore are performing a cowardly act", but I concede that he has demonstrated acts of courage and bravery for his actions.Finally, I like to relate Convex Set's blog entry regarding heroism in Singapore. This is also where I re-establish my ambiguous feelings for the blogging community. I think the concept of heroism should be overthrown, in the first place, individuals should freely decide what they choose to do or forsake in their lives, despite the differing opinions and judgments on their actions. However, just like Dr. Chee's assertion, some actions are calculated to have unimaginable risks and prove to result in dangerous consequences. Right now, blogging about our subjective experiences is not enough to make a dent in the political process, and only real demonstrable actions will perform such a job. Do not assume that there will be "heroes" who will arise to lead us away from darkness, it wouldn't be any different from how people thought of Lee Kuan Yew and it shouldn't be the case with others. That's not to say we live without "heroes", all of us to some extent have a role model to live up to, but in the real world, we should place it upon ourselves to support our ideals and values with real effort. To sit and rant is too easy, and leaving it up to someone else to do the "dirty work" is irresponsible.That's perhaps the one important lesson the documentary should preach. Dangerous Times Ahead My other upcoming blog entries are still in the writing phrase, so I am not ready to post them up. What I momentarily would like to highlight, is some dangerous episodes which the blogosphere is now facing. The first has to do with Acidflask's unreserved apology to the agency A*Star. The implications of this episode is enormous, which spells that arbitrary judgments on what constitutes as "defamatory" could ride over anybody's blogging content. The other pertains to the maker of the documentary Singapore Rebel being probed by the police. It need not be said that the whole affair could be disasterous for any efforts to create artistic works that carry controversial themes (despite being told that as a media hub and society, we should welcome a diversity of views). Finally, there's the death-row penalty petition circulating here (and here) but also surprisingly, or what can be said to be a historical event (which is not covered in the national press) of a small protest. While we have no idea of how much that would have an impact, I would make a tenuous deduction that it might have an effect on this concomitant event (Death Sentence? Let Judge Decide). While no doubt our goal (the ends) should be the abolishment of the death penalty, just a shift whereby judges are given more discretion to decide on capital punishment is a very significant step. If the pressure keeps up, the methods employed (the means) should lead us closer to our goals.Finally, there's the new blog portal known as Tomorrow.sg, which has been accused as being set up by a governmental agency (Tomorrow's defense is here). I will spell out the obvious here: it doesn't matter if Tomorrow.sg is truly part of the surveillance collective watching over the blogosphere, we were already watched for some time and will continue to be, regardless if the surveillance entity makes itself known or not. History has shown that intelligence agencies sometimes assign one of their watchdogs to assimilate into the target group to collect information and discover their weak points. If anything, this only means that our fragmented nature may serve as both a strength or a weakness. Far Away I have been away for far too long, and though I still frequent the blogs around, I am still behind in catching up on the recent happenings in the blogosphere. Many incidents have occured which I wish I could comment on, but I do not wish to make preconceived judgements without understanding the whole affair.There have also been recent events in Singapore that I wish to comment on, but I will reserve my writings for now till I have some time to read the information and commentaries available. For now, I will try to update every few days, whenever possible. A Small Joke I have been busy, and slow in catching up on news. However, in the course of my readings, I found this dialogue particularly humourous and thought it was quite befitting of the Police State. This is a conversation between German sociologist, Max Weber and his interlocutor:Ludendorf: What is your idea of democracy, then? Weber: In a democracy, the people choose the leader whom they trust. Then the chosen man says, "Now shut your mouths and obey me!" The people and the parties are no longer free to interfere in the leader's business. Ludendorf: I could like such a 'democracy'! Weber: Later the people can sit in judgment. If the leader has made mistakes - to the gallows with him!...Well, let's hope the last bit comes true, eh? Agents of the Police State Recommended Article: Climate Control in the Singapore Press (Kudos to Steven, who added an extension regarding the criteria of being an elite in Singapore)Although I was quite well-aware some former intelligence officers worked in the national press, I had no idea of their prevalence."Cheong, 57, has been with the paper since 1963. He's proud of the paper and its contribution to modern Singapore. And he's proud, too, of the former intelligence operatives in his newsroom. There's Chua Lee Hoong, the ST's most prominent political columnist. She might be Singapore's Maureen Dowd, except The New York Times's Dowd didn't work with the secret police for nine years. There's Irene Ho on the foreign desk. She was also an "analyst" with Singapore's intelligence services. So, says Cheong, was Susan Sim, his Jakarta correspondent. And there's Cheong's boss, Tjong Yik Min. From 1986 to 1993, Tjong was Singapore's most senior secret policeman, running the much feared Internal Security Department, a relic of colonial Britain's insecurities about communism in its Asian empire. Now Tjong is a media mogul, the executive president of SPH, Singapore's virtual print media giant, which controls all but one of the country's newspapers."There is also of course the juicy bit, that describes how efficient they are in framing the national ideology and boundaries of debate and issues."But Chua is not coy. "I'm not ashamed about [being ex-ISD]." Chua is a classic example of the system working for Singaporeans, and Singaporeans paying it back. The Government sent her to Oxford University for a degree in politics, philosophy and economics. Her pro-government columns are perceived by analysts as insights into official thinking. "Is the ST a government mouthpiece?" she asks, then answers herself: "Yes . . . and no". It's not China's People's Daily, Chua insists. "The key editors are not government appointees or necessarily [the ruling] People's Action Party members but they are loyalists in a general sense. It's true of every major institution in Singapore." Chua admits Singaporean journalists self-censor – "they do everywhere," she says – but "editorial interference" is too strong a term to describe the input of authorities. "It's much more subtle than that. I would say we are sometimes, but not often these days, reminded to be mindful of the boundaries." Chua brings to her commentary "certain basic assumptions" about Singapore's national interest. It so happens they often accord with the Government and its over-arching demands of its people. Part of the challenge, Chua says, of being a journalist and possibly even being a Singaporean is testing boundaries that are "not clearly defined" by the Government, "perhaps on purpose". "It's part of our culture, part of our maturing as a nation." How paradoxical it is that Verghese Mathews, "a former Singapore ambassador to Cambodia and visiting fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies" submitted a letter to the Forum page on misguided self-censorship (though his area of interest had to do with a completely different subject: corporate management). But here is his rationale which can be just as easily applicable to the dangers of self-censorship in news reporting: "Big countries and major powers, it can be argued, have in place other checks and balances which provide access and expression to alternative ideas and policies.Can we say the same of a small country like Singapore? What if the very same sources for alternative proposals themselves practise self-censorship?More importantly, and what bothers me most, is that in such a climate of pervasive self-censorship a bad decision may be perpetuated despite those in the decision-making ladder recognising it as an error. In our system very few will risk career or job security by being the one to point out the error.We accept that Singapore is vulnerable in many ways. I would suggest that it is in the marketplace of alternative ideas and in dispassionate discussion of alternative policies that this vulnerability is well addressed.At the end of the day, we are all losers if something meaningful is not undertaken." Nationalistic Paranoia Headtitle: No way to treat state that rushed to Aceh's aidOriginal Article: Singapore disappointed by Jakarta demo over organic materialThe motive of this entry is not to implicate the Singapore government in its responsibility in sending organic material, that were not classified as "hazardous waste" under Singapore law at the time of export, which were later dumped in Batam, and allegedly found to contain "heavy metals, which are regarded as hazardous waste under Indonesian laws". With reasonable speculation, the effects of the hazardous waste pollution must be serious enough to warrant an organised protest, which took place before the Singapore embassy in Jakarta.What is of concern is rather how the author, Christopher Teo harangued (though in the Forum section of the ST) on how Singaporeans should "think again whether or not such a neighbour is worth helping at all". He buttress his argument by two devices; one is to praise and extol the 'tremendous' humanitarian help Singapore has provided to Aceh (who is fighting for independence from Indonesia) or raising money for the Indonesians during the Asian financial crisis (which was channeled through the IMF) and other monetary charity aid. The second point of his argument was the remarks made by then Indonesian President B.J. Habibie, which described Singapore in a relative negative light.It is important to take note of how the implicit morale message of Christopher's letter. Namely, that is to say since we have been such a generous neighbour, you shouldn't be allowed to protest against us, even for issues that are totally unrelated. Double standards can easily be found in the most "patrotic" or the most "paranoid", and in the case we see how the two feed off each other. The responsibility that Singapore has in being the exporter of the organic material, which has adversely affected their lives, should not be ignored, and it seems for now the right steps have been taken in that direction. However, protests and demonstrations on their land is their right, although the damage to the embassy is perhaps uncalled for, it doesn't equate a shift in our allegedly 'altruistic' 'benevolent' foreign policy.Much like how Singapore has indirectly externalised damage onto Indonesian soil, we shouldn't perform additional damage on their freedom to speak. But perhaps Singapore has a very different conception of demonstrations, the preconceived idea that they are usually borne out of 'insane', 'arachiac' or 'irrational' thought. To a certain extent, some demonstrations have been sparked on preposterous grounds, but the background grievances have to be addressed. Christopher Teo concluded in his statement that "Singaporeans should stand shoulder to shoulder when it comes to national pride", well you can find that kind of statement in Nazi or Russian Soviet Style propoganda. Instead, national pride should impede you that while recognising that the damage was unnecessary, we are concerned about the indirect responsibility in harming another nation's soil. "Fair" and "Objective" Media for you I will reserve any comments for this particular fiasco, because I think the blatant disregard for a "fair" and "objective" media is staring right in the face.Singapore movie-moker pulls political movie (Credits to Steven)Visit this blog for more information. The Police State's Solution to the AIDS Problem Headline: HIV-positive and wanton? You may face stiff penaltyNow turning to the AIDS problem among heterosexuals, the Senior Minister of State for Health Balaji Sadasivan has now called for a harsh response: Revising the law to deal stiff harsh penalties against those who are are HIV-positive and promiscuous. The special bit here is that this penalty applies "whether or not you are aware you have the disease".This is quite a unique proposition, considering that HIV patients sometimes take several months or years to even realise that they are infected. It would also raise the issue of tracking down those who are newly infected, or tracing the possible spreaders of the disease. Indeed, it is clearly stated that the implementation "will place the onus on the individual who is sexually active to test himself regularly".The minister asserts his belief that "unless the law is changed to reflect this, attitudes will not change". He added that only with this change of attitude, will the AIDS problem be solved.There is no doubt, that in trying to arrest the increase of AIDS cases, attitudes do have to change. Not only the public, but including the administrative's role and beliefs. A change in law doesn't immediately curb the problem. Having AIDS and not having yourself tested is a serious problem, but by no means criminal. There is a term famously defined in the criminal law called the mens rea, defined as "the intention to commit a wrongful act, the element that establishes criminal responsibility". If someone is consciously unaware that he has AIDS, given that AIDS certainly doesn't target a certain cohort of individuals and is not selective in its nature, he doesn't carry the mens rea that bears the crucial element to follow a criminal sentence with.But let's suppose legislation is expedited, and law enforcers now have the added responsibility to arrest those who are HIV-positive and promiscuous. An important issue then arises how do you start enforcing the law? The minister didn't mention it, though it should be obvious when he related the story of one case where "Mr I, who knew he was HIV-positive, went to a foreign country to bring back a bride". The minister displayed an understanding of empathy for wives who have married HIV-positive husbands, which is a reasonable concern but never went far enough to condemn the actual practices of heteorsexual men who engage in practices that promote the risk of AIDS. One should even be more stunned that the important factors that contribute to the problem should be tackled, but are nevertheless ignored because they are too afraid of eroding the "traditional family unit" structure.Attitudes must change, I agree. The results of any policy should not be to further exacerbate social stigmatization, increase criminal liability or apply fear and distress onto its citizens. Active sharing and honest addressing of the social problem should lead to solutions that facilitate the public's understanding of a serious phenomeon and not perpetuate fallacious and illusionary mindsets or solutions.