Rigor Mortis News of my demise has been greatly exaggerated. I've just blogged elsewhere under a different name. I might be moving this blog to a new site, so please stay tuned. I'm coming back to Singapore soon, so I'll be way more in touch with what is going on. Of course I might be off to Law School soon, so who knows. But I'm not dead. Just sleeping like a pig. Catch 22 There's been alot on the PM's speech. Let's just say his speechwriters need to be fired. Then again if he wrote his own speech, then he needs to get speechwriters. I'm firm believer in having good speechwriters, and American-style lying and spin doctoring. So don't vote for me. I'll spin you good.I've been thinking alot about Singapore. Partly due to the fact that I am coming home for good this December, partly because I am considering being a civil servant, or in our case a Mandarin. There's a key difference between the two. Our bureaucrats are obviously not inclined to think of themselves as civil SERVANTS, so a better, and oft used term, is Mandarin. Afterall they dispense wisdom from up high.I've also been thinking alot about Turkey and Eygpt. There, like here, the state is all pervasive. It's everywhere. Like us, Turks and Eygptians also know that they can't do without the state. In all honesty, our institutions have been designed to be all pervasive. Even if we somehow elected a new government into power, it's only a matter of time before they become all pervasive. If they roll it back (which party would do that) then our community would be suffering from withdrawal syndrome. We are entirely dependent on the state for most everything. Despite our urge to be free of it, let's be honest and admit we actually like some things about our all pervasive state. We like the efficiency and convenience.It's reflected in our relationship with our parents. As we grow older we love to be more independent, but the truth is we like the convenience of living with our parents. Sure we can't bring skanky women home for one night stands, and we cannot be sure the tea we bought won't be stolen by someone else in the household, but we like that our clothes are washed, food is cooked and we're reminded to pay our bills. I used to be like that, my sis is like that. Having lived on my own for 5 and 1/2 years now, I actually value my freedom. I still miss homecooked meals (not ruined by me) and not having to do laundry (more time for bumming around), but I also like the fact that I know my bottle of OJ won't disappear and I can bring home skanky women i picked up at bars (only in my fantasy world).That's what my relationship with Singapore is like. We want more freedom, but we like living with our parents. The thing is there will come a time when we must leave home. We must create our own spaces, our own families. So while we like the all-pervasive efficiency and convenience, we also would like to pioneer our won space. We'd like to be parents ourselves.The question is can we give up the convenience and efficiency of our insitutions? A little bit of instability for a little bit of freedom? Life is full of trade offs. What are we willing to trade? The hustings So election fever is beginning to grip our tiny little island. Everyone is gearing up for that big day where half the country doesn't vote and takes a nice holiday (although lately they've been scheduling it for saturday... the bastards!) and the other half pretty much gets to decide less than 50% of the seats in the next Parliament.It is always nice to see that everyone is getting excited over not much.Also alot of people have gone on hiatus. In fact most of us are not even blogging. Our favourite #1 blogger, Ms Molly Meek is on a holiday. A nice long holiday, I hope, to rest her nerves before Election Fever comes along and makes her sick all over again.What do I have to say? I don't agree with the PAP or the WP for that matter. I think the PAP has grown too accustomed to unchallenged authority and forgets that it is a representative party. The WP, on the other hand, just doesn't appeal to me. They've got too many socialistic policies in there for me to go along with it. I can be a little bit of a cold hearted economic Liberal. I do agree on social safety nets, but I think the WP is aiming for safety nets that are far too high for my liking.That's all I have to say on this matter. Being so far away also insulates me from the daily madness. I was hoping to count on other people to keep me updated but everyone is pretty much busy or talking about the gay issue (i won't go there). Singapore Spirit Xeno Boy asks a good question.This is a complex cultural question. During my undergraduate days I was an active member of a fraternity. We went through some pretty rough times during my sophomore year (2nd yr). We had bad leadership from the officer corp. This put us sophomores in a crisis mode. All junior year (3rd yr) we worked to realign ourselves. We had to stop coasting and barely surviving. We needed to find something to rally around, an idea to live for. Working with the alumni and our very good alumni advisor by senior year we had unveiled the Leadership Initiative. With it came our belief in who we were, where we saw ourselves going... A year, of course, is not enough time for a cultural revolution, but because of that idea our successors are far more coordinated and have something to rally around.Related to this is what Singaporean youths rally around. Firstly I'd like to point out that there are subsets within the wider category "youth." Generally anyone under 35 is considered a youth. But it could be constructed as anyone who isn't an adult but older than 14. Still in the process of identiy formation is the best way to put it. There are indeed subsets, from the blog world you can see the divisions already.You have the safe, prod along types who while privately holding views contrary to the authorities, tow the public line. You have the "celebrity at any price" sort of crowd. You have the "as long as I'm one of beautiful/cool" crowd. You have those who have to worry about bread and butter issues. You have the "sit there and complain" group. You also have the "thinking" group. The "activitst" group. You have the "good deeds and volunteerism" group. The "pursuit of wealth" group. The "rebel without a cause" group. The "i just don't care" crowd. I mean they can and do intersect of course and I'm sure there are more subgroups out there.It's hard to say what we're all collectively fighting for or what we believe in. Sometimes the reality of our state system forces us to make certain decisions or join certain subsets. What did our parents fight for? They're also broken up in subsets. While the Nantah students were busy defending Chinese culture, my parents were busy being enterpernuers, trying everything from being tailors to HK superstars (i take pride in that fact) to finally hitting it big in property. I don't think my parents cared too much about the Nantah crowd. They were poor, non-university educated folks. My dad has an O level certificate and my mom has a vocational license. They just kept trying idea after idea.The national rhetoric may have been that the previous generation fought hard for independence and survival, but that's the whole Epic myth created by every nation. The political elites (winners and losers) may have been in an epic struggle, but everyday folk may have been more worried about getting blown to bit by Indonesian terrorists, shot by Communists or just trying to survive financially. Of course they get swept up into the national creation myth. I'm sure while the Founding Fathers of the US were busy debating rebellion, the everyday farmer was busy tilling the soil and sort of paying attention to what's going on, but not being active. Later on he would have picked sides and fought for either cause.There has to be a creation of something to fight for. In my opinion all cultural ideas carry hints of politics in them. Politics is a close relative of culture, they work closely together. The state has tried to create a cultural identity without introducing politics into it. But civic conciousness is linked to political partisipation. The politically active tend to be concious of their rights and duties of a citizen. The creation of a civic mind is intertwined with politics, culture, ethics and morals.So what are we fighting for? As a whole, I don't know. But I know some of us believe that things can be better. That begs the question as to whether we're willing to fight for it. Follow up on Economics of transportation KT Man:Thank you for your comments, allow me to respond.I agree that natural monopolies are no different, the only thing going for them is economies of scale, to price out rivals.I think demand is somewhat elastic depending on which transportation you look at. Remember if transportations costs get too high, even firms will consider letting workers work from home (Boeing does that here in the US).There is a difference as to only people who use the system pay and every citizen paying. If I drive a car, or work from home, why should i subsidize every other person who travels? If I only use the system once a month, why do I have to pay for every single day. This is the difference between a Liberal and a Socialist. It's nothing to do with your logic, you just assume that costs should be carried by society as a whole, while I think that the users of the goods should pay.Keeping the cost of living low means that the government must invariably subsidise a whole range of products. Should it also subsidise all basic neccesities, electrcity (already subsidised), telephone, and water (subsidised)? You could also argue for the case of subsidised internet connection, if you consider that a neccesity in Singaporean life. Education is already heavily subsidised all the way to the tertiary level. The money has to come from somewhere. We could shut down a number of programs if you want, but that still will not yield that much money. How much of the military would you like to cut down? Police force? Fire department? Museum? Library? Customs? Immigration? Hospitals (subsidised too)? Embassies? Courts? Prisons? The question is how much can you cut before you compromise other public goods?Outside of taxation and sale of bonds, I cannot figure out how the government can raise more taxes? The ERP is just a road consumption tax. If they charge trains to use the rail, then it's a rail tax. I mean I cannot think how. Lottery I suppose... That could be it, but that's just another form of income tax on the poor (the richer you are the less you spend proportional to your income of the lottery, barring gamblin addicts, but then how did they get rich in the first place). What other forms of "creative" fund raising does the government have?As for exempting goods, from a consumption tax could be difficult. Then you'd have to seperate them from the other goods. Two classes of supermarkets? Should we only subsidise cheap brands or all brands? In DC sales tax is 5.75% but liqour tax is higher.This has created a situation where supermarkets do not sell liqour, and the creation of specialised liqour stores. Arguably the supermarkets could sell both, but they do not, it must have to do with creating more complex software to compute two tax rates.Do not underestimate market power of an oligopoly, especially a cartel (it's basically a monopoly). They could drop rent for the taxi drivers to say $40 and then say that their taxi rates will now start at flagdown of $2.00 and instead of $0.10/km, it could be $0.06/km. For the firm the taxis are a sunk cost. If drivers are unhappy, the supply of new drivers is not scarce. They don't have market power in the labour market either. For potential entrants (individuals not other firms from other industries with huge war chests), this can be a huge barrier.Shianux:Thank you for your comments.For natural monopolies see above. That's the textbook definition. They are definetely manmade since they got to the point of EOS through government intervention.I agree also that the government should remove itself form the tranportation business and let the chips fall where they may. A light regulatory touch instead of a heavy one.Again I think it may be possible for a Perfect Competition market to evolve. Information is not perfect, but can be near perfect. You must remove the big firms though. Imagine:Country A has a population of 100. Monthly income is $50 There are currently 5 taxis in operation. Demand for taxis places the price at $1/km. Taxi drivers sort of sense they can charge you about $1, they're not stupid (ok a few may be). So they start making economic profits of $10/month. This encourages other guys to get a taxi. So 10 new taxis join. Now we're at 15 taxis. This shifts the market supply curve, more supply! Yay! So now consumers are no longer willing to pat $1/km. The new drivers might charge $0.80/km (which is the new marker equilibrium). Quickly the old drivers follow or get priced out. Now the individual "firm" is making an economic loss of $2/month. Some taxi drivers will leave the business. Eventually economic profits are zero. This does not mean that people are not making a living. It's just that their opportunity costs match their profits.This is an exaggeration, and you could well be right. It may be more difficult to get rates out. But if there were no taxi companies, each taxi driver would fight for your fare. They could use a meter or just tell you flat out. "How much to Orchard from Changi? $15? Too expensive. $10? Cannot? Ok never mind then. I'll just grab the cab behind." DC actually operates on that kind of system. They use zonal payments, which never works, the drivers try to cheat you. But if you're not willing to pay, then you just go to the next one that is offering a price you want. The more expensive driver will realise that he's getting priced out by his other rivals. Similarly drivers also cannot be had by consumers. If they know with accounting costs and everything the ride to Orchard from Changi is $8, they won't go lower than that, and if they know there are 3 other guys waiting who are willing to pay about $15 for the trip, they just won't take you for $10. Invisible hand of the market.The only other way is for the government to take the trouble and draw a demand and supply curve. Ask stupid questions like at $0.15/km would you take a cab? At $0.20? $2 flag down fee would you take it? $3? And then extrapolate from there. Similarly ask taxi drivers questions. At $0.15/km will you drive? $3 flag down fee? And so on. Tedious, but that's one way, and then let everyone know that the market equilibrium is at $2.50 for flag down and $0.20/km. That's another way i guess. Not so good, but might be better. This is of course top of my head, and I'm not an expert in transport economics.By the way when I say firms in Pefect Competition with relation to taxis, I mean individual taxi owners. Sorry for that error.A good discussion gentlemen. I do enjoy such intellectual discussions. Maybe I am too pedantic or too textbook-y, but I belive that theory informs practise and vice versa. These models cannot hold for so long unless there is truth to it. Maybe we woudl have to alter them a little, but I do not believe that their entirely wrong when applied to the real world either. On transportation Kway Teow man has posted his opinions on Singapore's transportation system. I would like to take a closer look at his policy suggestions. While his recommendations are socialistic in nature and really does care for the underprivileged in our society, there are economic drawbacks.(1) Monopolies are allocatively and productively inefficient. He clearly understood that concept, and thought that nationalisation is the answer. He rightly point out that the burden will fall on taxpayers, but not just initially. It will continue to be a burden on tax payers. His goal of nationalisation is to force the monopoly to produce where price = Marginal Cost, and quantity is at minimum average total cost. That is not possible. At P=MC, demand at that price is way higher. And at min. ATC (the productively efficient point), the price is higher than P=MC price (the allocatively efficient point).Let's say we don't care about productive efficiency, since it focuses more on the firm than consumers (forcing a monopoly to operate at that point also creates a loss). Let's say we look allocative efficiency where consumers. This is where opportunity cost to produce the marginal unit equals to the cost consumers are willing to pay for that unit. If the monopoly is forced to produce at P=MC. This means that the monopoly is going to operate at a loss. Total revenue Ok. So we produce at higher quantities and lower prices at either of the two points, but let's say people cannot stomach paying for public transport through taxes. So we try to produce where the firm breaks even, or where marginal revenue = marginal cost, then the price will be far lowers than its allocatively efficient point, but the quantity will continue to be at the level before the nationalisation. That's your break even point. Doesn't solve anything because at that Price, demand is more than the quantity supplied. So there's a shortage. And a black market may open up to meet the demand.There is almost no good way to regulate a monopoly. At least not from the economic stand point. The only thing I can think of is a profits tax. Which adds to nothing, but it does take away incentive to invest in the future, but for transport monopolies in Singapore, it's ok, since the government invests in improvements. The firm can also be forced to update equipment by law or regulation, as it does with taxis.(2) Not raising or reducing consumption tax That sounds like a good idea. Consumption taxes usually affect the poor more than the rich since the cost of fixed spending increases proportionally higher in poor household, than in rich households.Let's say that society accepts government run, subsidised transportation, through taxation. If consumption tax is not moved, we have to pay for it somehow. A rise in income tax is another way to do it. Corporate taxes should not be raised simply because this would discourage businesses in an already weak economy. So income tax it is. This means raising the income tax. A rise in income tax means that consumption goes down. This is because there is less money to spend now that it is being taxed. Along with the multiplier effect, consumption and investment could go down. This affects the overall GDP. Y= C + I + G + NX. Y = economy, C = consumption, I = investment, G = government spending, NX = net exports.Let's say the government decides not to raise taxes, but sell bonds to raise money. Unlike US t-bills and t-notes, Singapore's government bonds are not as enticing as US government bonds. Which means we can only sell so much. There are a few problems with that. Assume that all our bonds are snapped up. This could lead to a "crowding out" effect. Where private firms cannot raise capital to invest, since a large sum of the private money is going to the government. It also means a rise in capital inflow, currently Singapore has a capital account deficit, of $22 million. I suspect maintaining a bus system would require another 5 to 6 million at least. So this means that our capital account deficit will be reduced.Before you go cheering at a reduction in deficit, it also means that our current account balance surplus will be reduced by that much. It means we export less or import more. If that doesn't happen then it means that our foreign exchange assests is set to fall even more. Which means drawing from our reserves.(3) Individual licences for taxis I agree with you. I would argue going a step further. Abolish cab companies. This would create a near perfect competition market. It would have a large number of buyers and sellers, homogenuous product (travel in a taxi is more or less homogenous), perfect information (no advertising), and negligible barriers to entry (a driving license and a license to operate a taxi and cost of taxi). This produces both allocative and productive efficiencies. Too wonderful. The only problem is no economic profits in the long run (there might still be accounting profits) for the taxi drivers. As long as the requirement to obtain a taxi is kept to the minimum and we hand out as many licenses as demanded, the market would regulate itself. This could mean alot more taxis or a lot less taxis on the road, but it is a good model.The problem with a dual structure with a few large firms and many small ones (individual owners) is that the big firms will lower prices to the point that the small firms are priced out (economies of scale let them do that), which benefits the consumer in the short run. The long run is that once all these small firms are no longer a threat to the large firms, prices return to their high levels. Worst if the taxi companies are in collusion. Nothing like some small fish to make the big ones work together to protect their interests.Another senario could be one of price leadership. The biggest firm basically becomes a price leader, and everyone follows. This is usually because of uncertainty, which is what many small firms could cause to the market. In then end, they all agree that one firm set prices and the rest follow. It'll help the taxi drivers but not us the consumers.In the oligopoly model, regulation could get somewhat complicated. The regulator could make it so that barriers to entry are too high for potential entrants. I mean the regulator might not be colluding with the oligopolies, but it could ask for better safety standards, safe driving records, low prices to help consumers, annual barrage of inspections, license renewal every year, new car every 10 years, only certain types of cars to be used and so on. It's not to help the established firms, but to have some safety and to help the consumer.Yes KT man, this is my analysis of your proposals. I would commend you for making them, but there are some areas you failed to analyze when you made those proposals. I know my analysis is economically based and it reveals sort of my biases. For those not in the know, I am a Liberal in the traditional sense. Free market, limited government intervention in the market, and all that good stuff.There is no good way to counter monopoly power in my opinion, regulation can only go so far. A Profit tax is my answer. That works best in my opinion. That may bug the shareholders, but if they're not happy, they can sell the shares.Keeping consumption tax low is good, in my opinion. That does mean the the government has to raise revenue elsewhere. If your proposal to nationalise all transportation is to take place, we'll have to pay somehow. There are pitfalls to other forms of revenue collection.Individual licences all around. Totally abolish cab companies. In fact regulate so that none may form. A perfect competition market? That would be my dream come true.That's it. I hope you don't take this as me knocking you, just looking at your proposals and dissecting them. Helps us both understand the situation better.Related links: Molly Meek Reason why I wish to come back Plutarch was once asked why he didn't join everyone else and move; you know follow a brain drain and make big bucks. His reply was "lest my small city should become even smaller."My good friend from pre-primary recently got a nice programming job in Australia. He's been studying there for 5 years now. I'm gald for him. I asked him if he was ever coming home, he said maybe, but not soon. He wants to see more of the world before he returned home.My girlfriend wants to move to China to work. She doesn't like countries where she's a minority and she's opposed to Taiwan, and I to Hong Kong, so China sounds like the only option. Her rationale is that China is more fun than Singapore.Everywhere I turn those closest to me are leaving the country in search of a better life, be it higher pay or a crazier night scene. I mean jobs in the US pay more than jobs in Singapore, even after tax. And there are a lot more jobs for someone with my specialisation in the US.Yet somehow I feel like I should come home. Maybe I'm old fashioned and believe in nationalism. Maybe I'm just loyal like that. Maybe I feel the need to fulfill my filial duty to my parents. Maybe I just like Singaporean food. I'm not too sure.I feel like leaving is quitting while the going gets tough. You know, you enjoy the good times, and then you leave the minute trouble's on the horizon. A fair weathered friend. I feel like I have to help it out despite its flaws. I'm a skeptic not a cynic. I know there are deep problems with the place I regard as home, but I also know that given time and effort it can be improved.Sure the provincial capitals of the Roman world are all nice and shiny, but I like my little Chaeronea. The Meritocratic Elite Kway Teow Man makes an interesting case about Singapore's meritocratic education system. Molly Meek also has a few things to say about our vaunted education system.So I guess now it's my turn to weigh in and give my two cents worth. Don't blame me for being slow. ST now costs money to read online, and I'm a poor grad student. Where am I supposed to find the money?I do think that the resources a school has plays a certain role in the nurturing of a mind. Imagine a school library with really good books for you to do reserach with and one that maybe has 10 shelves of books from the 1980s and if you're lucky a few from the 1990s. Or where a school that has 1 computer lab has 20 outdated Pentium 2 computers versus a school with 2 computer labs with 35 up-to-date Pentium 4 computers each. While it still requires good teachers and motivated students, a motivated student in a poorer school might find some restrictions due to facilities.Another issue might be teacher quality. While both "independent," "autonomous," or "government" schools tend to draw their teachers from the same pool (NIE graduates and a few foreign talents), "independent" schools have a much more relaxed hiring proceedure, while "government" schools have to go through a rather red-taped procedure to obtain a teacher. Furthermore, it is my belief that "independent" school teachers may have less paperwork to deal with since the school is nominally under MOE control and directives, while "government" school teachers are normally swamped with paperwork. Having more time to do lesson plans and teach makes a big difference in quality of teaching. Also many teachers quit their jobs because the immense amount of non-teaching duties makes them lose sight of their original noble goal to teach.Also the extra money that "independent" schools have, makes it easier to "poach" good teachers away from other schools with better pay and benefits. Again I stress that it also depends on the individual motivation of the students.As for the permanence of streaming, I agree with KT Man. It can be a very demoralising life journey since the odds are stacked against you. It is easier for a student to slip from the "higher" streams down to the "lower" streams, but not vice versa. Allow me to illustrate:Timmy is a young boy, smart, intelligent, but rather lazy and not very good at Chinese. He is in a "government" primary school.He stakes his streaming exam and gets into the EM3 band because his family does not speak mandarin (they're a Hokkien speaking family) and are too poor to afford a tuition teacher (Dad works two jobs, taxi operator and security guard and mom works part-time as a cleaner). His home environment is not suitable for studying since he has 2 other younger siblings. At P6 he doesn't do so well because of his lack of motivation to study. He ends up in the Normal (Technical) Stream, which means a very very slim chance of getting to do the Ordinary Levels exam. Instead at age 16 he takes the Normal Levels exam and gets an average grade. So Timmy is off to ITE. At his local ITE, Timmy discovers a flair for computer type jobs, which he never got a chance to do in his secondary school because the labs were always full and computers were too old. He excels and at 19 graduates top of his class. Now he applies to a Polytechnic and gets in. He also has to defer his National Service again. During his poly years, his lecturers notice that Timmy is in fact very good at computer programming. He completes his Diploma at age 22, at the top 5% of his class. Timmy decides to apply to NTU, but has to do his NS first. At 25 Timmy enter NTU's second year, and graduates with honours at the age of 28 and enters the workforce. Now compare this to Johnny. His dad is a regional vice president for a big accounting firm and his mom is an assistant general manager of a local shipping firm. Johnny is equally lazy and unmotivated as Timmy in primary school. He gets tons of tuition and has his own quiet study to do work. He also doesn't need to pitch in and do housework , which Timmy does, when he gets home.Thanks to rote learning and some exam tips from his tuition teacher, Johnny ends up in the EM2 band. His parents worrying about his future, sends him to Chinese camp during the holidays and doubles his tuition teachers.As the PSLE Johnny does quite well enough thanks to the tips his tuition teachers gave him. But he fails to make the cut to get into an elite "independent" school. His father being an alumnus of the said school and a big donor, talks to a few friends of his on the school's board and its administration, and they find an extra seat for Johnny in their incoming Express class. With their brand spanking new computer labs and enough equipment for every child, young Johnny discovers that he has a flare for computers. His parents are supportive and send him to computer class outside of school. At the same time they find him tutors for his other weaker subjects. Johnny doesn't have the right grades on his provisional exams to provisionally get into the JC with a strong computing program. Dad gets a few friends to write letters to that JC and along with some wealthy friends of his, donates a new chandelier for the JC's new performance annex. So Johnny finds himself at the JC for his first three months. Johnny does well for his O levels at age 16. Thanks once again to rote learning and exam taking strategies from his tutors.At age 18 Johnny exels and does well on his A levels, also with some help from his tutors. He serves NS and leaves at age 21. His father sends him to the US to learn at one of the best schools in the world (which Johnny of course qualified for on his own, he's like Timmy now, very well motivated). And Johnny enters the workforce at age 25 with a BSc summa cum laude. Three years later Johnny gets a new colleague by the name of Timmy.I know. This is a long illustration, but i'm trying to show that having wealthy parents can make a difference between children of the same calibre who discover themselves later in life. Of course I exaggerate alot, and I also leave out a lot of things like friends and influences. If Timmy had gotten demoralised along the way he'd not have gone all the way. Or if Johnny sucked so much that all of his daddy's money and friends couldn't save him.Coming from an upper-middle class family will definetely afford you more opportunity than coming from a poorer family. Coming from a filthy rich family ups the ante even more in your favour. I should know, I come from an upper-middle class family. I always accepted my grades and did the best i could with the grades i had gotten (through my own sheer lack of motivation), even opposing my parents at times. I remember when I was a kid, I did well enough in my PSLE and missed the "Advanced" stream cut off by 3 points (which actually is a good thing for me, my Chinese sucked ass). I went back to my old school, because I felt loyalty and also wanted to stick by my friends. My parents wanted me to go to ACS. They had actually secured a place for me there. Thank goodness I passed up on Slytherin ACS. I remember I told them squarely that I would not budge, and they gave way (I suspect because I appealed to my dad's sense of history; he's an alumnus of my old school).At my provisional grades, I could have gotten into Catholic Junior College (which was where I wanted to go), but my parents once again secured a place for me at a "better" Junior College. I seriously didn't want to go, but when you're 17 and your parents threaten to cut off your allowance, there's little choice here. So off I went and thankfully I got a good enough O level grade where my parents didn't have to pull those strings to keep me there. Those two years were kind of miserable years.Is it necessarily fair? No, not really. Is it meritocratic? To an extent. Like KT man says, it does offer children from poorer households the opportunity if they are properly motivated or just naturally talented. It's exactly like the Imperial Chinese bureaucracy at the national level (local level appointments are different). Rich families were the ones who could afford to train their sons, but sometimes poor villages (yes it took a whole village) would sponsor one child and the child would suceed.The deck is naturally stacked in the favour of the rich, simply because they can get access to better educational resources, be it schools, computers or tuition. I know it's not entirely meritocratic, since I am a beneficiary of "influence" and know of other cases where that happens.In life there are winners and losers, economics makes that very clear. The goal is to make it so that the gains outweigh the losses , so as to create a net positive effect for society as a whole. Education is Singapore is far more equal than education in the US. The deck is less stacked against the poor in Singapore than it is in the US. Part of it has to do with the fact that alot of tertiary education in the US is private, while in Singapore they are all subsidised. Another has to do with the lack of uniformity in control of education in the US, as opposed to Singapore. So the education, and consequently, wealth gap in the US increases, while Singapore's sort of hovers along or even decreases (I am at this time too lazy to call up data from the last 4 census years to prove that fact).As for old boys' network, I tend to think that Singapore schools are not as good in that when compared with US schools. The networking here is amazing. Singaporeans are still learning the ropes of networking and alumni relations. In the US, I am constantly reminded of my fraternal links (with my fraternity) and also where i went to school (my alma mater). My current school even posts job listings on its listserv so that both graduated and graduating students can find jobs. The theory is to help us do as well as we can possibly do, and that in turn will serve the school's reputation. It'll also help when it comes around to ask for alumni donations.So if you're poor and live in Singapore, your one great hope of climbing up the social ladder is to do well in school or marry up (if you know a rich heiress let me know). Martyn See's Singapore Rebel: A Review Today I finally had an opportunity to sit down and watch Martyn See's Singapore Rebel (you can visit his blog here). I find that overall it was a well produced documentary, which provided information that is usually unavailable to the general public, Singaporean or otherwise.I do have a few things to comment about the short film though (note: this is about the documetary and the way it was done, not neccessarily about the politics). The introduction voice did not seem to fit the documetary well. It sounded too comical, and too whimsical; it did not create the proper mood for the viewer (namely me). Otherwise I think with a more sombre voice the intro is great.I am especially interested in the use of the family several times throughout the 26 minute film. It is interesting to bring in the family and try to humanise the person that is so often demonised in the Singapore media. However I feel that the family is used too much in the film. It would have been nice to see Dr Chee going around talking to ordinary Singaporeans or on a walkabout (like the ones that WP and NSP do every now and then), to see the political animal at work.My biggest problem with the film is that it is uncritical of its subject. I would have liked some hard questions answered. Like his tussle with Chiam See Tong for SDP leadership, and why he courts foreign political organisations more than forging local alliances. I would think a fair and balanced documentary would have helped me understand Dr Chee as a politician better. From my view point the documentary is the exactly like the Straits Times' PAP coverage, just slanted towards Dr Chee.I did enjoy the film immensely, it's just that as a historian and assessing the the film as a primary document, I would have wanted more. Perhaps I am too demanding as a researcher or perhaps I am biased due to my disagreement with Dr Chee's proposals (essentially a more socialist state with welfare, higher taxes and a higher minimum wage), but throughout the film there was a nagging voice in my head.Overall I would give the short film a 3 out of 5. High School High Inspired by Chem Gen and my old guest article to The Void Deck, I've decided to write a short piece about my impressions of Singapore's blogsphere.I've come to think of the Blogsphere like a high school. There are all sorts...The Bitch Queens - We all know there are a few of them out there. They tend to hurl insults at everything and everyone.The Ah Bengs - You know they like to use profanities and complain about their everyday life and see how much of a "gangster" they can be.The tech geeks - All they ever talk about are technology matters. That's it.The pretty darlings - yeah we've got tons of those too. Pictures everywhere and loving the attention. (some of them can be Bitch Queens too)The ordinaries - you know the kind you always see in a movie or tv show just filling space walking the halls. Yeah... They have their own worries and troubles, but stay out of the spotlightThe info traders - these people post information about everything going on in the school and outside world.The serious folks - that would be the more serious bloggers. worrying about bigger things and really trying to tweak the system...I'm sure we can think up of more categories but here's the basic list. Feel free to add more if you like in the comments.Also as a sidenote, there is a difference between a cycnic and a skeptic. A cynic knows that the system is flawed but gives up thinking that it's the way things are. A skeptic knows that the system is flawed, but believes that it can get better. =) Drugs and Punishment So here's my take on the whole drug issue, or if you like some policy tweaking we can undertake.(1) The Death PenaltyI agree that the death penalty should be left in place, but it shouldn't be manatory. There should be a whole range of penalties, with the death penalty being saved as the tool of last resort. Sort of like the A Bomb of punishment. Sort of like murder. This gives our judges wider discretion when dealing with specific cases. So we don't have to kill a person who was blackmailed into carrying drugs from one point to another.(2) Stopping SupplyOutside of just hanging runners, there can be a much better way to curb supply. More policemen, more vigilance and alot more catching would work. Just as Mr Wang puts it.We could also work with the Thai authorities and try to curb some of flow. And maybe secretly spy on the Burmese, especially since Western intelligence agencies would have a harder time getting in. We could help spy on anti-narcotic missions and perhaps stop the flow of drugs from the Golden Triangle.Work with our ASEAN neighbours to stem the tide of these drugs. Explain to the producing nations that it is in the interest of the region to eradicate the supply.Also work with Interpol to stop known drug dealers from coming through. I believe we can do these things without too much hassle(3) Stopping demandEducation is a big part. Singapre's anti-drug education relies solely on scare tactics. Maybe it could also talk about the economic and social consequences. As for punishment, I think it should play a secondary role to rehab. Concentrate on rehab and have a system in place whereby former addicts are kept under tabs, so as to prevent them from returning to the drug. Usually integration into a group or community helps stem the return to drugs. Drug users tend to be drawn to drugs because they need to "fill a hole" in their lives. A community of some sort can help them fill some of the gaps. Also attaching a counsellor to the former user, and mandating a check every few months might work to curb use.Recreational drug users may be a harder problem to deal with. They have the money and the means to travel elsewhere to get their drugs. Again I advocate an ASEAN wide sort of initiative. Work together to address the drug problem. Companies should be encouraged to carry out random drug tests and an initial drug test before hiring. This practise is already carried out in the US, and I know some recreational drug users quit using drugs because they start working and cannot afford to use these drugs if they want to hold on to their good jobs.I also suggest much harsher punishments for repeat offenders under the new system. I believe that after all the help and guidance, there is a relapse, the person should stay longer in rehab prison, so as to assure that the user is more throughly cut off from supply and detoxed once again. Put him on a closer inspection regime and psychological help. Alot of addiction is mental. Perhaps the limit should be 5 times before much harsher action should be taken (which I do not know what harsher punishment should be meted out, but death might work as a deterrent for repeats) In all honesty I believe the death penalty to be a demand deterrent currently (makes us scared to even try), but better policing could lead to a supply fall as well. Working with our neighbours would help reduce supply further. And a more intensive rehab program with much more resources put to post-release integration would help tons. The Sound of Music Pianist Melvyn Tan defers public appearance after National Service furoreSo I guess he's decided that stirring up a hornets' nest is not the way to go about. He has sympathies from Molly, MP Man, Mr M and KT man. But not mine...Melvyn let me give you some advise, from one man to another... You make the bed you sleep in. It was you who chose to skip National Service to further your career. You don't have to give some sob story about causing an uproar. I know all three of my godbrothers returned home to serve NS. Despite the fact that they all lived overseas prior to returning and my godparents reside in HK. They all put aside their careers for one moment to do what all us poor Singaporean men must do. Right now my oldest godbro is at Sembawang Music heading purchasing. My second godbro is at the Ministry of Manpower (whom I like to affecitonately call MOM), and my youngest godbro is in HK getting an MBA.So Melvyn what do you think? I also know some family friends who fled Singapore to avoid NS. He married a Singaporean despite being an Australian, but he also seldom sets foot in Singapore. He and his parents made a choice. You and your parents made that same choice. Don't play the victim. Real men take real responsibility for their actions. I myself cannot play the piano, because of an accident sustained in the military, but also because I was more of a bookworm-ish nerd than a music nerd. I cannot say I enjoyed my time in the military, but I did what was my responsibility. At 18 I learnt the key to being a man; I had to make a decision and stuck to it. Just like you. We both deal with the consequences. Don't blame anyone else when people don't like you. You made that decision so many years ago, now you live with the consequences of those decisions.It really didn't bother me that you skipped NS. I mean you made a choice, and I cannot fault you since you became a good pianist (I personally don't really listen to piano music unless its in an orchestra). What bothers me is this childish stunt and "martyrdom" that you try to paint. I seldom get peeved, but that's BULLSHIT. Deal with it man. You want to play your music for Singapore, then do so. Mozart kept at it even though there was a point people didn't like him. Jerry Lee Lewis played to small audiences, to hostile audiences, simply because he believed in his music.This evading of responsibility, whether NS or a concert, looks to me like a pattern. A pattern of irresponsibility. My mother raised me to be a responsible person and NS drove that home to me. "Do anything you want, just don't get caught," was the first motto I ever learnt in the Army (2nd day of BMT). My mother would add, "and if you get caught, be a man and face the music." Get this straight, I don't dislike you for skipping NS, I dislike you because you're such a wussy crybaby. A gentleman never goes back on his word. If you agreed to perform a concert, go ahead and perform it. This is Singapore. What are you afraid of? It's not like people are going to be allowed to picket, and if they pay money to go in and jeer you, at least you made their money, and the ushers will see them out soon. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." Melvyn why do you let other people's words hurt you? Why are you acting like a petulant child? Be a man and suck it in. Perform. Show Singapore just how good a musician you are. Music does sooth the savage beast. And if the beast is public opinion then let your music flow to sooth it. Stop being the coward and hiding behind the pillar of "victimhood." Show me that you're as brave as any young Singaporean man serving his time in NS. Our penalty was having to go through 2 (or 2 1/2 in my case) years of mindless tasks and the possibility of getting hurt, yours should be to play before a hostile audience. We all had to carry our burden and crosses, why are you such a coward? A little sign of trouble and you run. There are many people who want to hear you play. Be a man and play. Stop being a nancy boy. On the Death Penalty So lately quite a number of folks have talked about the death penalty, so I figured I'd put in my two cents...I believe that to have or not have the death penalty stems from the belief that the prison system is either for revenge or reform. Therein lies the answer to the death penalty. If it's for revenge (retribution) in the vein of Hammurabi's lax talionis, then the death penalty is the answer. If, however, we believe that humanity is essentially good, then criminals are merely creatures of their circumstance. This would call for long prison sentences and reformation programs.Also there is a need to take into account the philosophy behind man's nature. The Chinese Legalists believed that men are inherently evil, along with Mencius, so a strict adherence to the law and rather draconic laws will prevent the general populace from slipping into anarchy. Confucius, along with most mainstream Christians, believe that man is inherently good, and must look towards (or back to) a Golden Age where we realise our full potential as humans.The death penalty is the state's right in the monopolisation of violence. When nation-state's were formed, they assumed that monoply of violence in a social contract with the citizenry. The prison system was for punishment and not reformation, hence the death penalty was an accepted form of punishment. In the Progressive age and Victorian Britain, prisons began to be looked at as tools of reformation and not merely for reformation. It is from this philosophy that stems the opposition to the death penalty.So where do we go from here? I essentially believe that the criminal justice system is one of revenge as well as reform. Petty thieves and purse snatchers are most likely victims of circumstance and given the proper guidance, can become functioning members of society, as long as we work towards helping them escape their former situation. On the other hand we have murderers and drug traffickers. I honestly believe that murderers should be hung. For no other reason than revenge. Some have pointed out that this affects the murderer's family, but it also affects the murdered's family. I truly belief that taking a life means forfeiting one's own right to life.Drug traffickers should not be hung. In fact I have argued for the decriminalisation of non-opiad drugs. I believe a long sentence is punishment enough. Similarly for drug users, I believe rehabilitation and a short prison term would help. Perhaps we can adopt a "three strikes" system for drug trafficking to balance the need for punishment and the need for reform. So if you're caught the third time, then it's the gallows for you.The death penalty is one outcome of the state's monopoly on violence. I believe that state's have a right to it. I also believe that certain crimes are punishable by death. I tend to agree that if you take a life, it is expected that yours is forfeit.It is a considerable dilemma, that even the Catholic Church deals with. Although the last pope opposed the death penalty, the Church has always upheld a state's right to use the death penalty if it believes in it. White Elephants... So everyone's talking about it... I want one too... White Elephant T-shirtThis is a brilliant idea... Wonderful job girls...You know if I ever started an NGO or CSO I would love to adopt that white elephant as a logo...The Society of White Elephants...Yeah... That would be a good one... Also very smart with the whole marketing campaign...Kudos to you all!You know this is very interesting... Perhaps even telling of how our society is evolving... When formal routes of dissent (or disagreement, depends on who you talk to) are blocked off (like in Turkey) other forms of dissent appear. Humour tends to be a key area of focus.The original person who put up the White Elephant actually took a light-hearted approach to a serious problem. That's usually what happens in Turkey too. Since there are little alternate avenues for dissent, the only option is to crack jokes at the situation. You can't really fight the system since it's all-pervasive, but you can learn to cope with it. After all laughter is the best medicine.It also sure beats just complaining about it. Since you're actually doing something about it. I suppose this is a step up from Rockson who can be humourous at times, but I doubt it's really intellectual humour. It's more the Phua Chu Kang sort of humour that relies on stereotypes (in this case the Ah Beng) and being crude. Generally I prefer Molly Meek, with her rapier wit. Sarcasm still lives!Humour exists in most societies, and unlike the high minded and sophisticated that some of my fellow bloggers use in their arguments. Simply wit and humour works far better when the political discourse is taken to a wider audience. Sometimes I get really tired of reading highly intellectual pieces by the early Chinese intellectuals, since there's a lot of theory that gets thrown around. I even zone out when my friends start using Foucault and what not... I prefer simple ideas to theory (they usually catch on faster, like this White Elephant).I wonder if the White Elephant will become the symbol of quiet opposition. Not of opposition for opposition's sake, but a mature disagreement. Perhaps our own "White Elephant" Reformation? I seriously doubt the PAP could ban all images of a White Elephant without some chuckles from the world audience and looking too draconian.I'm also sure the Republicans here in the US might find it amusing that another Elephant has emerged as a political symbol.Of course this is all speculation. It could just be a passing fad and will wilt away with time. I for one would love to keep this alive. So I suppose I shall borrow a leaf from our other bloggers and start a "White Elephant" Meme. If you're with me on the idea that there can be a responsible polity in Singapore, which is not merely oppositional, but rational and pragmatic, then join me by putting the white elephant symbol on your blog (with permission from the girls, if you read this).I leave you with this... From their email to me (sorry for the slowness... writing a 2 page brief for Afghanistan... more work for 2 pages of briefing than a 15 page essay): A project brought to you by class 415 of Raffles Girls School (Secondary) HOW IT ALL STARTED There was a recent incident in which eight white elephants made out of cardboard were placed at the Buangkok MRT station on the North-East Line by some residents to convey their views on how the station is still as yet closed. This issue sparked off a huge debate amongst Singaporeans, not to mention provoked much interest in the closure of the station, the subsequent acts taken by the government, and expressing the views of Singaporeans in general. Our class has always taken a strong interest in current affairs and this in particular caught our attention. We are not embarking on this project to judge the act in any way; rather we feel that it brought a very important issue – effective, reasonable ways of airing one’s views – to prominence. Thus we were inspired to spontaneously start this initiative in an effort to promote active participation in citizenship, which we believe would eventually lead to a more open, participative society. OUR BELIEFS The capacity to which our society can grow is immeasurableIncreased communication between the government and the people is essential for society to improve and progress as a whole, and lead to a more participative and united societyCitizens should bear in mind the responsibility of keeping to legal boundaries while expressing their viewsPolitical maturity is essential to the concept of active citizenship OUR AIMS FOR THIS PROJECT To push for the concept of a more open, participative society in which people can discuss and air their views in an intellectual and insightful manner, bearing in mind the need to adhere to the law while doing so. Galvanize the youths of today to rise up from the apathy they are stereotyped with and take an active role in airing their views, as well as participate actively in the molding of our societyTo raise funds for Youth Guidance, a charity organization which works with the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Police in mentoring and reaching out to youths at risk. For more information on the organization, please see the section titled “About Youth Guidance” below.To ultimately help create a more participative, united society where everyone has a part to play in active citizenship THE CONTEXT OF THE “WHITE ELEPHANT” IN OUR PROJECT We would like to remind the public that even though the White Elephant has become our mascot and symbol for the project, we are in no way attempting to judge or condone the Buangkok MRT incident. Rather, we are using the accidental fame of the elephants to spark interest in our project; they also serve as a reminder that legal boundaries are important and should be adhered to even while expressing one’s views and opinions about political issues. Christianity in Singapore Our Christian jihadistsI hope you don't think I am singling out yawning bread for attacks, but I find the arguments to be somewhat unconvincing. They just sound like angry diatribe.Fristly let's look at Islam and Christianity. They are by their very nature proselytizing religions. They seek to convert. So of course a certain amount of attempting to convert happens. I generally think most Singaporeans from the traditional Christian denominations don't come across as being overly forceful. Also these religions naturally hold that there is a Truth beyond mere truths. There is anunbending, unyielding Truth, that does not change. And in it holds the moral compass of life. This is as far as I understand the two religions.I want to make a few arguments. If the child is in a Christian school, then don't complain if Christianity is taught. Don't go to that school, there are tonnes of non-Christian schools out there. I do agree that the teacher should be more cautious about preaching her religion to young impressionable minds. As teachers our first and foremost goal is to give a variety of opinions and let young minds make that decision themselves. So there I agree with the author.Here's my take on the Boys' Brigade and Scouts. The scouts are less religious by nature. It wasn't designed with religion in it. It may have been influenced by Anglo-Saxon values which have Protestanism in it, but then again Capitalism (as Weber argues) also has protestant roots. The Boy's Brigade however has a religious dimension to it, like St John's Ambulance Brigade. I mean if you really feel that your child shouldn't touch anything remotely Christian, I would argue that they should transfer immediately to the National Cadet Corp or the National Police Cadet Corp. That has not religious inclinations at all.As for the doctor... That doctor is silly. If he did work in the government hospital, then I think he overstep the line. If he was in private practise, then all I can say is don't visit him again. Trying to legislate religion goes against my belief that government in private lives should be kept to the minimum. Why should the state tell religions what they can and cannot do? Already there is government regulation regarding Christians spreading their faith to Muslims, so now they should be regulated on all other faiths and races? My theory is just avoid them. If they act in a public authority then they must keep the proselytizing out of their work, but if they are in private practise, businees or in a Christian school, then they have every right to talk about their faith. I would expect no less from a Muslim school.Why do the people of Singapore keep asking the government to nanny them? Do it yourself. Just ignore the Christians. I mean if they keep coming back call the cops and say they are harassing you. If you told them politely once to back off, they have been warned. This is a matter of privacy not anti-religion. I mean if Christians have no right to impose their beliefs on you, then what give you a right to impose your anti-Christian beliefs on them? Quid pro quo. Just ignore each other. I get approached by Mormons frequently, and I tend to tell them I am not interested and they tend to leave me alone. I mean I am a cultural Catholic so I do know the arguments and theology of my own denomination as well as of others, including those of Islam.I do agree that the teacher did overstep her bounds though. Bad teacher. Teaching is about providing opposing facts and letting young minds make their own decision about the world. Leave the teaching of religion to the churches. However on the Boys Brigade and Christian schools, I've made it quite clear that they are Christian by design, so if you don't like it go elsewhere. You can't have your cake and eat it. The doctor is just a silly little man, I cannot help but laugh. And I feel more sorry for the man with the cancer relapse. Maybe the doctor just wanted to pray since there was no hope... Who knows... That one is just plain funny. Homosexuality in Singapore The government is not homophobic, the Prime Minister saysI honestly believe that the government is somewhat homophobic. Not in the sense that members of the ruling party are homophobic, but their policies are.I can understand their policy of not wanting to upset the vast majority of the population. Politicians tend to pre-empt public opinion. We see that too often in Britain and the US. Similarly in Singapore all the politicians are trying to do is get re-elected.While I believe that government interference in people's personal lives should be kept to the minimum. I disagree with the writer of the above article on several points.I do not think the Christian minority is the only group trying to foist their believes on the entire population. I do believe that Muslims also feel that way. Together that's roughly 30% of the population, let's say half of them are strongly against homosexuality. I don't even know how many conservative non-Christian Chinese and Indians are out there. So let's put it at 10% of the population (and that's making the numbers very small). So roughly 25% of the population would balk at this. Now let's look at the pro-gay population. I doubt gays amount to more than 5% of the population, and their allies wouldn't be more than 10% of the population (and I am being very generous on this end). That makes 15% of the population. Which leaves the remaining 65% as the silent majority. They either don't care or don't want to talk about it. As a politician it would almost seem like the best thing to do is play to the larger group, the anti-gay coalition than the pro-gay coalition. Just because that immediately gaurantees you 25% of the vote. Of course Singaporean elections are not usually a single-issue race, so the other 65% will be won by other means.As to comparing Thaipusam to the Nation. That's a logical stretch. One is religious and another is a lifestyle choice. Unless you're going to tell me being gay is a religion. Banning Thaipusam just because it is barbaric would mean that other religious holidays may have to go too. Ramadan can be seen as unhealthy if you want. Fasting all day and then stuffing yourself at night and before sunrise. Some Chrisitans would also have to be forced to stop fasting during Lent. Religion and lifestyle choices are two different things. So to should parades and parties. There's enough moral outrage at straight parties, gay parties would evoke even greater outrage from the moral police. Personally I think if gays want a party they should. What I dislike is the argument that the writer of the article is making. Let each approach his fate the way he feels most comfortable with. To think that Thaipusam is barbaric is to fall into the same trap that makes people think homosexuality is unnatural. Small, narrowminded and parochial.Personally if gays want to get married, I say let them. They can deal with all the hassles of marriage and divorce. Many gays I know here in the US are anti-marriage. They are unhappy that a vocal few are spoiling their image. Some fo course are more unhappy that liberals are using them as a way to win votes in elections. The gay men I personally know (all 3 of them) think that marriage is bad for them. They don't want to deal with hassles of a divorce (instead of a breakup, which can be bad enough), and all the pressures to get married that their partners could put on them if gay marriage was allowed.I think that to be fair though, if gays can get married (hence removing the argument that the state should regulate marriage) then polygamy and polyandry should also be allowed. It seems like the logical step. After all judegements on monogamy are also made from a moralistic point of view. Again I say if a man or woman wants to have more than one spouse, go for it. One woman is more than I can handle without going nuts.But I think the majority of Singapore's population is not ready to accept gays in the open. It's just not ripe. Even the proposal to allow single people of the same sex to purchase HDB flats if they are over a certain age met with some moral indignation. So allowing gays in the open would cause a massive amount of social displeasure. Furthermore, it should be noted that looking at our last census, Christians (I include Catholics of course) do form a large bulk of the middle to uppermiddle income bracket. Economic clout translates to political clout. It's the same reason that gays in the US have so much clout. They have economic clout. They are largely the uppermiddle class and they fought hard. Alot of their opponents tend not to be drawn from the uppermiddle but the lowermiddle class. Economic power. It helps move the debate.I think the gays in Singapore are asking for the sky before they've won the ground. You've had little successes here and there. You may have fought hard or not at all for it. It seems each time the government gives a little, it has been with little pressure from gays in Singapore. That's just my impression. Fight the little battles first. Fight the cultural battles, not the political one. Lest it becomes tyranny of the minority over the majority. Find allies. You may not all agree on gay marriage, but if you agree that the governments job is not to moralise issues then fight that battle first. The Civil Rights movement was people finding common ground to tackle the problem. It will disspate when the goal is met, but at least you're one step closer. Something interesting to think about Article 22I of the ConstitutionRestraining order under Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act22I. The President, acting in his discretion, may cancel, vary, confirm or refuse to confirm a restraining order made under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (Cap. 167A) where the advice of the Cabinet is contrary to the recommendation of the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony.This is interesting because I remember that there was a question on why the racist bloggers were not charged under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act...Quorum56. If objection is taken by any Member present that there are present (besides the Speaker or other Member presiding) fewer than one-quarter of the total number of Members and, after such interval as may be prescribed in the Standing Orders of Parliament, the Speaker or other Member presiding ascertains that the number of Members present is still less than one-quarter of the total number of Members, he shall thereupon adjourn Parliament.This is interesting too. We only need 25% of Parliament to be there to pass laws. So in the event that a small part of the parliament wanted to enact laws they could technically prevent 75% of our lawfully elected representatives from appearing. Now that sucks. It technically means 25% of our citizens could get what they want over 75% of the rest of us. Whatever happened to tyranny of the majority?Interestingly enough our constitution does not state who has the power to make war. I suppose it is the President. The monarch traditionally holds the power to make war and is the traditionaly commander of the troops. The head of state i suppose is invested with all powers of the executive unless otherwise stated by law. So I suppose the President can make war without the consent of parliament, plus he is the commader in chief of our armed forces. We swear allegiance to him when we enter National Service.Just some interesting things while looking over the constituion of Singapore. Something to read US State Department, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Report on Human Rights Practices 2004SingaporeReporters without borders Press Freedom Index 2004(we ranked 147 out of 167)Singapore census Racism rears its ugly head I've heard and read the news. 3 people so far have been charged under the seditions act. Interesting use of the law. I'm sure they could have been charged under a different set of laws meant at keeping racial harmony.Race is a touchy subject in Singapore. And although I wrote my thesis on identity, education and nationalism in Malaya after World War 2, I know well enough to steer clear of those issues here.Everyone is implicitly racist. I don't think anyone can really deny that. I don't think we're prone to violence against other races, but I do believe that we hold certain prejudiced views and stereotypes about other races. It goes the same with other nationalities and so forth. The division of "US" and "THEM" has been around for quite a long time. The fact that there is a line drawn in the send means there will be half-truths, rumours and half-baked ideas about "THEM".I'm glad though that these men are being prosecuted under the fullest extent that the laws allow. I'm also quite surprised that the government didn't invoke the Internal Security Act to take care of those racists.I do believe that bloggers are a little scared right now and are unsure on what exactly to blog about. Well we could stick to the usual mundane crap, or we can continue doing what we've been doing. The one thing I realised in life is that you can do anything you want, just be responsible when the debts are called in. If you want to be an open flaming racist, by all means, just becareful when they come knocking on your door.I also agree on the principle of "my right to do anything goes only as far as it does not impede your right to do something." Free speech can only go so far. We cannot be allowed to say anything we want. BUT (here's my caveat) if you truly and wholly believe in it, like those racists, then be my guest and go ahead. I disagree with you and I will debate you, and I'll even be happy when they take you away.Hate does not have a place in our modern society and civilisation. Understanding is the only way to overcome fear and hate. Remember what Yoda said, "Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering..." And usually the root cause of fear is the unknown, because we do not understand we fear. And so ignorance is the root of fear. We are most afraid when we do not know. If we possesed the full knowledge of the "other," then we would have less to fear.So remember folks, if you hate, then look at the deeper causes. Because somewhere down there is just plain ignorance. Don't hate, Educate yourself. Privacy on the Web So I argued with my girlfriend tonight over the issue of internet privacy and if Tomorrow.sg has a right to post very personal posts on their meta-blog. Of course it became a heated argument and it devolved into other issues that she was not happy with, but that is of no consequence here.I have several thoughts on this issue.(1) Is publishing your thoughts on a blog, website or internet forum a copyrighted matter?Well if someone publishes a memoir offline, copyrights apply insofar as we cannot reproduce more than a chapter or 10% of the book whichever comes first. But I can quote someone on something he has written or published. Like say for example "Hummingbird, J, The Life and Times of a Simple Man, Silly Press, 1999"So herein lies the question. Is posting something you read about online an infringement of that person's privacy? Especially if you linked them on your site.I personally feel if you gave credit to them, it's ok to mention them. I mean a link is like a citation. In fact in scholarly works, taking something off the internet requires you to put in the URL in place of a traditional citation.(2) Blogs are private spaces.Handwritten diaries are private spaces. Blogs are private insofar as you can set up password protections and limit who you tell about them. I have a friend who has a private blog which I promise not to spread. But if someone comes across it, likes it and posts it, there's little I can do about that.The internet is a public sphere. Governments argue about how to regulate it or how not to regulate it simply because it is a beast of information freeflow.Anything you put online is open to public scrutiny. Scholars have been passed from hiring if they blogged intellectual works that may not seem scholarly at all. My friend was told to shut down his blog if he wanted to be hired by the company, and he did so immediately.Writing can be a way to work out demons. Whatever they are. But if you right it on the web, you know people are bound to come across it.(3) Privacy must be respected.Yes it must. We should not badger someone too much on what they commented. Or spam them or hack into their sites. That would be wrong. And if it is password protected but we had the honor of reading it and we think the world should know, then we should seek permission to get it shared.Then again as a blogger myself and having to deal with my fair share of hate comments (which usually outweigh the nice comments on this blog), when you do something so public, you should expect to be read and commented upon.I mean if a site is password protected then it is extremely wrong to hack into it to read it. It is also wrong to steal a diary and break the lock to read it. But if the person leaves the diary in the library everyday without a lock, then you cannot blame someone for reading it and posting a comment in the margins.(4) It's a very private matterIf it's that private why write about it on a public forum. Write it down in an offline diary or journal or protect it. If it's protected and you friend posted about it, then maybe you shouldn't be friends with someone who would violate your personal wishes. Same with a friend who tells someone else your deep dark secret.I suspect we write because we want an audience or we have an audience. And if you really were raped and wrote about it on your blog, you know you've got it coming. Writing is a good way to excorcise demons and I do it often, but I also do it offline. I don't want people to be reading my private thoughts.(5) I want to protect it but I don't know howI'm not sure either. Try blogsome or get your own server. These sites would protect your work and allow you to limit those who can read you. Or ask other bloggers who password protect their entires, I'm sure they'll share.(6) Writing is soothing and helps meWrite away, but do it offline or not on the internet. No matter how much you protect it people can get to it if it's somewhere on the web. There are loopholes everywhere. I mean even offline diaries and journals are susceptible to theft by little brothers who have nothing else to do, or overworried parents.Writing something down is a risk we take. Federal judge nominees face scrutiny on their past writings. Academics face huge scrutiny on their past works. I mean anything we write down could be left to posterity. And it can always come back to haunt us. A private diary is unlikely to haunt us, but then again some famous men have had their private diaries scrutinised long after they have died.ConclusionSo here's my point, if you put something deemed so private on a public forum, then you cannot blame someone if he posts it on his site. It is not an infringement of intellectual property rights if he properly credits it to you.It is a violation of your privacy, but that was the risk you took when you posted on a public forum. No two ways about it. You can ask for it to be taken down and if he refuses, again there is nothing much you can do about it. It isn't libel or slander since you wrote it yourself. It isn't intellectual theft, because he properly accredited it to you. Best way to avoid this is to password protect it or not write online about it.As a final thought on the matter...(7) Should the editors of Tomorrow.sg practise some standards and respect other people's privacy?I suppose they could. But we can't force them either. They're a meta-blog, they set out to trawl the net to find things that are worth reading. If you're private thoughts are worth reading because they are profound thoughts or because it is sensational, then they'll post it.The judegement as to whether or not they should sensationalise their site is entirely theirs to make. I mean we can boycott them if we think they've crossed the line too many times. It's the same reason why I don't read the New Paper because they're nothing more than a tabloid.Are there ethical and moral issues involved, yes there is, but we cannot assume to hold everyone to high standards. To post something is a judgement call, and if it's out there in the open, we assume that they're ok if someone read it. And so as long as we properly credit it, we're good on IPR.So I leave this issue as it is, a seemingly unsolvable mess. Who's right in this respect is diffcult to say. My only advise is not to post private matters online, it'll see the light of day eventually. Putting such thoughts online is asking for attention whether conciously or subconciously, when you get it, don't be upset if it is negative. Deal with the consquences of your actions like an adult and not a petulant child, most of our problems are self-inflicted not someone else's fault.tomorrow.sg Live8 Petition The 8 most powerful leaders in the world 50,000 people are dying, needlessly, every day of extreme poverty. At this year's G8 summit meeting, it is within your power to put an end to this tragedy. It is an extraordinary opportunity which it would be shameful to ignore. We urge you to take these 3 steps to make extreme poverty history... double the aid sent to the world's poorest countries,fully cancel their debts,change the trade laws so that they can build their own future. I think that's stupid. The bleeding heart leftists should really give up. Oh and they can take their brainless celebs with them. Let us more practical leftists, centerists and rightists take care of the serious stuff, go play with your bong and theorize on how the Man keeps everyone down over a cup of coffee.Here's why poverty cannot be eradicated with this petition:Point 1: To double aid taxes must be increased in rich countries. So the poor folk in the G8 nations get screwed into paying more taxes to help other poor folk. So how is poverty alleviated again? If we don't raise money through taxation then we have to use government bonds. Which means the good old USA goes more into debt. Yes, I know the G8 nations aren't always the biggest donors (I'm looking at the Scandinavian countries).Point 2: Fully cancelling their debt doesn't do much. Many poor countries also have corrupt and inefficient governments. They'll just get into more debt. When should we stop sending aid? So I get double the aid that I never have to pay back, why should I bother cleaning up my act? Take rich african nations who get rich on oil, their people are still poor. But their leaders are strangely enough filthy rich. Hmmmm...Point 3: this one makes the most sense. Many rich countries have protectionist laws, but so do many poor countries. Let's remove all barriers to trade and let the chips fall where they may. You know that this means that some poor countries may actually be driven out of business by more efficient producers, right? I assume when you say change trade laws you do mean ending the barriers to trade and subsidies. Unless you mean we'll pay them to be inefficient porducers. Hey more aid!So here's where I think whoever started this is a retard. The heart is there but the brain has been too damaged by all that pot smoking. Instead of doubling aid, how about restructuring aid so that it is unconditional? So instead of American aid only going to certain porjects or companies, how about letting the recieving nations make the decision. Also, send aid in the form that is needed. Instead of useless aid that has no real use in the recieving countries.How about these poor countries shape up their act. Get rid of their corrupt bureaucracies and over powerful armies. How about that? How about removing their so-called "tribalism" and regional loyalties? How about getting of aid all together. It's like Clintonian welfare reforms, if you can't find a job after a certain time, you're cut off.I agree reform the trade system. Scrap all subsidies and protectionist laws. Let inefficient producers die out (rich or poor nation doesn't matter). Let the consumers pay the full price instead of subsidised prices.One more suggestion how about we stop paying all these rock stars and movie stars so much. How about instead of buting their albums we send money to aid programs? There are alot of NGOs who do good work, although I must warn you they also have their own agendas and like to exaggerate issues for their own benefit. Their not as altruistic as you might assume. Remember everyone has an agenda. Yeah... So how about not wasting all this money putting on rock concerts which drain resources (think electricity, noise pollution, money, security) and putting that money into these poor nations.Oh yeah guess who's behind Live 8. Media companies. Ho ho... can you smell the advertising profits?Poor African nations, getting screwed over by big business. Come two months and you'll be forgotten yet again until some aging pop star decides that he needs to assuage his liberal guilt and boost his presence in the world again. I mean seriously why don't they just give you half of the millions they make each year? Not all, just 1/2. That'd be more aid than what some nations give, and with no strings attached. Plus I mean rich nation governments still need to keep their country and economies going. Bono only need at most a million dollars to survive. I mean most of us live on less than US$40,000 a year. So how about that mr rock star. you make at least a million a year. So how about you donate $500,000 every year?Wow! How about that. Stupid selfish fuck.Stupid bleeding heart leftists and their warped perception of the world. Impractical and absolutely stupid. GO smoke your weed man. And leave the real world to us. It's been a long time Hello folks. Sorry it's been a while. Graduating and moving house is not so easy. And then entertaining friends visiting is also very time consuming.Well I'm home and soaking up the rays. Deciding my future. I mean only two more years and I have to come back. Looking around and realising I don't quite like it here, but it isn't bad either.Nothing interesting on the news front lately. The sg bloggers are gearing up towards a convention. Maybe I will show face, but I am not sure which hat to wear. Seeing as how I have two faces. Like Janus.Slow news days lately. Nothing interesting. Home is boring. So far this is the best news I've heard. And by best I mean silliest. Sue OPEC? At which court? This is silly shit. Silly silly senators.Yup. Sorry. Slow news year. Ha ha... I mean the casino...erm... Integrated Resorts are going to be built so no point talking about that.Have a good week. Comments on Singapore Mr. McDermott has weighed in on what he thinks of the general Singapore blogsphere. I tend to agree to some extent. I wouldn't go as far as to call it infantile as to argue that their more whimsical and at time cynical. I cannot claim to have Mr McDermott's training in sociology, economics or anything else. I'm just a BA in history, but I can say from studying Turkey, Eygpt and other countries that have somewhat similiar situations like Singapore at one time or another, cynicism and humor are tools with which people oppose the state.I guess Yael Navaro-Yashin's book "Faces of the State: Secularism and Public Life in Turkey" is a good book which talks about this. Especially in chapter 5. Sometimes when the State is all pervasive, and there is no real action the citizens can take since they are in every way touched by the State, there is little recourse but to resort to cynicism and humor as tools to battle the state. I realised that Singaporeans do that alot. That's my defense for mr brown.As for Xiaxue, I point you to my contribution to the good brudders at The Voiddeck. I personally don't care for her. But I suppose she appeals to a group of Singaporeans who are younger and would prefer to concentrate on such trivial things. But that's my opinion. I believe Mr McDermott to be a little too harsh by dismissing Singapore's blogsphere as infantile. We're a little diverse right now, also a little lost. I believe the political blogs need to buck up and hold tight. We've done a good job so far, let's keep going. SM Goh Abroad Singapore is not a liberal democracy, says Goh Senior Goh Chok Tong wowwed his audience at a conference in London, by telling them that Singapore was not a liberal democracy and that we didn't have 'a totally independent' press. He was the keynote speaker at the Singapore Conference, attended by around 200 corporate leaders and part of a smorgasbord of events billed as the Singapore Season. Other events within the Singapore Season included arts performances, talks, and a food festival. The Straits Times described the Singapore Season as "the first concerted push by the Government to showcase Singapore art and culture abroad." -- same ST article as quoted below. One can assume that the Singapore Season was meant as a huge roadshow to give investors and potential knowledge expatriates a picture of Singapore that was not uniformly sterile or totalitarian, a very common image we have abroad. Goh was there to do his part. Here is the relevant portion from the second of the two Straits Times articles about the Singapore Conference, titled, 'Tiger beer, a musician and a whole lot of Singapore creativity'. This article summarised the question and answer session that followed Goh's keynote address: Along with the push to get the population to think out of the box, SM Goh said: 'On the political side, we must accommodate other creative views.' Responding to a question on whether Singapore is a democracy or a dictatorship, SM Goh said that Singapore is a democracy, but 'not a liberal democracy like in Britain or in the US'. There is an independent judiciary system, although the Government does not believe in 'a totally independent press', but one that was 'responsible'. The media in Singapore must reflect Singapore's interests, he said, repeating a point made by the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts in The Straits Times and Lianhe Zaobao forum pages recently. Foreign journalists hired by the Singapore media, for example, should represent Singapore's views, not that of their countries of origin, he said. -- Straits Times 16 March 2005 Taken from Yawning Bread That is a really obvious statement of course. Based on Fareed's article on Illiberal Democracy, we obviously know that we are an illiberal democracy. Although Fareed might not even but Singapore in that category. Sigh sigh... I thought he would have something more enlightening to say... Catching up on Singapore news Woah... Haven't read about the news from home in so long. Stupid ST (grumble grumble), but after reading Mr.Brown's March 10 SNE I am shocked.So some guy gets charged for cocaine possession but because he is rich he gets bail? And then is allowed to skip it? I assumed that being on bail requires you to get a passport? He just slipped through the cracks or crack for that matter? I mean seriously... I remember a while back that some guy who got charged for heroin possession kept trying to appeal for clememcy got denied over and over again. He wasn't asking to be free, just life imprisonment, and still kena hanged. WTF!?! Man it pays to be rich.Then the boss of Premier Taxi got away with the slap in the wrist for road rage. Wow. Amazing what money can buy in meritocratic Singapore.Once I cynically told my friends that the law is fair to both rich and poor. Both may not sleep under bridges, bed on the streets or steal to feed their starving children, but this is ridiculous. I understand that Singapore law bends to the one-who-must-not-be-named (otherwise I kena libel charges), but now it also bends over backwards for the rich. Sial lah... Our legal system is like a crack whore whole bend over and take it up the ass, as long as you can pay it. Wow. I am so disappointed in my homeland now. Kenneth Lay (of Enron fame)should have run PUB, at least he could have gotten away with it here. Just skip bail.Ha ha, SPH has a new megazine for youths called IN. I guess there's not enough space to add CAHOOTS. Man, if you're a young person, read singaporean blogs. That way you know the editorials are honest, true and do not have a government slant. Or so I would like you to think (long live the Emperor).After reading several SNE i have come to a conclusion that some Singaporeans are dumb. They direct questions about government policy to the ST instead of the departments themselves. Funny, but also telling that the department would probably give them the run around and that the ST is the government. Recommended book read Singapore Civil Society and British Power A good book review for what seems to be a good book. I should get my hands on it. :)