The Gay Suspicion When someone vehemently denies being gay or homosexual, the nature of his/her defence often tells a story about attitudes towards queer-ness.A strong vocal denial shows that being gay is a bad thing. Judging by the reactions of quite a number of straight men, and to a lesser extent straight women, being queer obviously has its disadvantages.So in order to salvage some heterosexual pride, these persons take offence to such insinuations and become defensive about these suggestions.While there is no denying that personal homophobia plays a large role in these averse reactions, we need to recognise that society plays a part in making "being gay" an undesirable thing.For a long time, gay-ness is seen as contrary to masculinity, although I believe there is proportionately more masculine gay men than straight men.To (be) identified as gay confers the person stigmatism, guilt and hatred. These tag along with the gay identity. The concept of sin and immorality figure in the guilt-trappings of the "gay" label, and because of this, it becomes almost natural for heterosexual men to quickly deny and discard the "gay" suggestion.The "hell no, I'm not gay" type of answers reveals the fact that the "gay" position occupies the lower rungs of society, and that there would follow a set of disincentives and disadvantages.My problem is not with the vehement denials or the persons who make these denials, but about how society has made queer-ness an undesirable identity trait.It is almost as if, given how we are socialised and how we will socialise, being queer makes people take you less seriously as a person, and subjects you to a truckload of misinformation.This is the proof that queer is being discriminated against. We obsess ourselves with misrepresentations and degrading portrayals of queer people, just to make our (hetero)sexuality an exclusive privilege.It does not help that there are a sizable number of people, especially the intelligent and educated, who believe that gay-ness can be transmitted and people will be converted to gay-ism. Based on this falsity of a myth, you will stand to lose support from friends and people will stay away from you just because there is the suggestion you are gay. Therefore, you are compelled to declare you are heterosexual. If not, you will probably not 'score' with the opposite sex.In the domain of celebrity gossip, we get stuff like "he/she's gay, you know?" as if such news would be grounds for a scandal. Here, gay-ness is scandalous. Why? Because society has made it negative and difficult to accept.Celebrities and other folks will also take issue with the gay suggestion, and see this as a threat to their reputation. Such a reaction/thinking shows that society does not generally accept queer folks.Why is the "gay" suggestion still so potentially damaging? Why do people care so much about making and receiving these rumours/suggestions?Even I get a bit angry at people who make the suggestion that I am gay or bisexual. And speaking from experience, my mind goes all over the place and I fear the repercussions should I not respond and declare that I am straight.The gay suspicion is a tool for demonising, because society has long portrayed and remember queer-ness as wrong.If all of us are open and accepting of people who identify as queer, the gay suspicion will cease to be offensive, demeaning or damaging.Like "bitch", "asshole" and other offensive words, the gay suspicion is just made dangerous by society. If we were not socialised into thinking that "bitch" is a negative profane word, people will not grow to be (hyper)sensitive and take the label as an offensive word.Somehow, I believe that the gay suspicion is integral to the formation of the heterosexual male identity. At least he has something to parade and defend. People will not normally emphasize their heterosexuality although some would enjoy representing themselves as hypermasuline. You need a little gay suspicion to put keep their heterosexual masculine machinery going.Nobody likes to be (negatively) discriminated against. And for those who receive lesser doses of discrimination, they should do their part to right some wrong and unjust thoughts and attitudes. Another songwriting competition The speaker of my 13-year old Electone Organ Yamaha EL 87 blew out during the recording process of the following song. Very distraught.There's this Youth Olympic Games songwriting contest and I've submitted an entry. Amazing, if participants are unable to perform their songs, they'll be disqualified. But I'm just a songwriter, not a performer. How am I supposed to perform? Cloning technology isn't as advanced as I would like it to be and I cannot possibly multiply myself just to perform a song I wrote. Tough.Worse, my EL 87 control menu is blurred. The signs of old age I guess. It is an expensive bit of equipment, costing about $15,000-$17,000 in 1996. I wonder if I should be getting this organ repaired, or just get a new keyboard that allows for the programming of drum/percussion tracks.If there's a songwriting competition every month that has a prize range of $2000-$5000, I'll be a professional songwriter! It's not about the money, but it is about the food, shelter, bills and savings.I've been in the musical closet for 16 years. When I started writing instrumentals at aged 9 or 10, I had dreams that I'll be a songwriter some day. But frequently got easily discouraged. The environment was a paper-chasing one and music was and is always relegated to just a mere hobby. In my late teens, I had brief meetings with Ken Lim and Clement Chow, and was even more discouraged by their honesty.I wasn't armed with the technology I have now, when Ken asked me to submit a demo. I thought of my low tech cassette tape recorder and mono sound quality, which I used to record my demos from the late 1990s till early 2003. In shame created for myself for myself, I decided not to do any demos, because I believed that I was a lousy songwriter.My dad brought me to City Music in Selegie in 2003, and we got the Zoom Multitrak Recording Studio MRS 1266 from Mike, this guy who played keyboards for Tokyo Square. It took about another 2 years before I got more savvy with the equipment.I've spent many years honing the craft of writing guitar-driven pop songs, with musical styles borrowed from Brit rock, emo, the local indie movement, and a bit of post-grunge. And here I am, still studying, pursuing a Masters degree, and telling myself I should be an academic. I guess there are passions that are more practical than others.It is a great shame that none of my songs get to see the light of day in my life time, so it's great there are songwriting competitions, which are good substitutes for a full-time career in the music industry, one that is being blighted by advances and changes in media technologies.I guess it is okay to be a part-time musician, and it is better to be that than never ever having tried to be one. So 2010 will be hopeful and potentially disappointing as I have 3 songs sent for 3 different causes.For this particular competition, I wrote the song entitled "Steps". I have to make it mainstream and ultra-cheesy. A good pop songwriter will know how to sell out and still write a catchy tune and have stamp his/her identity on the song. I believe I have. I've also taken many years to come to terms to the fact that I will never be original, and that is okay. This song has shades of Suede's "Stay Together", American Idol's "No Boundaries", Papa Roach's "Scars", and The Tears' "Beautiful Pain", songs which I've heard and admired. So consciously and unconsciously, they show in my song.The songwriting process took about 4 hours, the recording took about 6 hours. So that is about 10 man-hours put into a competition that has a maximum $1000 reward.I really hate the vocals. It's very flat, but I guess since I'm not a singer, I'll just try my best to keep in tune (which I can't sometimes). Hope you enjoy the song entry.http://singsingapore2010.nyc.sg/ (You know what to do - i.e. vote)Lyrics to "Steps":Dreams are made of no regretsThey're waiting for the braveTo start the dreaming nowDreams are reached with little stepsEveryone we take with faithSo don't give up nowDream on, believeWe all can have it worked outWe'll stand and say,"We always can"We're going all the wayWe'll soar, we'll flyWe'll make the steps todayTogether we all mayReach for the skyWe'll make the steps todayDreams are not a fight or raceThere are only steps to takeSo start the dreaming nowDreams are just a better placeThere are little steps to makeBefore we find ourselvesDream on, believeWe all can have it worked outWe'll stand and say,"We always can"We're going all the wayWe'll soar, we'll flyWe'll make the steps todayTogether we all mayReach for the skyWe'll make the steps todayWe start with a heartAnd though we\'re different facesWe're going many placesFor every dream we'll standWe all know that we canBecause we're made of dreamsWe're going all the wayWe'll soar, we'll flyWe'll make the steps todayTogether we all mayReach for the skyWe'll make the steps todayFor more of my songs, refer to:Songs from 1997-2003: http://www.myspace.com/samdrownerSongs from 2004 onwards: http://www.myspace.com/samho Singaporeans having a ball with cocks Maybe I am too sensitive, but I believe that many Singaporeans - mostly men - express themselves better using the metaphors of penis and testicles, or more affectionately known by their respective slangs, cock and balls.Of course, unlike the cultural tactical warfare Malaysia is embarking on, I would believe that such phallocentric references are not unique to the Singaporean experience. Nevertheless, isn't it interesting to know that there are Singaporeans out there who better articulate their feelings using the imagery of penises, testicles and scrota (That's right, kids, the plural of scrotum is scrota, but you can use scrotums too, add a "z" instead of the "s" if you want to emphasize it a little more).Being cosmopolitan, multicultural and basically anything that isn't culturally homogeneous, we borrow our metaphors from various cultures, Western as well as Eastern.The most basic expressions involving the phallus are that of the possible activities you could engage with it, each rich in meaning and intent."You can suck my cock/dick" uttered by a male-bodied person, can mean many different things in different contexts. It may mean "not a chance", or "I want you to oblige", or "this is ridiculous", or that "I really want you to perform fellatio on me".Perhaps it is the rightful abuse of male privilege, given the speaker is endowed with a male appendage. Still, whatever the intent of the speaker is, the message is conveyed in the articulation or suggestion of penis-centric activity.We find many creative ways to express ourselves when we place the thing between our legs into the centre of communication."... until balls drop" and "die cock standing" give a vague explanation of how one might feel over an indefinite or prolong period of time or doing something or nothing. The penis and testicles are used as the measure of time in this respect."Break my balls", as we've heard it from the cartoon South Park, indicates as dissatisfaction with a poor bargain. For example, when the PAP government raises the GST to a higher percentage, people will say, "Hello! You're breaking my balls here!", or when Singapore is forced to have a freer press, the government will say, "You're breaking my balls, man!"As for "balls bang/knock each other", I honest have no idea what this means. But clearly, given the ambiguity, vagueness and perhaps intended lack of clarity in the expression, the usage of penile imagery and expressions that indicate that these bodily entities have some autonomy to perform symbolic stunts, provide the Singaporean with an opportunity to equivocate.There are other phrases that depict the testicles striking the penis. I cannot understand the symbolism of this imagery. Maybe someone can help me with this.Sometimes the poetry of the cyclical seasons come into play when you have "balls shrink", "balls retreat into body", "grow balls", "lose balls", as if these phrases actually have an uncanny relationship with season-based agricultural practices."Suck cock buddies" are well, just two friends who share have some politics going on for them, resulting in a mutually beneficial relationship.The act of sexual stimulation is invoked to represent the playing of politics, because what goes on in working relationships is seen as analogous to a private sexual experience. "Suck cock" and "carry balls" are used to explain how a subordinate strives to get on good terms with his/her superior, such that he/she will eventually be in an advantageous position.Private parts have been used in the dictionary of swearwords, but somehow along the way, they appear to be naturalised into common and non-offensive dialogue. They are still quite effective for communication within one's culture, and definitely a good tool for those who have limited vocabulary.What has become naturalised, we don't question. But it is interesting to find it from the speakers themselves. I assume most of them would be heterosexual males with the keen determination to maintain and defend their heterosexual maleness. What will they think if they're told about the frequent use of such imagery? Does it play a part in constructing or amplifying their heterosexual maleness? Do they not realise the autoerotic and homoerotic implications of their manner of usage of these expressions? Perhaps there are none?I guess these forms of verbalisations involving penises is a new incarnation of penis worship. It is no longer the extravagant and explicit constructions and erections of phallic symbols and architecture, because the penis has been elevated to the level of the abstract, such that it figures subconsciously in our daily lives and dialogue. Older forms of penis worship are seen as archaic, myths and superstition. Yet, we need the penis (and balls) to fulfill our communicative needs. It apparently fills the hole in our articulation of our feelings and opinions. (Of course, you might infer a possible parallel of the penis to the ascension and appeal of monotheism.)The use of cocks and balls is not only for the implication of sex but for the expression of nonsexual opinion and feelings. I wonder what we will think of next. Song: We are Mistakes Check out http://www.myspace.com/samho. I've recently rearranged my songs according chronologically. This page contains songs written from 2004, latest first.I also want badly to upload the song I wrote for the songwriting contest, the one that is supposed to promote peace and harmony among Singaporeans. I wrote a parody of it, using the same music but with different lyrics, and renaming it "The IP Thugs", but will not release it until after April 2010.To listen to my older songs from 1997 to 2003, you can go to this link: http://www.myspace.com/samdrowner.Stressful times in the year 2009, and that's probably why I can churn out 4 songs in 5 months.The recording process for "We are Mistakes" was painful. My rusty and limited guitar skills can't seem to reach the standard and style I would expect. The whole thing turned out sounding mechanical and soulless, but who cares? (actually I do). If only there's a device that can extract tunes out of your head/imagination, without you having to go through the drudgery of playing and being angry with your limited instrument skills. That's what you get for being a part-time musician (great emphasis on part-time). If I'm doing music 6-9 hours a day, I think I'll be where I would like to be, creatively and in terms of skills.We Are Mistakes lyrics:We never give, we never takeThe chance to be forgivenWe waste our time, we’ll stand in line,We’ll wait to be forsakenMaybe we are mistakesOur lives are just another bloody errorIf we are what we makeWe’ll fall apart before we’re put togetherIf we are mistakesWe would get alongI’m wrong as you’re wrongWe’re without aim, we’re full of blame,It doesn’t make a differenceWe’re all the same, we cause our pain.Mistakes don’t have a meaningThere’s a mistake in all of usWe’re just changing for the worseEven with two wrongs we can’t get right The Pragmatic Monkey on your non-degree-holder back (unpublished (and they can fucking publish a letter that expresses delight in the pandas) - Nov 9, 2009)I read with interest Ms Evelyn Tan’s letter, which addressed university education.She believes that a university education is not the only way for one to be successful.While I agree with her, I must point out that we Singaporeans face realities that compel us to pursue a degree.For instance, the realities of public service employment policies compel us to view a degree as a passport to a favourable pay scheme.Jobseekers are faced with the reality that having paper qualifications opens more doors. This is probably why a sizable number of Singaporeans are seeking to upgrade themselves.Like Ms Tan, I feel that success is contingent on how we define it.However, a quick glance at society today reveals that there are people with daily bread and butter struggles, giving them no luxury of time and resources to pursue their passion.She mentioned the pursuit of passion and gave an example of successful entrepreneurship.Governments and the media will always strive to identify non-degree holders who are successful role models, but as inspirational as they seem, these cases are far outnumbered by the struggling average joe, invisible from the public eye.Not every passion manifests in entrepreneurship, and not every enterprise stays alive.Some of us may prefer simpler lifestyles. Others may prefer some luxuries. And we often work according to our goals. Despite these differences, we all similarly face bills.If we no longer need to worry about food, shelter, bills and retirement savings, most of us would definitely pursue our passions and develop our talents.It does not help that we live in a system and culture of economic pragmatism. Hence, a degree is a rational choice, as it not only provides opportunities but is also the proverbial “safety net” every pragmatic person needs.Pragmatism is shoved down our throats in every aspect of our lives, for example, how the government treats everyone as financially illiterate and enforces compulsory savings where citizens have limited access to their hard-earned savings. This is frustrating, but pragmatic.We live in an increasingly competitive environment, which demands not only good grades but other employment-favourable personality traits and achievements.In fact, most of us are still part of a system that defines our competency according to a grade.We may speak of the pursuit of non-academic passions, but employers and people with financial difficulties may have a different idea.Ho Chi Sam Panda-fucked by Straits Times I respect you a lot, Ace, but why must you do this?Why must the Straits Times publish this?Got Singaporeans suffering, and there are social and economic problems in various pockets of our society and guess what, pandas are more newsworthy!http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/OnlineStory/STIStory_453490.htmlAfter reading yesterday's report, 'China sending two pandas to Singapore', I would like to thank Chinese President Hu Jintao and the Chinese government and its people for the two wonderful gifts of VIPs (Very Important Pandas).Singapore is indeed honoured to receive such VIPs because pandas are China's national treasures.I am a nature and animal lover and it is a dream come true that Singapore will receive the two VIPs by 2011.I believe many in Singapore will look forward to visiting the two VIPs at the zoo when they arrive.I also hope the two VIPs will produce baby pandas during their stay in Singapore, so as to help increase the population of pandas.Last but not least, I would like to welcome President Hu to Singapore for the Apec 2009 meeting and wish him and all Chinese in China the best of health.Ace Kindred Cheong Uniquely Singapore, Specially Sinophobic Sinophobia. It is the fear and dislike of China, its culture and people. Given the idea of Chinese is nationalist, cultural, racial/ethnic and aesthetic in nature, a sinophobe would qualify as racist and xenophobic.According to Wikipedia, the secret lover all of us hide away in the study, sinophobia is rooted in socio-economics. In the case of Southeast Asia, Chinese migrated to the region and established their own economic and political regime. Wikipedia probably sums up it:A tradition of trading and clan-style self-reliance enabled the Chinese to control much of the capital in these countries. This clannish attitude among the immigrants and their descendants and the ethnic group's disproportionate control of wealth encouraged Sinophobic sentiment.If income disparity is coloured by race and culture, it is more inevitable that sentiments will be increasingly negative, especially if you are on the wrong end of the disparity.Sinophobia in Singapore is especially interesting, given we are predominantly ethnic Chinese, although we are not reproducing ourselves at the rate the government wants us. Perhaps the Chinese elite see this as a threat to their superiority and life-long (and beyond) ambition of wealth accumulation. So stereotypical it warms the heart. For the stereotypical Chinese elite, he/she will believe that it will take the leadership of a Malay or an Indian to screw things up, because he/she probably believes the ethnic minorities know less.The make-up of the local Chinese elite is mostly Christian and Chinese religions (Taoism and Buddhism). Even the least religious (or non-religious) Chinese elite will somehow subject themselves to Christian-centric rhetoric and ways of thinking, given how the propagation of Christian ideology flows freely within the English language (especially in Singapore). It is the difference in religion and faith that drives a wedge deeper between the Chinese elite and ethnic minorities in Singapore.Far too often, on the street and even in the government, we cannot deny ethnic Chinese Singaporeans reproducing racist rhetoric of lazy Malays and smelly/drunk Indians, and the occasionally glorification of Ang Mo superiority. Maybe it's Ang Mo superiority or Ang Mo lingum-worshipping. Macham colonial times sial!And more often than not, we ethnic Chinese extend our racist love to China and Chinese nationals. I guess racism is indeed colour-blind! Since you have a 'phobia' of one race, might as well have a 'phobia' of another - 2 for the price of one, and your stereotypical ethnic Chinese will never pass up on this deal.We are repeating history again. Chinese nationals are migrating to Southeast Asia, affecting wages, education, etc., basically causing real and perceived changes to our social and economic systems. And we, the natives as we would like to call ourselves, feel angry and repulsed by the Chinese.And then we have the Chinese myths too. What is a witchhunt without the mythologisation of the witch? We've got the bloodsucking moneyfaced "China bride" who will cheat your Singaporean man of all his money and then disappear among the millions back home in China land. We've got the uber-hardworking Chinese international student coming to your school and spoiling the market with high workrate and top grades. We've got the Chinese labourers who always seem to talk too loud or smell too much. And how about the Chinese national who are perceived to be inferior in terms of hygiene and manners? And more.Being an ethnic majority in Singapore probably takes away some degree of perceptiveness and introspection, and most of us yellow-skinned Singaporeans will probably never know what it is like to be a minority, and not that most of us would want to any way, because we would like to think of ourselves as economically rational.I think the Singaporean dream is the typical ethnic Chinese dream. We want material and wealth accumulation and a healthy, happy life with loads of money to swim around in or dab our oily faces with. Unfortunately, times are bad, people stuck in dead-end jobs, can't pursue their dreams and so on. It really does not help that we have a free flow of foreign talents, seen as a cultural and economic bane to us Singaporeans.And here you have the local ethnic Chinese, choosing the nationalistic side of their identity and "teaming" up with the other Singaporean ethnicities they used to (and probably will continue to) diss and ridicule, and expressing their disapproval of immigration and influx of foreign talent. Our colour-blind racism extends to Indian and Chinese foreign talents (in all sectors of the industry and economy), but of course being ethnic Chinese, you will probably have more jokes up your sleeves for the South Asian foreign talents. Confess!!!Well, Singapore is having a happy hour. Free-flow of foreign talents. And when bodies move, there will be cultural clashes. And that makes for an unhappy time for local Singaporeans.We've had our CMIO classifications, our speak Mandarin campaigns, imported teachers whose native tongue is Mandarin, been Suzhou-ed in the buttocks, and infrastructurally (not economic, but social/cultural) we are not ready for this transnational dialogue with the Chinese. Like how we Singaporeans attempted to Melayu-ify ourselves in the 1950s for a merger with big brother Malaysia, we have laid down the necessary works for a liaison with the tiger of a lover that is China - well, not in sexual way (Singapore will probably be a 'bottom' if you know what I mean), but in an abstract kind of way where you have the union of China and Singapore witnessed by the divinity that is money. Don't deny! Don't act shy, okay?We try to prepare ourselves as a cosmopolitan country, at least the Chinese elite try to prepare Singapore as a cosmopolitan country. Despite all our efforts, we do not seem to be culturally prepared to accommodate other people. The habits and idiosyncrasies of people of different cultures never fail to hit a nerve in us, especially when the economic situation is not at its prettiest.But what is it about China, Chinese culture and Chinese people that we dislike or fear? I think it is a combination of many things. To name a few, we are uncomfortable with "foreigners" (a function of our discomfort with globalisation, perhaps), we do not identify with their general work ethic and attitude towards money and life, and maybe we do not like the way they think about (their) culture.We as Singaporeans are living not in a country but in world now. It is such a conflicting feeling. On the one hand, we have our government wanting us to identify as Singaporeans (and later according to our "races"), on the other hand, we are promoting our city as multicultural and cosmopolitan. So obviously, there are trade-offs and implications.The sinophobia we have is not merely based on the fact that we probably cannot tolerate the behaviour, aesthetics, habits and idiosyncrasies of the Chinese, but also due to the fact that we are probably not a very adjusted people. Our comfort zones are packed to the brim with hearsays, stereotypes and prejudices, the kind of stuff that reduce lived experiences to mere caricatures of themselves, whether true or not so true.Sometimes it is difficult to explain why we have a prejudice. That is why we go by elimination, and it is always good to find out why we feel a certain way about a certain person or people.For instance, I am very irritated with local Chinese popular culture. It influences behaviours and mannerisms of speech. Subjects, I mean, people will act in an exaggerated fashion, obviously inspired by manga, as if they are living in a world where there are special effects to accentuate specific actions. They think they are living emoticons. :(~~~... ^_^" -_-"""So the source of my irritation is probably my dislike of local Chinese Singaporeans who have their healthy dose of Chinese pop culture. But the thing is, like any other human being, I have my prejudices, because there is obviously a cultural form I subscribe to, which I believe is superior. I prefer subtlety and absurdity for humour, and not of the Chinese kind. It is just a matter of taste/preference.But when you have like-minded people coming together, each person will find it difficult to keep his/her prejudices to himself/herself. All the more if you have impressionable children to spread your prejudices to - some say teach, some say socialise, some say rape the minds.And sinophobia is communicated at every levels of society. The mass media does it subtly by using "China" as an adjective to refer to Chinese nationals instead of "Chinese" because 70% of Singaporeans probably already identify as Chinese themselves. The differentiation is necessary before you can sensationalise something.People have a problem with working class, middle class and elite Chinese nationals coming to our shores, and the respective "problems" they create in their respective spheres. It is quite ironic that an aspect of globalisation that includes the movement of people across borders is causing people to want to have a stronger and defensive national consciousness.Singapore is interesting because most of us do not have a strong sense of belonging to this little booger (the Taiwanese, I mean "Chinese renegades", called us that), yet we invoke the rhetoric of nationalist discourse in an attempt to arrest the invasion. Indeed, there is nothing else we can hold on to. In a globalised world, what's the point of nation-building and the development of an exclusive national consciousness? We are decades and centuries behind other cultures and nations, so we cannot possibly follow their good nation-building practices.We use other means like architecture and multiculturalism to mask our shallow history and divided cultural consciousness. Nothing wrong with that. But I think we are a bunch of peoples who feel a loose sense of connection to this country and flag. Most of us may love Singapore as a home, but we find it difficult to think of something that will be uniformly recognised as Singaporean - low press freedom index, any one?It is most unfortunate we are sucked into the discourse that countries are defined by borders, culture and economy and each nation can be identified by a fixed set of symbols, each having its own cultural and historical value.You need to have an influx of Chinese nationals to bring the racist out in all of us, and along the way, we start creating a sense of identity for ourselves. We are pushed to locate common denominators in the Singaporean context, just so we can distance ourselves from the Chinese.Prejudices, rational or irrational, cause us to determine where the denominators begin and how we select them. After all, a majority of us derived from transnational movements of peoples. But the actual experiences we have now have invalidated this reasoning. Maybe we do care for our fellow Singaporeans, maybe there is some instrinsic nationalistic pride and sense of belonging. And it is ironic that amidst all the efforts to cultivate love for Singapore by Singaporeans, we need foreign talents to 'teach' us that. Maybe that's the chink in our armour! (punny sial!) The Central in CPF: How about C for Choice? For as long as I can remember, I had always been well acquainted with the acronym CPF. It stands for the Central Providence Fund. But till today, I know so little about CPF - it's confusing and difficult to justify.My parents will just say that it is just "forced savings".What is "forced savings" to us, is revenue for the government to spend, invest and in some cases of bad business decision-making, squander (it is interesting to note that the core competency of any democratic government is not to make money).I spoke with my mum recently and she told me about this minimum sum policy, where people are expected, if possible, to "top up" their CPF to meet the minimum sum in their CPF accounts. (Well, from here on, I'll just make references to the CPF ordinary account)The purpose for this is so that retiree citizens will be able to have a healthy monthly allowance/pay-out into old age. Family members could also contribute to "top up". Imagine taking the money you have in your hands and putting it in a safebox, the password of which is only known to the government, and you'll have no access to it whatsoever.CPF for me is almost like a double-edged sword, because one side cuts deeper than the other. Citizens get the blunt side, of course.The good thing, among a few, about CPF is that you can buy (you actually rent) public housing and do other investments with money you cannot already touch. The bad side of it is when you are in need of money and you sell your HDB home, you probably cannot get much out of it. You can struggle and starve until you reach the age when the government starts paying you with your own hard earned savings.I see CPF in another light. CPF is "tough love" shown by the compassion-less state. A government's job is to take care of its people. However, since welfare is relegated from the Singaporean state to non-government organisations, CPF (and also the Ministry of Community Youth and Sports) is probably one of the few excuses of a government initiative that actually strives to look after Singaporeans.To arrest what it sees as widespread Singaporean financial illiteracy (oweing to the Singaporean past-time of gambling, and poor individual financial management), CPF seems the most pragmatic approach. After all, by controlling the money of citizens, the government need not spend much of taxpayers' money on welfare. That way, the government can consolidate taxpayers' money do the traditional Chinese thing that is wealth accumulation, and paying top talented yes-men servants (Lee Hsien Loong does appreciate his men servants, i mean yes-men servants, doesn't he?)The government has moved on with the times, and realised that the cost of living is up and people need to have more savings for old age. There is no denying this. This is thus translated into policy and a higher minimum sum in your CPF.However, that only addresses the economic aspect of "the times". People are generally and increasingly financially savvy. With information going around like omnipresent aggressive pesky hardselling banking and investment representatives at MRT stations, people are in a better position today to make more informed financial decisions. We are generally more financially literate.At the same time, there are those who are in need of money and are struggling on a daily basis. If you are struggling every day or month, would you bother more about the prospects of struggling after you retire? These are the ones who will need help and I think having compulsory savings might be harmful in the short term.Financially literate people are the bigger losers when it comes to CPF. Retirees are not able to withdraw all of their money from CPF. I guess the government does not want people to squander their own money (and ironically, it is probably the state who would be in a better position to do the squandering). This measure minimises demand for social welfare in the event people do squander their money. However, the thought of this minimisation is unsettling, because I believe that the state is also responsible for "irresponsible" citizens. It is your right as a citizen to gain protection from the state. However, the protection that is welfare appears to be outsourced. For instance, look at our charities. They are private, although regulated/monitored.It seems the central control of money is essential to social stability. But in a time when people are a little bit more financially literate, why can't the government allow them to access to their own money? The state should not in any way prevent any one from gaining full access to the full sum of their money, but the different policies in CPF are contrary to that.The implementation of CPF is microcosmic of life in Singapore. There are certain compulsory things that you just cannot and do not question. There are no alternatives, and the only choices you have are the ones provided for you by the state. There is no reward for compliance, but there is punishment for non-compliance, unless you consider the absence of harassment and punishment as rewards.I think we can do without the state paternalism, from which we have so much benefited. It is time to move on with the times and give people choices on how they would like to handle their own money.On the one hand, the government promotes ideologies like meritocracy, and embark on different campaigns of social engineering, so that a social environment is created in which deviance and failures are isolated and reduced to individual laziness and character flaws. This is a system that protects the state, by creating distractions away from the flaws of policy and politicians. On the other hand, (and I am speculating) the state does not want people to squander their money and start seeking welfare, even though the said system is already in place.The value in saving is the preparation for the future, where you are giving yourself an additional choice or two in the event you encounter financial difficulties or make certain financial decisions. I cannot understand why the government has to enforce the CPF policy across the nation, because people have different ways of preparing for their futures. Yes, people have different futures and more importantly, different "present"s and daily realities, especially those whose savings are far less than their CPF ordinary account.There will be many perspectives on CPF. Personally, I would not mind having the government take (care of) my savings, because I still save as much as I can. But I would probably want to have access to all the CPF savings when I retire and do the "rationing" of allowances for myself.I think there can be more tweaking and personalising that can be done, so that the different people can at least have some needs met. Of course, CPF is not the only issue, but it would be great if people are given more choices. After all, the PAP wants to stay in power, and to do so in a democratic country, you have to be in the business of making everyone happy, so why run Singapore like a bloody primary school? I think life in Singapore is best summed up in the following sentence: You either get fucked or go fuck yourself. ST Insight: Censorship Review Committee thoughts The Straits Times Insight published a paragraph of my opinions on the issues surrounding the Censorship Review Committee. Here is the full email sent:I favour liberalisation of our media with regards to the Censorship Review Committee.First and foremost, I would like whoever is behind censorship to stop being overzealous in their jobs.It is important too, on the backdrop of a growingly stratified and diverse Singapore, not helped by moral polarisation, that the CRC should evaluate the relevance of definitions such as "public interest". If they can humbly sort out previously vague definitions of the censorship regime, they will be able to move towards a more transparent and unambiguous set of codes.The CRC should also be aware of the changing media landscape. They should not only preoccupy themselves with advancements in information communication technology, but also the reality that our population is growingly media literate, savvy and information-seeking. That said, our censorship regime should always diligently work towards being relevant and consistent with our society.Censorship may not always solve everything, as the total removal of allegedly offensive material may result in the absence of related dialogue, a characteristic key in any mature society and knowledge-based economy.The CRC can only do so much within its jurisdiction, and in a society where people are able to selectively consume content, a high-handed approach to censorship will only drive the CRC ostrich head further into its hole.We should also welcome more content that provides social commentary. A mature society should be reflexive and be open to portrayals and reflections of various peoples in the community.At the same time, we should not allow our censorship regime to be dominated by the opinions of the politically influential conservative elite, and that includes policy makers.I am also intrigued by the attention surrounding content featuring homosexuality. I think it is very narrow and shallow of those who support the ban of content that portray homosexuality positively. This implies we render positive aspects and achievements of gay people invisible, and only present homosexuality in negative light. Even though I do not identify as homosexual, I find this very offensive. Imagine a segment of Singaporeans are only allowed to be portrayed as negative stereotypes.It is also quite ironic that we Singaporeans will continue to live up to our stereotype as frogs in the well, as we continue to ignore or censor depictions of various realities and subjects.A common argument is the preservation of our social fabric and moral values and how the media affect our children. I shall not bother addressing moral absolutists who are only concerned and defensive about their ideological domination, but would like to point out that our children will eventually live in a world that will not include us.Regulation and censorship should not be wholesale and top-down. Alternatives such as self-regulation and co-regulation should also be in place. This at least gives content providers, the entertainment industry, artistes and puritan consumers some degree of autonomy in regulating and filtering content.I am in the belief that the decision-making processes of the CRC would be a lot more swift if not for a vocal but polarised Singaporean society. Whatever decision made will not be a crowd pleaser, and detractors may simply see this as the payment of lip service to a specific segment of Singaporeans.Ho Chi Sam No to Rape I would say yes to many things. If I want to say no to something, I will probably not say it. This world is too negative.I think the law should protect consent and the current penal code does not do that. It ignores consent on the part of gay Singaporeans, but forgets to honour the consent within marriage. Marriage can be grounds for defense against rape, and that is only for the moment. I really wonder how that is ever justifiable. The government spends so much money scouting for talent, paying for scholarships, nurturing bright and capable persons, just so that we can have marital rape legal. We are not only negative, but blind. Fear not, just open your eyes and say no to marital rape.http://www.notorape.com/blog/2009/11/01/new-film-ad-lets-get-heard/ Dear MINDEF, please delete where appropriate: YES/NO* Refer to the previous post for more details.Dear Mr Teo,1. I refer to XX XX XX’s letter (on behalf of Perm Sec) on XXX, 2009, in response to my letter on XXX, 2009. We earlier corresponded with XX XX XX writing to me on XXX, 2009, in response to my email and feedback sent on XXX, 2009.2. I wish to seek clarification on two things.A) My question has not been answered. Instead of saying 'yes' or 'no' to my question, your response in paragraphs 2 and 3 in no way answers the question. Instead, you are explaining to me existing policies, of which I am already know. To skirt my issue and concerns with policy explanations is indicative of MINDEF's lack of "understanding" and "appreciation" of an NSman like me, despite what has been claimed earlier.In view of this, I hereby request a definite answer to my question: Will MINDEF pay for my school fees in the event my scholarship expires and I am unable to complete my course?To facilitate your unambiguous and direct communications, and my total understanding of your position and mine, I appreciate you answer with a single word. Is it a 'YES' or a 'NO'? I appreciate you directly address me in your response and not to the general population of NSmen because the concern is expressed by me.B) With regards to paragraph 4, I would like to point out the realities my unit Commanding Officer (CO) faces as a postgraduate student are different from mine. I am a full-time postgraduate Arts and Social Sciences student on scholarship. I have to write a 30,000-word thesis and attend classes. I also have to teach. I have no job and no income, but a stipend.If I am not wrong, my CO on the other hand works in the civil/public service and is currently pursuing a part-time MBA. I am unsure as to whether his course is a company-sponsored one. Nevertheless, our situation are far different despite both of us being "students". The details of our conversation are private. For MINDEF to even raise our "student" status as a comparison is indicative of the fact that MINDEF does not really understand my situation.I had forwarded a request to my CO, asking MINDEF to answer my question directly. I would not appreciate you "addressing" it, because I am only looking forward to you "answering" it.3. Your response has not put to rest my concerns. I appreciate a definite answer to my question. Is MINDEF going to help me or not? Yes or no? My commitment to National Service is still strong and I will still go beyond my vocational duties and responsibilities like I always do in all my ICTs. But what about MINDEF's commitment to my concerns? I shudder to think about MINDEF's care, understanding and respect for an NSman like myself when you provide such a response that does not directly address my concerns.Your latest letter has left me not only more aggrieved, but confused and frustrated. I look forward to your response of "yes" or "no" to my question, which has been unanswered for almost five months now. Ho Chi Sam MINDEF communications 101: Just say YES or NO! After a month, MinDEF has responded to my feedback and query.Their letter is below:1. I refer to your email dated 29 Sep 2009, providing feedback on National Service (NS).2. MINDEF/SAF is mindful that the majority of our National Servicement (NSmen) have varied commitments. To minimise the inconvenience to our NSmen, MINDEF provides our NSmen with up to 6 months' notice on their In-Camp Training (ICT), depending on the duration of the ICT. This is to allow our NSmen to make necessary arrangements for their personal commitments so that they can attend their NS training. Notwithstanding this, our NS Commanders are prepared to help our NSmen strike a balance between their NS and personal commitments by exercising flexiblity in granting time-off or No-Pay Leave during the ICT, subject to the training schedule.3. While MINDEF may not be able to fully compensate every NSman for their commitment towards NS, MINDEF recognises NSmen's contribution by providing them with service pay for each day of their call-up and make-up pay if they suffer a loss of income due to the call-up. NSmen also enjoy additional allocations in growth dividend schemes such as the Progress Package.4. Your unit Commanding Officer spoke to you on XX XX 2009 to obtain a better understanding of your circumstances and to address your concerns. He also shared his experiences as a postgraduate student himself. You had then expressed your willingness to attend all future NS activities and clarified that you had no further concerns.5. We thank you for your feedback and look forward to your continued support of NS.Yours sincerely,XXXFirstly, MINDEF still has not answered my question: "Is MINDEF willing to express its appreciation for NSmen who pursue higher studies by helping this NSman foot his tuition fees when his scholarship expires? ... Will MINDEF pay for 2 and half weeks of my semester fees in Semester One of the academic calendar year 2010/2011?"It is a YES or a NO. They have in no way, in paragraphs 2 and 3, referred to me directly (i.e. the use of the second person "you"). Instead, MINDEF has spent 2 paragraphs explaining existing policies and saying how beneficial they are in to the general population. What about me?It is a YES or a NO! All the Permanent Secretary has to do is say, "With regards to your question, MINDEF would like to say NO to you."It is hypocritical to claim the organisation "understands" and "appreciates" you, when in fact their actions reflect that they don't. They talk about your head with explanations of policies that would not help your individual situation.Speaking of understanding, I think it is a failure on their part when they attempt to compare my unit Commanding Officer's postgraduate commitments and mine. I am a full-time arts graduate student on scholarship and my scholarship expires next August. I am writing a 30,000-word thesis on top of having classes. I have teaching commitments as a result of my scholarship. My Commanding Officer, on the other hand, is pursuing a part-time MBA, but I'm not sure if its company (government) sponsored or not. The circumstances are different, but to put in writing our private conversation is to show MINDEF's lack of understanding and lack of concern for NSmen who are pursuing higher education. MINDEF is not "mindful" and just because I do not have a job since I am a full-time student, doesn't mean I do not have costs and bills staring me in the face, and am not qualified for compensation in the event I am unable to complete my course after my scholarship expires.My Commanding Officer has nothing to do with this. I think a comparison taken up by MINDEF is unjust and unreflective of the realities each of us face. He has income, I don't. I face $1000+ to $2000 of school fees after my scholarship expires and is not renewed.Wait, what is this progress package? You mean elections bribe? If you want to talk about progress, do something that signifies progress and that actually brings progress - progress in my respect and support for MINDEF for instance.It is a YES or a NO! Fill in the blanks, MINDEF. "MINDEF would like to say a ___ to you, Mr Ho Chi Sam". One sentence. Government communications should be definite and not obfuscating and long-winded.If government organisations like MINDEF can have human "spiders" crawling and checking out internet content (definitely not their core/primary responsibility, but I guess that's what happens when you have an abundance of taxpayer funds), why can't the organisation do something for an NSman pursuing higher education. By the way, isn't it a waste of government funds if you get people to crawl through a blog like this just to find some slip-ups or incriminating material that might invalidate my claims or my position as it is? You won't find any here, because I am not anti-Singapore or anti-peace. I just want MINDEF to stop talking down to me and over my head. It is just a YES or a NO.The fact that they did not respond to my questions, which include "Is MINDEF willing to do something to make our relationship a lot fairer, and more mutually beneficial?" shows that MINDEF is not willing to do anything to establish a fairer relationship with NSmen. Yes, national defence is important, but since it comes at the expense of Singaporean sons, why not do something to minimise this impact?Do you care? YES or NO? Start communicating properly. Be honest. Be connected.Look me in the eye, literally and metaphorically, and tell me YES or NO. Do not bring in "NSmen" and how much you recognise everything else. Recognise this NSman and his concerns. Address them directly and answer his questions directly!Pay me a visit, or arrange for a meet-up, and hear me out. Listen to an NSman who always go beyond his vocation and responsibilities in every In-Camp Training. Listen to someone who doesn't believe in national service, but isn't no malingerer as he sacrifices his personal convictions and beliefs just for the organisation.I am calling for help. Is MINDEF willing to help me? YES or NO? People's Association Songwriting Competition and Copyright Thuggery I was so excited to hear from my wife that there would be a songwriting competition organised by the People's Association.But became absolutely gutted and incensed upon reading their terms and conditions. (And they probably have added more stipulations in the weeks after this blog post)It states that participants will relinquish ALL the rights to their song and lyrics to the People's Association (PA) in the event they win a prize (there are 11 prizes to be won any way). It is also obvious that they had consulted a decent intellectual property lawyer, either that, or they do the normal thing and copy and paste the rules and regulations taken from other songwriting competitions. Talk about the ironies of copyright terms and conditions if that were to be true.All the rights! Distribution, reproduction, performance and even sales. They won't attribute the song to you in the future. Worse, is if they attempt to capitalise on the winning songs.The prizes range from $300 to $5000. I think that is severe underpayment for full rights to a song. If it is for partial rights to the song, for reuse without commercial intent on the part of the PA, I feel that is reasonable enough.This is absolutely ridiculous. I worry for would-be participants who do not understand the severity and implications of the terms and conditions of the contest, or understand the implications of relinquishing all your rights to your own musical creation. They should know what they are getting themselves into, and that includes no attribution/credits either, should they win. (in a check with an intellectual property lawyer, I found out that the second owner of the rights must still attribute the creation to the original creator, so I might be wrong here.)You do it because you have a sense of ownership. It is further an insult to your creation (song) if you "sold" it for a pittance of a cash prize. If the PA has all copyright and all related intellectual property rights to your song, they can choose not to credit you, because attribution right is part of copyright. (Copyright is a bundle of rights, as you should know by now.)In my opinion, judging from the terms and conditions, I think the contest organisers are bullies that either do not recognise the value of artistic work, or are smart enough to leverage on copyright laws for its advantage and whatever commercial intent it may have. A songwriter deserves to have rights to his own creation and deserves royalties too.This is copyright thuggery. Of course, the government follows the private sector. You have Streetdirectory.com and ODEX, using intellectual property (copyright) laws for their commercial benefit. The idea of copyright is to protect the creator, and not for businesses to use as a revenue-generating part of their business model. Unethical scums.I had a strong interest in participating in the People's Association Songwriting Competition, but think that it is contrary to my idea of artistic integrity.Furthermore, the competition's terms and conditions is anti-music. Shouldn't you allow people to keep their own creations? The remuneration (i.e. prizes) is pittance, and not worthy of a relinquishing of all rights. Musicians and songwriters will know that.It is perplexing and preposterous that a statutory board (government organisation) is interested in owning - exclusively - the creative and emotional labour of people! On the one hand, it aims to promote peace, harmony and togetherness among Singaporeans; but on the other hand, they do so by exploiting people.Why would a stat board bother about owning full rights to someone else's song? They probably want to save up on paying royalties and licenses. And if they exclusively own the song, they could profit from royalties themselves. But isn't the PA about fostering community togetherness? I find it unjustifiable they adopt this "peripheral competency" of owning rights to a bunch of songs.In Singapore, the government has taken significant measures to have a sound intellectual property regime, but that does not mean its minion organisations can exploit people and their creations like that. Attitudes and behaviours like these impede creativity, because you take ownership away by cleanly divorcing individuals and their works. Of course, welcome to Singapore, where "rights" is not an entitlement to any human being, but the state.Hey, I believe in community and harmony too. But that doesn't mean I should consent to giving up all the rights to my own creations. People need to have a sense of ownership to their own things first before they can even have the hint of a sense of ownership to a community.I have sent an email enquiry to the organisers. Wonder what they have to say.I'm so disappointed. Maybe I should write a song about this. (And I did, and I've submitted it for competition.) General Elections rally crowd chants Imagine we have (non-violent) crowd chants at the PAP elections rally (in the upcoming General Elections).- "What?!" chants after every pause by the speaker.- "This is bullshit!" clap, clap, clap clap clap- "You suck!" chants- "Change the channel!" clap, clap, clap clap clap- "Liiiieeerrrrrrr, liiiiieeeeerrrrrr...."- "B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T Bullshit!!!" chant- "Bullshit, you are so full of bullshit. You are so full of bullshit. You are so full of bullshit" song in the tune of 'Blue Moon'.- "Stop the rigging" clap, clap, clap clap clap- "Cheat! Cheat! Cheat!" chants- "Fuck you xx xx!" chants (where xx xx is the two-syllable name of the speaker)- "We're not voting!" clap, clap, clap clap clap- Clap, clap, clap clap clap, clap clap clap clap... "BUTOH" (your favourite Malaysian Cup chant)- If you're misogynist, you can chant at the female speaker, "You're just tits! You're just tits!"- "Suck cock buddies!" clap, clap, clap clap clap- "P A P!!!" followed by "suck my ****" chants (insert your favourite body part)- Take out a $2 dollar note and wave it in the air and chant "You want money!" You want money!" or "Strip! Strip! Strip!"Of course, if you would like to voice your support, you can chant:- "You have my vote!" clap, clap, clap clap clap- "Who's da man?" followed by "You're the man" chants- "Let's go xx xx xx" clap, clap, clap clap clap (insert name of speaker)What's your General Election rally crowd chant? Must make it really mean and sexist, k? I mean we don't normally get to express ourselves like we do on election day, so since you have a crowd around you, you could engage in some cheering without being violent. Gay rights in Singapore and the double-edged sword of science Nice interview by the SDP's Chia Ti Lik with Alex Au, blogger and activist.http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/2954-lets-talk-with-alex-auI refer to Alex's view on gay rights, at 3:53 of the video.He speaks about "recognition of known facts... scientifically deduced information."And he also mentioned about the political landscape being in a state of fuck, I mean flux. (at 5:39). Not everyone is perfect when doing interviews (See criticism of Ris Low).On the first level, scientific facts break apart wrongful stereotypes upheld by society. They directly confront ideas that homosexuality, for one, can be taught, learned and spread. Along this fear-inducing line of thought, people will naturally feel that homosexuality can be not taught, unlearned and be stopped from spreading.Scientific facts challenge social mentality that equates homosexuality as a unchecked and undesirable social phenomenon. People think you can become homosexual through differential association, i.e. hanging out with gay friends. They see homosexuality not as personal sexual identity, but a behaviour you can pick up, just like other perceived ills like smoking, drug use, gambling and secret societies. And since these entities have their social remedies in the form of rehabilitation and resocialisation, they encourage religious organisations that feature reparative therapy.I believe that people's prejudice against homosexuality or sexual diversity stem from the following reasons:1) They do not recognise that different persons have unique sexual preferences; everyone is assumed to be heterosexual.2) The inability to recognise (in point 1) is stemmed from socialisation, indoctrination, lack of information and contact with people of diverse sexualities.3) Oweing to the factors mentioned in point 2, people make their prejudices a moral truth, and gladly have the endorsement of existing social and religious institutions, entities entrenched into our social fabric.However, when we take the spotlight away from homosexuality, does heterosexuality, an identity so coveted by our society and religious institutions, exists as a homogeneous entity? For example, does an ordinary heterosexual Singaporean man fancy all the women in the world, regardless of aesthetics, beauty, physiology, biology, race, ideology, etc.? Are there some types of women he might not fancy at all? Does that qualify him as heterosexual then?When we see heterosexuality not as a homogeneous entity but heterogeneous, it becomes threatening to many champions of straightness, who are also homophobic.Individual taste is part of one's sexuality. Different folks have different emotional preferences, aesthetic tastes, preference as to how and with whom they would want to spend quality time, different fetishes and desires that turn them on, and so on. These factors, among many others, cause a person to have specific desires related to sex, whether he/she wants sex or not, how he/she wants sex, with whom and where, and so on.From here, we see heterosexuality as a myth, loosely held together by simplistic and ignorant social hearsays.That said, I feel that when we give science too much credit, we risk losing ourselves. Science will always play catch up with social phenomena. Science generalises and tries to break down complex realities into bite-size bits of digestible information. Science is that double-edged sword.As far as my apprehension goes, I still believe - not sure if Alex personally feels this way too - that science, no matter how advanced or lagging, is the tool to engage the ignorant and/or hateful homophobe. As an advocate of ideas that takes a people out of their comfort zones, you cannot bring in your own tools to engage people. Everyone will be on different wavelengths. You speak the language people speak and you use the systems they have most faith in. People believe in the currency, truthfulness and objectivity of science, for a long time, and for the moment. And Alex is right in supporting the push for information to enter the public domain.The hindrance to the entry of such information in the public domain is perplexing. The government holds the key, but chooses not to allow for such mainstream exposure to science. This scenario may be jarring for a large number of people, who have been fed religious doctrine and social stereotypes for a long time. And instead of adjusting and reconciling the information with their personhood, they bunker in and charge this as the "gay agenda".The government, with a parliament overrepresented by Christians (maybe they saw a need to represent Christians who are rich, poor, liberal, fundamental, male, female, quiet, psychotic, born again, aborted, and so on), may see this is a conflict of interests. The backlash will be stronger, as anti-gay stereotypes are reinforced and the age-old weapon of using children comes into play. "What if my son/daughter grows up thinking gay is normal, or becomes gay himself/herself?" would the common ploy.They still question not their prejudices and predispositions, as to why they even moralise homosexuality in the first place. This is where religion comes in. Religion protects the institution of marriage and procreation, and in most monotheistic strains, they see homosexuality as an external threat to the institution. Religion locks you into its infrastructure and embeds moral mechanisms into your psyche and you begin to conform and to differentiate between what is right and wrong. It is not without religion that we come to rationalise and repackage specific acts and experiences as sinful or virtuous.The problem science poses to religion is that it is less moralising, though not void of moralisation, than religion. Science is just a process, but you can either have a hippie or a Nazi steering it, with its objective results presented in a way aligned to a certain ideology, which either supports or challenges existing social systems.I personally feel that sexual diversity should not be subjected to the realm of science. Personhood matters too. You don't need science to explain how gay or straight you are. Unfortunately, science is our social gatekeeper. We could express our sexual identities in other ways, but when it comes to the public domain, we use science to represent (and distort or simplify) our experiences.For me, heterosexuality and homosexuality are just general categories that do not account for the specificities of human experience, but these are necessary for the visibility of people who identify as queer.It is both desirable and problematic when society finally accepts homosexuality as legitimate and not "wrong", as it makes acceptance for sexual diversity a lot more difficult - we won't be able to easily accommodate people of sexualities outside homosexuality and bisexuality. A step forward for some, a step backward for others.The discourse of sexual diversity in Singapore is contingent on science, medicine, religion and economy. For the last bit that is economy, sexual minority rights often take a backseat when the economy is being discussed. Given our regime of pragmatism, we see it practical to put aside our sexual identity issues and focus on bread and butter issues. We are unwilling and afraid to see how sexual rights and diversity dovetail with the economy. Most of us work, earn and pay taxes any way.Coming back to the topic, I feel that sex and sexual identity should not be exclusive to the domain of science. You do not give people the freedom to articulate their sexualities if science were to be the only lens through which sexuality is scrutinised.We may have put an end to the pathologisation of non-heterosexual identities, but how have we dealt with the medicalisation?Essentially, categories dilute experiences. Whether you believe that heterosexuality/homosexuality is natural or learned, you end up ignoring the grey in between, and how individuals personally rationalise their identities and feelings, sexual or not.To play with categories, I feel that there are more queer people in this world than "straight" ones. The "straight" identity is a mystical one. It assumes you are sexually attracted to all the members of the opposite sex. If that doesn't happen, how less "straight" can you be? Take body shape and skin colour for example, are you more spontaneously attracted to certain types over others? How does that figure in your straightness?If you are selectively straight, does that make you queer?Labels and categories are for a society that has high levels of discomfort dealing with heterogeneity and exceptions. We just can't simply accept that people are a persons with different ideas. We have the economy, nation, religion, concepts of race and community, and others, just to keep us together. This reflects how uncomfortable we are in accepting difference as a reason for acceptance, respect and solidarity. The mob has spoken: Ris is over, who's next? Most of us are predictable. We pounce on and drain the blood of errant characters in the Singaporean ecosystem, surfing the snowballing wave of newsworthiness, maximising its utility and eventually discarding it.We leave behind footprints of our characters as we trample on others in the frenzy of the mob.Like the torch of every lynch mob, every lynching has a short shelf life.What is interesting is there seems, to me, to be a trend in the victims of the internet lynch mob. Well, we also have the internet lynch mob to thank for, for making news newsworthy.I predict the next victim of the internet lynch mob to be an ethnic Chinese woman.In recent times, we have noticed a succession of ethnic Chinese women, who have fallen foul of, and lynched accordingly by the mob:Wendy Cheng, Wee Shu Min, Mrs Goh Chok Tong, Thio Li-Ann and Thio Su Mien, Wong Kan Seng, and Ris Low.We seem to have a fascination with women. As in the blogosphere, female bloggers are more appealing than male bloggers, and probably are not subjected to the homosexual stigma should they post a critical number of photos on their blogs.The "common man" on the internet is more fixated on women. Well, that's one trend for starters.Until the first coming of Ris Low, our sense of political correctness, as inferred from internet musings and discussions, reflects the preservation of working class values (paradoxically by the middle-class who can afford time and resources to go online and make some noise), as well as the disdain for extravagance and hints of elitism.Having made comments reeking of elitism, Wee Shu Min and Mrs Goh Chok Tong were quickly shot down like crows in your HDB estate by cullers.A growingly stratified Singapore, a situation the government probably acknowledges but will not do anything about, is probably causing strain on some segments of the citizenry.The ones who have access to the internet are representing their views, as well as views from the underclass. And we see some degree of solidarity between the working class and middle class (just to generally categorise), for they have a common enemy, or at least created one.Netizens complain about the financially irresponsible government, losing/abusing taxpayers' money and all that, even though a majority of netizens pay relatively little or no tax. As pointed out to me by another person, that which helped me get revive some common sense, the richer (folks in the higher income brackets) pay far bigger amounts of taxes, but the netizens are the ones who are most vocal. Maybe they are displaying the nationalistic solidarity the government so badly needs.Faults of the upper strata of society are considered more wrong than faults of the lower strata, if our culture of politically correctness even allows us to recognise these faults at all.Perhaps, conscious or ignorant expressions, deemed elitist by the "common man", hit a nerve in the "common man" and his lived reality.When Ris Low came, I see how the working and middle class solidarity divorced. In the criticisms of Ris Low, people ridiculed her poor spoken English. Such an action is, in my opinion, microcosmic of middle class cultural bigotry against the working class, a section of people in our society who do not have privileges and access to "proper language", in a stereotypical sense.This is very generalising, of course. But I believe the "true colours" of the Singaporean netizen, or internet lynch mob, are revealed, thanks to the Ris Low episode. We reveal our disgust, impatience and intolerance of poor spoken English, limited vocabulary and her "Ah Lian" aesthetics, in our criticisms. These are the areas the working class Singaporeans are trying to address as they seek, like any one else in our rat-race society, upward mobility and a comfortable life.We are ashamed and embarrassed that Ris was going to represent Singapore, indicative of the extent to which we are selective in deciding how multi-cultural and diverse Singapore is. Diversity in Singapore, in this case, obviously excludes the girl with poor spoken English.To negate this, we state that this is in the context of an international beauty pageant, and we risk being embarrassed by such a person. All the more this shows our desire for readymade products, rather than unpolished gems, a reflection of our society and economy today, an ideology impressed onto us and eventually internalised and reproduced in our criticism of Ris.I see a food-chain of elitism. On the one hand, we despise elitism and extravagance; but on the other, we are embarrassed by folks who speak poor English, because we are concerned about the image we are projecting to other nations.What happened to this solidarity where netizens care about the lesser "privileged" (access to resources and education)? By privilege, I am refering to the comparison of others to the "common man" netizen, who generally has the privilege to education and access to the internet.I feel animosity towards society and the government is grounds for such solidarity, a push, rather than an attraction on the part of being together. It seems like it is almost a parasitical relationship we netizens have with classes "below" us, as we focus on exposing what is wrong with society and the government.How the ethnic Chinese woman victim of the internet lynch mob fits in here, I don't know. But we are highly strung to the tune of political correctness, which we assume to be a safeguard against attacks on a culture that is more right than other cultures.For example, the working-to-middle class is more "right" than the elite culture. The former's visibility should be at the expense of the latter, because that is politically correct. But again, the whole idea of well-spoken English, perhaps a hallmark of middle-class Singaporean life, surfaces between the enlarging cracks between the working and middle class, or rather and unrelated, the English and non-English educated folks. It is after all a middle-class thing when English is enforced and supported as the primary language, followed by your second language or mother tongue.It is very interesting to see what happens next and see who will be the next person to be lynched, not that I personally want to see someone lynched. Prejudices will be revealed each time someone gets flamed by the mob.We have tensions brewing, such as sentiments against elitism, what we feel are poor representations of Singapore (so diverse, yet we want "proper" representations, paradoxical, huh?), we have Christianophobia (not the hatred towards the footballer), and we love our social policing. Since the government is more preoccupied with political power and the economy, we are left to socially police ourselves. We have Stomp! to thank too.Perhaps, given how politically and economically disempowered most of us are, we relieve ourselves by playing social police and thief, where we let self-righteousness, under the guise of political correctness, pull the reins of society.You say something out of line, you get lynched, and you get immortalised in Wikipedia and you become a hot Google key search word.We have an intolerance for mistakes and imperfection towards some segments of society, while we are more gracious and flexible in the same area towards other segments.The more folks that are lynched, the more we will come to know the make-up and psyche of the internet lynch mob.Honesty is not a virtue so long as political correctness is mandatory.As we bully others into conforming to the political correctness we subscribe to, we forget that we ourselves have been bullied into conformity in the first place.It is interesting we have had issues of money, class and culture being part of the public discourse in view of cyber lynching. I look forward to religion being talked about and it will most probably be Christianity, given the government appears to care more about policing discourses and movements concerning Islam than that of Christianity. There are some fixed conditions for someone to be the next victim of the internet lynch mob.And religion is probably one of the very few items that could further divide this internet lynch mob. But of course, the vocal anti/non-religionists might claim a larger territory. And I think that people with faith, should just keep their faiths and religious doctrine to themselves.We just enjoy finding the next pinata to smack, the next cultural icon to make t-shirts, lampooning videos, generate discussion forum participation and visits for blogs. But what do these trends say about our personhood, our society and our relationship with one another in society?For me, I personally feel that it just boils down to our dislike of the government and the decisions they have made that put us in our place in society - the unhappy place that is middle-class-dom. Such a place is limiting, and we are unhappy as a result. We either suck our thumbs or use it to thumb-choke (that's a chokehold technique by the way) someone else. So, who is next?Hmmm MinDEF still has not got back to me on my question - whether they would pay for my school fees in the event my scholarship expires and I am unable to complete my course on time in view of the 2.5 weeks I have sacrificed for reservist. My thumb is for sucking. The water stains on my master toilet ceiling The water stains on my master toilet ceiling. What a good song title it will make.The unjustifiable HDB rule requires both the upstairs and downstairs (me!) neighbours to foot the bill.It might be structural wear and tear, independent of my upstairs neighbours and obviously not concerning me. I do not make camp fires in my master toilet, and cause my ceiling to erode, if that is ever physically possible.The upstairs neighbours had their renovation done about 10 years ago. So there is a high chance their waterproofing might have been worn by now.But essentially, the problem lies with the structure, isn't it? So why isn't HDB taking full responsibility for its structure? How is this justifiable? I strongly doubt they will ever come up with a justifiable reason. They'll probably go pro wrestling on our backsides and say with their redneck accent, "That's the bottom-line. Why??? Because Stone Cold HDB said so! Give me a Hell Yeah!" and you can hear the apple-polishing people's association chanting "Hell Yeah!" in the background.I think the downstairs neighbour, or rather, the residents whose ceiling is patchy with shades of grey, yellow, brown and black - you know, the colours of the skid mark of every wayward person the PAP has tried to intimidate - are on the losing end too.We did our renovations middle of last year in 2008 and moved in late last year. And we get these stains. The stains grew considerably. The flat is about 26 years old, around my age. If I shit my pants right now, I'll have to clean it up myself, and not ask my mother and my wife to do it for me.Okay, since times are bad (and so are analogies), HDB has a grant, and they would be able to foot 50% of the hacking, waterproofing and retiling, with the other 50% borne by both residents, top and bottom. Speaking of top and bottom, I feel we're both being fucked by this policy.But HDB is as holy as monotheistic religion - you just don't question it.I believed and the officer confirmed that the neighbour upstairs is unwilling to go through with this. Not only will they have to pay, but also suffer the inconvenience of a day or two without the toilet and having to replace their toilet door, which means extra costs for them.Yes, I do have sympathy for the people living upstairs, who occasionally shower our air conditioner compressor with cigarettes, cigarette boxes, food, sweets, used sanitary pads and other unidentifiable solids and liquids; neighbours who move their furniture pretty often and whose children obviously lead a healthy lifestyle doing their heavy-footed shuttle runs at almost all times of the day.I anticipate neighbourly backlash. I hope they don't throw down more stuff or do more shuttle runs.Then comes the most important question. Why should we (the residents below) pay?How is this justified?In the end, the structure between both residents is left as it is. Imagine a hamburger without the patty and we're just solving this problem by replacing the top bun - it is still a fucking hamburger without a patty! 10 years down the road, or hopefully not less, the stains might reappear.HDB 1, residents 0. gg all.http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/showthread.php?t=2472883http://www.singaporebrides.com/forumboard/messages/5/1180264.html?1251948059http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=415097http://forum.punggol.org/index.php?topic=8401.0http://www.renotalk.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=23067http://talkback.stomp.com.sg/forums/showthread.php?t=83958http://www.singaporebrides.com/forumboard/messages/409/402662.html?1229010805http://www.renotalk.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=21663http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_280974.html Sam cooks fried rice! Hi, welcome to the OMY Most Insightful Blog.Like probably any one in this world, the things I do and the person I am get conveniently pigeon-holed, categorised by others. Yes, I have some "insightful" posts. But I do write songs, jokes and parodies.Unfortunately, many people would like to conceptualise Sam as insightful or analytical, rather than creative, funny (in a positive and humorous way, of course) or be recognised for cooking some decent meals.My latest creation is fried rice, with broccoli, pork and chicken.Seasoned the pork fillet with sweet soy sauce. For the chicken, well, it's the usual oyster sauce chicken. Broccoli's boiled briefly, to prevent discoloration, is it is discolouration?The fried rice is the interesting part. I boil/steam the rice with chicken stock. Heat the sauce pan with good old unhealthy butter. Fry diced streaky bacon till golden brown. Not golden brown technically, but ethnic Chinese folks like myself like our bling. Add in the rice and stir furiously. Later add in the diced fried egg (which I earlier prepared using egg and fresh milk). Voila! It's done!The wife and I were so excited looking at the food we dove in and forgot to take a picture of the dinner and my efforts to decorate it. Oh well.She says I cook restaurant-quality food. Awwwww.But her words quickly filter through my over-socialised mind and I found myself wondering if she either meant if it actually tasted good, or that it was simply too unhealthy. Flashbacks of fresh milk, butter and bacon sauntered into my consciousness.With regards to this blog, I feel that I am at the point where I have something to say or share, but do not feel like writing it down here.For example, I would like to talk about the following issues:1) Mio and Starhub football programme subscription.2) The thuggery businesses (and soon government-related boards) resorting to when dealing with bloggers they alleged to be defamatory.3) Recording devices in the Singapore Armed Forces, which is more of an issue of public relations rather than an issue of sensitive security. I am sure the organisation is more concerned about ill practices, bullying and eccentric behaviours being exposed rather than actual training. For once if we as a nation concentrated on swiftness and efficiency, rather than image, inane foot drills and bullying tactics of what some perceive as "discipline", I think national service would be less than one year.4) Children and masturbation. I think people don't like to talk about children masturbating, but I think this is a reality most of us like to avoid ever discussing. Perhaps this reality does not fit in with our idea that children are asexual, until a special magical age, institutionalised by the state, say 16, or 18, or 21, when their (hetero)sexuality is naturally "switched on". We are ostriches whose heads are buried in the filth of political correctness.I am doing my thesis and reading on various transgender theorisations and transgender theory. It's quite confusing. But I guess confusion is a good thing to talk about. It is not going to be the best thesis in the world, but I hope it will make the points relevant to and for local transgender theory.I'm beginning to, reasonably, doubt my abilities in pursuing a PhD. Such a project involves a commitment I do not think I would want to give. Furthermore, I do not think it will be good for my health. I tend to get obsessed with a topic, in a way that the concept of "working hours" do not apply. This makes rest and relaxation difficult.Have been thinking about jobs too, even though my scholarship ends next August. Quite an exciting world, but I like being in my well. It is just by convention that people devalue the frogs and the wells. This one upmanship is also common when people compare the proverbial penis length and use age, experience, perceivably greater street cred, invoke "in the real world" narratives just to put others down, as if the said positions are inferred to be more desirable. But in actual fact, these have their economic measures, while the measures of the heart find no place in such a heartless society.I have many distractions too. On top of periscoping out of my well for jobs, I look forward to writing a National Day song and submitting it, and also writing a play. Will probably start being more aggressive in sending demos of my songs to local and regional music executives, but they will probably have other ideas.Domestic life is good too and I am enjoying it. There are chores to do but that's okay. I enjoy cooking and cleaning, and exercising in between. I sort of look forward to having kids, but of course, the paradox of having children in Singapore involves you not spending enough time with them, because you'll probably have to work so hard you forget how big they have grown, and that the only time you actually get to do some parenting is when you finally become a grandparent yourself. Of course, I could potentially be a bad parent because too many people think I'm out of my mind. Imagine a 5 year old waving his/her hand and saying, "Bah! It is social constructionism!"My mum turns 60 today. In my eyes, she never ages. No matter how educated I am, I see not her lines and her greys. She made sure I never had to pay tuition loans and be saddled with debt, and that made sure I never had to ever consider graduating earlier without honours just to find work to pay off tuition loan debts. Every right and wrong she had done have made everything a right for me.I am a sheltered mummy's boy who knows how to make a home safe and warm with unconditional love. I know what is right and wrong, and act accordingly to these beliefs. I can become convicted or obsessed, but I am also aware of moderation. I learn to pursue things I like, but also am able to make sacrifices. I am a product of my mum's parenting.It seems that with marriage and moving out, I leave one woman for another. Both take care of me in their own way, give me the bubble wrap I need to be comfortable with myself. So that is why I think (my) life is good, never mind how horrible the world is. It is only most unfortunate that money is part of life and we're compelled to earn it. But we love our materials, don't we? A letter from the government (See the label 'humour'. I'll be really shit scared if I got this in my mail, but in case you're a civil/public servant reading this, that doesn't mean you should be writing this.)Ref no. xxx-xxxx-xxDear Mr Ho Chi Sam,1. On behalf of the government, I would like to tell you to fuck off.2. Your incessant pestering of civil and public servants, as well as personnel in greater positions of authority have compelled us to blacklist you forever. This includes ignoring every complaint or feedback that you produce via email, phone and snailmail. Your email addresses (xxx@gmail.com, xxx@hotmail.com, xxx@yahoo.com and xxx@yahoo.com.sg) are hereby blocked. All calls from your phone line (6xxx-xxxx, 9xxx-xxxx) to government numbers will also be blocked. And any letters from you addressed to government officials will be taken out of the postbox and shredded immediately.3. Your blacklisting will be with immediately effect, and we will make sure that you will never get a job with the government or any government-related organisations. We will tell the CEOs and boards of directors not to hire you.4. In the event you wish to speak to the media to air your grievance, we will ensure the relevant and proper censorship to protect our image. On top of that, we will ensure the media portrays you as a psychopath.5. We believe that you have abused the "no closed/wrong door" policy of the government, and jumped the chain of command too often for our liking. We do not take too kindly to the exposure of the inefficiencies, irrationalities, the lack of transparency and the lack of compassion of the government.6. Since you expose the government as uncompromising, we will not be held responsible for any intimidation or inconvenience or accident that you or your loved ones may or will encounter for the rest of your stay in this country. We will also not be held responsible if your children are blacklisted too and deprived of kindergarten education.7. We will ensure that you are financially crippled to the point you are unable to speak up any way. We will also do many things to you that will make you wish you were dead, and there will be nothing you can do about it.8. We will also intercept any cable signal to your home, so you will have to watch your weekend football matches in black and white grainy visuals. We will also rain sludge outside your kitchen window, so you will never be able to hang your clothes out to dry, and your neighbours will hate you so much they will splash bucketloads of urine and faeces at your door.9. Since you have long expressed that replies from the government offer no definite help, specific explanations and no proper answers to all the questions posed, we have finally taken that feedback into consideration and changed our communications policy.10. Therefore, we would like to say a big "FUCK YOU" to you. We're not obliged to answer every question. We see what we want to see. Your feedback doesn't matter, neither do your complaints. NEH NEH NEH NEH NEH NEEEEEEHHHHHHH..... PFFFTTTTTTTTZZZZZZ11. We thank you for your feedback and support of the government.__|__ HERE'S A BIRDIE FOR YOU, SPECIALLY FLIPPED BY MINISTER OF STATE FOR xxx __|__Minister of xxx will also like to give you a lanjiao 8==D because he thinks you are a dick.Minister of xxx wants to say you are a neh neh pok (.)(.)Senior Minister for xxx says you are a chao chee bye (v)~ ~This is a computer-general mail. No signature is required. Singapore Election Fever The PAP government has done a good job, like they always do. But there will always be people who see it as chocolate-coated shit - same colour, sweet exterior, but still shit on the inside.The PAP government are the tiles on the floor, but they leave gaps in between, and most of the time, they do acknowledge that.Thus, we will always need grouting, to make the floor waterproof. There's civil society, grassroots organisations, public feedback and for the moment opposition parties.There previously was talk about a "freak election result". There was talk about the mobilisation of an army, but played down by Lee Kuan Yew, in response to Catherine Lim's question.What is "freak" to some is not the same to others.And here is one moral dilemma. Ah Seng voted for the opposition, and if the President mobilises the army in the event of a "freak" election result, which involves mobilising Ah Seng, what can he do? Is the end result a compromise of a citizen's right for the perceived national imperative?Hey, I am only talking about Ah Seng. What if it was Ahmad? Add some "colour" into the mix, and do we risk further marginalisation of our ethnic minority Singaporeans? Ethnic minorities are more real than the caricatures in your Hao Gong Ming book.Any way, the upcoming elections, we will have a better idea of the fate the awaits Potong Pasir and my beloved Hougang. Which Group Representative Constituency (GRC) will they be sucked into in the next round of calculated gerrymandering?Gerrymandering is a problem on its own. At the next level, I feel a bit uneasy, as an ethnic Chinese Singaporean, that we use race (racial/ethnic representation) to justify gerrymandering. If that isn't race-based politics, the notion we so often criticise our Malaysian neighbours of, I don't know what is.It is rumoured that the government (related to PAP okay?) knows your secret vote.It is rumoured that the government knows which block and area voted for which party.Rumours aside, it is a reality, that with public housing ethnic quota, ethnic Malay and Indian Singaporeans will always be the numerical minority. The only salvo for them is the presence of ethnic Malay and Indian candidates. As an ethnic Chinese, if I feel a Singaporean, can do his/her job and take care of the constituency, I'll be least concerned about the colour of his/her skin.However, the realities that ethnic Malay and Indian Singaporeans are slightly better communicated by their respective candidates/politicians. There are certain things ethnic Chinese Singaporeans take for granted any way.On a sidenote, I would like to say that talk of multiculturalism in Singapore is usually the invitation of ethnic Malays to engage the Chinese elite discourse, in the process excluding the Indian voice. Funny stuff.That is why GRC is a good idea when it comes to representation. It does benefit citizens to an extent, but it surely impedes the participation of other political parties, setting up high barriers of entry.It will be very interesting to observe the upcoming elections, held in a country that is growingly media literate, growingly cosmopolitan, growingly stratified and well, just growing.When you deal with "bread and butter", you discuss it along the axes of class and race.The incumbent will always have a difficult job, because they have more to lose. When they present their achievements and contributions to society, people might see it as boasting and a kind of "who's your daddy" guilt-trapping. When they engage their race-based (specifically ethnic minority) politics, some people might see it as pandering to the swing voters and tokenising the minorities. (I believe that Aljunied in 2006 was won because of the Malay swing vote, if only someone could verify this)When you vote, you decide for yourself what you actually want. If you want to give a party a chance to live up to their words, you can give them your vote. If you are fed up with the party for not living up to their words, you can choose not to vote for them.I worry for Potong Pasir and Hougang. The government can, at any time, decide to "relocate" people out of these constituencies like what they did when they demolished a few flats in Hougang at short notice, which angered MP Low Thia Kiang.There are so many possibilities that Hougang may fall victim to "policy":1) Hougang may be broken up and its parts absorbed into nearby GRCs (like what they did to Cheng San GRC after 1997)2) Hougang may be expanded and combined with neighbouring minor wards from the GRCs. For example, bits of Alunied GRC (Hougang ward), Pasir Ris-Punggol (although some Pasir Ris residents are part of East Coast GRC... BOOMZ), or Tampines GRC (maybe the residents of Lorong Halus are PAP supporters).Hougang reminds me of North and South Korea. Hougang is (less than) half red, (more than) half white. Whichever half is analogous to North or South Korea is up to you to decide. But will Hougang be "united"? The MP for PAP Hougang (of Aljunied), Yeo Guat Kwang, is well, this the part where words can't describe what expletives can. Maybe, if the public knew the votes cast in the Aljunied-Hougang ward, an emotionally-neutral numerical language will probably best describe the situation. I would like to know too.I would also love to see more women (or mums) participating as candidates. That will be a good solution for political male blinkeredness. It's not so much about the stereotypical "woman's touch", but rather the need for an additional perspective outside the male gaze in the political system.It'll be nice to see candidates who openly profess their faiths or lack of. Because in a country like Singapore, we all have a relationship with religions and faiths. The funny thing is, given my demographic profile, I don't encounter situations where Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu friends talk to me about their faiths or practise in my presence. For Taoism, there is the incense smoke and burning of incense papers on top of drain covers at the pedestrian walkways (very inconsiderate thing to do), and of course Taoist funeral processions when they get a brass band to play O Went The Saints. Well for Christianity, it's probably the most in-your-face religion here, considering it is, paradoxically, monotheistic and abstract. Since these things happen on a daily basis, it should not be all that bad if there is a candidate who is not shy about professing his/her faith. There is nothing wrong to professing one's faith.We should be mature enough to have (overt) religious representation in Parliament, and more so, considering that affairs of religion A are not merely confined to A's community, but also other religious (and non-religious) communities - everyone has a stake.Your faith and religious affiliation is your pillar, not your sword, the one that you could use to behead other "infidels", at least not in the modern day context. Enough about religion.The opposition will also have their problems in fielding candidates. One thing "good" about the PAP is their scouting system. The PAP and the Singaporean government are like Venom and Spiderman, very connected and entwined, and perhaps inseparable for a long time.The PAP has the talents and gets them through informal teas and meet-ups. Youths are talent-spotted and given scholarships with the government. Rotated here and there in the civil service and public service, till they reach a certain altitude that puts them in contact with top political brass, and then BOOMZ, you get the picture. Well fed, well reward for their talent and hard work, they are likely to be inclined to enter politics.They'll do a bit of grassroots, rotated here and there again, indoctrinated in the PAP dogma and so on. Enter elections, win because of no-contest and then... hey! Who's this new Minister?The PAP government has a good nurturing system. Say, like a West Ham youth academy and Arsenal scouting team put together. The opposition cannot do this. Top civil servants and top scholars are less inclined to join the opposition.The PAP on the other hand, can shapeshift like one of those characters on X-men, and under the guise of the government, use public funds to nurture young talents and reward them accordingly. But of course, they do it quite cleanly, such that it seems that it is actually the individual's decision to enter politics with the PAP. Imagine the repercussions of a scholar who enters politics with the opposition. One snap of a finger, and we'll be asking, "What scholar?"Lots of rumours and hearsays, but all contribute to a climate of fear, which poses a huge problem for the development of our opposition. The opposition, at the same time, should prove that they can work with the PAP, rather than adopt a confrontational position. They should offer solutions and alternatives and always continue to make suggestions. With suggestions, solutions and alternatives, people will have more choice.The PAP has long been preoccupied with criticising the opposition, but the opposition need not criticise back. Singaporeans are already doing that. What the opposition need to do is to show that they have more alternatives and ideas to make Singapore a better place.At the lower level of politics that is sexual minority rights and advocacy, and in SinQSA, I personally don't believe in solely criticising homophobic people, but rather feel that we should provide solutions and alternatives such as giving information/education, increasing interaction and encouraging people to listen to and care for one another.You consult the people, get some ideas, and then you go, "let's do this" - and people will love you for that and will vote for you.At the moment, it appears that the PAP government have their ideas and go "let's do this" without actually listening to people. Yes, they are not in the business of making everyone happy, but they make consultation with the public look as if it is a token thing to do.This is where the opposition can come in. The opposition can work with the PAP to help Singaporeans, and people can judge for themselves, especially when the PAP continues to appear too preoccupied with eradicating the opposition.I don't know why I am talking about Elections. But whether we have it sooner or later, we still need to be aware of certain issues. Again, there's nothing taboo about race, religion and elections. These are realities we cannot shy away from.And if we do get a "freak election result", will Ah Seng's right be overturned by his obligation?-add-I realise after reading this post a day after it was written, that my thoughts and ideas are so fragmented. All over the place. Maybe I was having a headache. Full-time student doing reservist (email sent Sep 29, 2009)Dear Mr Teo,I refer to Ms XXX’s letter (on behalf of Perm Sec) on XX July, 2009, in response to my email and feedback sent on 12 June, 2009.I am the second year full-time Masters student who had applied and appealed for deferment from a recent in-camp training (ICT) from XX to XX Sept. Both were unsuccessful, and I have since decided to attend the ICT, which clashed with my studies, research and teaching commitments.I have also written an email on XX June, which is supposed to be feedback and not any more request for deferment.There are several questions raised in my XX June email that have not been answered, and I would most appreciate an answer from MINDEF for just one of them.Now that I have completed 2 and half weeks of ICT, at the expense of my student and teaching assistant commitments, I ask if MINDEF will be able, in return, to pay for my school fees in the event my scholarship expires next August (2010) and I am unable to complete my course and thesis. This scenario will require me to extend my studies by one or half a semester. Is MINDEF willing to express its appreciation for NSmen who pursue higher studies by helping this NSman foot his tuition fees when his scholarship expires?I have, after all, given my best during my ICT, as I always do and there will always be someone, higher or lower rank, to vouch for that. I have gone beyond my job scope to volunteer for menial work and even helping out my fellow NSman colleagues even though we are not in the same platoon.Now, I return to my civilian and student life, faced with 2 weeks of readings and research to catch up on. I have papers to mark too.Will MINDEF pay for 2 and half weeks of my semester fees in Semester One of the academic calendar year 2010/2011?Is MINDEF willing to do something to make our relationship a lot fairer, and more mutually beneficial?Aside from the abovementioned question, I would like to take the opportunity to say that, with all due respect, I personally do not support conscription, reservist and MINDEF. But in a country that outlaws conscientious objection, I serve NS because I do not want to be incarcerated and have my private and professional life threatened or destroyed. I serve out of fear, and I serve because I have no choice. Even my wife does not support this. These are all genuine on-the-ground issues and we do not need to use abstract concepts like national defense to silence the Singaporean sufferers who always receive the shorter end of the deal when it comes to reservist.I appreciate a thoughtful, fair and compassionate gesture from MINDEF with regards to my 2 and a half weeks of commitment at the expense of my studies, research and teaching commitments. I have already endured 2 rounds of non-compassion when my application and appeal for deferment were earlier rejected, but I still served my reservist with 100% commitment.I look forward to your response.Ho Chi Sam MinDEF: More action, less talk please, we're Singaporeans (Unpublished - Sep 22, 2009)I refer to Colonel Darius Lim's response (Sept 22) to Mr Sylvester Lim's letter explaining his in-camp training (ICT) call-up during his undergraduate course.Like Sylvester, I am a student, but pursuing full-time graduate studies at the National University of Singapore.I am currently attending an ICT in the middle of of my semester.This has caused disruptions to my obligations as a teaching assistant, my research and thesis writing. On top of that, I am unable to attend seminars or be around for consultation for my students.I returned home for the weekend exhausted and nursing blisters on my fingers, both obvious impediments to catching up on any student and research obligation.Months ago, my application and later appeal for deferment had both been rejected.A letter of rejection and a response from the Ministry of Defence (MinDEF) following my letter to MinDEF both expressed MinDEF's understanding and appreciation of NSmen pursuing higher education.I have since made the decision to put my studies, research and teaching aside and attend the ICT.I suggest that MinDEF put more than just consolatory words into "understanding" and "appreciation" for Singaporean sons who are pursuing degrees and sacrifice a lot to do reservist.As a student, two weeks away from lessons and research results in backlog work and loss of momentum, and more than two weeks would be required to regain what is lost.There is no such thing as a cover or replacement for a student or researcher when he is doing his ICT.I suggest MinDEF reimburse NSmen for a semester or half a semester of school fees, in the period they are called up for ICT. This gesture will benefit those who are called up for ICT during their studies, and be less burdened by student loans.This way, NSmen do not end up on the deeper side of the losing end, with only a few consolatory words and a huge sense of helplessness and resignation.Most NS-liable people are well acquainted with being helpless and resigned, so something must be done to lessen that.In my case, as I am on research scholarship which expires August next year, I would like to ask if MinDEF is willing to pay for two and a half weeks of school fees in the event I am unable to complete my course and submit my thesis by then.This question has been ignored in my letter to MinDEF and I would like to repeat it here.It is time MinDEF offer solutions that thoughtfully, sincerely and genuinely help, instead of giving us reservist-liable Singaporeans doses of dead-end communications rhetoric.I suggest that MinDEF do public relations communications that are - or at least tend towards being - mutually beneficial, rather than one-way.The fact that conscription and reservist are mandatory does not mean that MinDEF have the right treat Singaporeans this way, students included.Furthermore and with all due respect, MinDEF should not only talk about their "understanding" and "appreciation", but show that they are mean it and do something that the NSman will feel is reasonable and meaningful, that they feel "understood" and "appreciated".At the same time, NSmen should not be afraid to speak up, make suggestions and stake a claim in their relationship with the organisation.Ho Chi Sam Seagulls on the Ris I figured I should join the crowd of spectators, and gather around a recent exhibit that has garnered considerable cyber attention.It appears, in the case of Miss Singapore World 2009, Ris Low, there is an intimate - yet boredering on obsessive - relationship between the exhibit and the audience.On the surface, it is plain to see how most of us will examine the exhibit. We individualise its qualities and view it in isolation. This makes it easier for one to make esteem-damaging jibes at the 19 year old, and all the more are we inclined to do it given recent news of her committing credit card fraudAt another but unpopular and inconvenient level, we see her as a possible window to what is wrong with society, and under what circumstances and conditions that have led to such a spectacle.And then, we turn our attention to the audience. Wee Shu Min and the Intellectual Snob persona have already revealed some interesting qualities of us people. It already has been revealed to us how individuals and people react to certain things, and frame their arguments and criticisms.The more that is said, the more that is revealed about how they think, how they are morally oriented, how they are socialised and perhaps what their characters are.The more that is said, we come to know how people perceive certain issues and what areas of concerns they are more predisposed to.I believe that the "actor" on the "stage" only tell less than half the story; for the audience is key to the narrative.The actor holds an advantage over the audience, as when they have come to exist in the theatre, it is the audience who more readily and unknowingly, surrender their ability of self-reflexivity. The audience becomes too preoccupied with the drama, and as the drama entwines itself with their respective subjectivities and predispositions, they are taken in, relinquishing any thought of introspection during the performance.Unfortunately, I think Ris Low is equally as disadvantaged as the mob that makes her newsworthy, for she probably had not intended to be a spectacle outside the domain of beauty pageantry.Inadvertently, she has not only revealed how malicious and/or unforgiving we are, but also the social standards we use to judge others.She reveals how people in a nation, that continually and conscientiously celebrates difference, has on an ad hoc basis, come to impose categories and expectations of what is the 'right' way of being. This is a paradox: On the one hand, we promote diversity, but on the other, we demand some standardisation and streamlining that omits people of the same demography as Ris.People see what they want to see and interpret things according to how they see it. And that is how some have come to associate my discussion on Ris Low with my discussion on the person, when my focus is actually on the circumstances that led to us to giving her the unhealthy attention in the first place. In simple words, I don't really care about Ris Low, but am more interested in the people who "care" about her and how they represent themselves when they enter the discussion.It is very much similar to coffeeshop talk about how evil the government is. In this case, we give attention not to the evil-ness of the government, but rather the subjectivities that underlie such a discussion, as well as the relevant relationships.By convention, we are often more preoccupied with the discussed than the discussor. A topic of discussion doesn't exist without someone saying something. And after something is said/discussed, the sayer/discussor fades behind the discussion.Quite a number of Singaporeans, as already acknowledged by some netizens, speak like Ris, if not "worse". On the one hand, we try to promote Singapore as cosmopolitan yet "uniquely Singaporean", and on the other hand, we are appalled by the extent to which Ris Low has (seemingly) naturally localised - but destroyed - the English language.Through the criticisms, we have come to realise that in certain domains, the localisation of certain things are prohibited, simply because of image - we worry what others might think of us.Well, "boomz" is probably a spontaneous concocted onomatopoeia that explains eye-catching flambouyance and extravagence. The Tamil, Bahasa Melayu and Mandarin languages on television are also seeing some lax in 'standards' from a linguistically conservative point of view. English is borrowed into the dialogue, and so are various colloquial expressions/exclamations, like "lah", "lor", "hor" in Mandarin dialogue.There is also the cultural element, when Chinese pop cultural slapstick enters the domain of Mandarin dialogue. When a person says something outrageous, his two friends will "fly" backwards as if they were literally hit by a train. They go "biiiissshhhh". When someone says something ludicrous, the more anglicised folk will go "roll my eyes" while the Chinese slapstick folk will go "diaozzz".It is probably most accidental (and most natural) that Ris reveals such intersections of cultural expressions. On the one hand, we observe a lack of English vocabulary, but on the other, there is some degree of amalgamation. We may see amalgamation, or we may see corruption of the English langauge. As if we owned it, right? And who are we trying to impress when we attempt to enforce it? Sure, there's some economic value in speaking proper English, because of its linguistic (and to some extent, cultural) hegemony.There are tensions in how we manage culture - we push for homogenisation and heterogenisation/diversity at the same time, and in certain contexts or domains of political correctness, we place more value in the adoption of certain positions.It is unfortunate that Ris Low is guilty of credit card fraud, not because of the dishonest and morally wayward act of committing fraud, but the extent to which the news of it validates existing and unconnected criticisms of her.Like Season One and Two Phua Chu Kang, Ris has become the whipping boy, or girl rather, for the "problem" that is broken English. Yet, we probably will never fathom how much more authentic Ris is compared to say, Irene Ang's Rosie Phua.It reveals the extent to which we apply (or remove) the concession of "nobody's perfect" in certain contexts, and for others, we impose a "you better be perfect" mantra.Ris and the accompanying drama both present us with the opportunity to critique and rethink beauty pageants. However, there still remain those who treat beauty pageants as unproblematic, and any problem would lie in and be isolated to the contestant. As we unravel the "problem" with pageants, we begin to realise the extent to which we ordinary people, members of society, are related to these pageants. Of course, in the case of Singapore, it is somewhat an apathetic relationship, which explains the dismal sponsorship for our Miss Universe and Miss World local competitions, unless there is something really scandalous about the contestants worthy exploring in cyberspace. And again, from where I am coming, a "scandal" does not exist in isolation, but require the socially desirable attributes of sensationalism and the fixation of an audience base. Fetish is a two-way relationship.I wonder if Ris will have a release or do an interview in light of recent events. Maybe she'll do a Cantona and talk about seagulls. Good News Malay! I had a glance at the headlines on the Sunday Times today.Well, it is not at the sensational headline of the murder of Singaporean-born porn star Felicia Tang, who has perhaps been erroneously tagged as a porn star, even though she has done a few topless shoots. But for Singaporeans, we go the easy route and conflate nudity into pornography. Hey, if you're George Lim Heng Chye, littering will probably be similar to the leprosy of desire that is masturbation and unethical medical practices. So let us just call it porn.I had a glance at the headlines.I saw the "good news" reporting of the Muslim community. Conflation. Conflation. Immediately, I thought about the Malay Muslim community in Singapore. Very natural. And I thought to myself, "OMG, yet another good news reporting for the appeasement of our ethnic minority friends."As my brain processed the image of me palm-smacking my forehead. I realised, amidst the Hougang Taoist smoke lingering in the air, that it was Hari Raya Puasa!Nevertheless, looking at the headline, I remember a conversation I had with a Malay bunkmate during my reservist training (I'm still in the middle of reservist training by the way).I told him my impression of Malay politics in Singapore, or rather the PAP government's policy and attitude towards Singaporean Malays. Deep down inside, I had wanted to see to what extent is my view on Singaporean Malays blinkered and shallow (hey, at least I want to know more, right?).I told him how I, as a non-Malay, rather than a Singaporean Chinese (I seldom think of myself as Chinese until I am reminded of my skin colour or when people speak to me in Mandarin or conjure up the Level 3 Sino Dragon Crusher on my skull), genuinely felt that, in point form:1) Our government has a "don't piss off the Malays" policy/approach.2) And as a result of that policy/approach, we get stuff (releases, policies, reports) where Singaporean Malays appear to come first.3) And that is why I get the impression that the government, for the sake of wanting to stay in power, appears to treat Singaporean Malays better.4) On a sidenote, I also mentioned that Singaporean Malays are the swing voters. And the PAP is smart enough to secure their vote.My mate, a diploma holder, now pursuing a part-time degree while working for a regional business, agreed with my observation, but disagreed with my analysis. On the outside, we both saw the same thing. But he told me, "Your perspective is your perspective. You need to see it from our perspective."And he gave me a lesson on subjectivity!But first, I'd like to point out that I find it a little more difficult to address me and my "fellow Singaporean ethnic Chinese folks" as a collective, "our". I feel the Chinese community, or rather a collection of yellow-skinned folk, are too fragmented, along the faultlines of language and class.Any how, he told me he feels that while he believes that there is a "don't piss off the Malays" approach to appeasement adopted by the government, the circumstance is somewhat different from my analysis.He said that he feels that the government gives too much attention to the Chinese, and it has allowed systems in place that benefit the Chinese more, at the expense of Malays.Therefore, in his opinion, he believes that the "don't piss off the Malays" approach to appeasement is to make the Malays less sad or angry.I guess we will never know, unless we knew what is the percentage of Malay vote for the PAP every election. Of course, only the government knows. When they say "your vote is secret", it means that it is only secret to you, but that perhaps does not mean it is secret to others (in positions of power).To sum up that point, my bunkmate and I agree with the statement that the PAP government has a "don't piss off the Malays" approach to appeasement". I'm repeating this so as to make the point clear any way.But we are different in our analysis of the circumstance, based on our different positions:Sam: The government gives special attention to the Malays.Bunkmate: The government does not give enough attention to the Malays.He told me more about job applications and stated how it really sucked that the bilingual requirement is a mere euphemism for English and Mandarin language proficiency. Of course, being a racial majority, it is too easy for my Chinese privilege to blind me to these things.Any way, appeasement does not necessarily mean a minority group will be able to be "part of the team" or "play catch up with the majority". I was thinking, after what my bunkmate said, that there will always be culture-influenced infrastructure and institutions that will impede the integration of ethnic minorities.When we speak of a multiculturalism and a pluralism, we might get different interpretations, impressions and reactions toward it, depending on our status as a majority or a minority. And when we look at it from a position we live in, or are comfortable with, we take certain things for granted.For instance, my introspection and degree of reflexivity is somewhat limited, to the point I am (only) able to imagine how a Chinese elite politics of pluralism is merely a means to Chinese elite economic prosperity and continued political stranglehold.The biggest irony in this Malay-Chinese exchange we had in the bunk was that we totally invisibilise the ethnic Indians! It's quite funny, to put it in a cynical way. When we debate Malay politics/policy in Singapore, we usually engage the Chinese (elite) and of course the Malay folks. We seldom if never invite ethnic Indian Singaporean discourse on Malay policy. Heck, for most Singaporean Chinese, Indian is Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Sri Lankan, Sikh, all Indian. Very sad. But then again, knowing all these has little influence on how we achieve Chinese elite economic prosperity and continued political stranglehold in Singapore, right?I told my bunkmate that I, as a sandwich class (slightly below middle-class) ethnic Chinese Singaporean, feel left out by the government.My bunkmate told me, that he as a Malay, and probably in the same income range as my household I believe, feels left out by the government.Win already, right?If both of us, as Chinese and Malay respectively, feel left out by the government, what on earth is happening?It is very important to note that we do not at all represent our respective ethnic communities, as again they are different class and (to some extent) cultural divides within these communities.I related to him about the time when I spoke to a Malay graduate colleague, who felt that the government should stop giving special attention to the Malays. That colleague provided the analogy "if you give $5 to a beggar, you make him a beggar", somewhere along the lines.Then my bunkmate said, "Educated Malay, right?" We both laughed, probably aware of the stereotype-fed oxymoron he just spewed out.He proceeded to explain that not all Malays are the same. And that some Malays really need help, like the poorer ones.I challenged that point, saying "A poor Chinese is the same as a poor Malay, no?"He disagreed, and explained something I can't recall. But I realise that a poor Malay and a poor Chinese may live in the same place, but the circumstances they face is different. They may share the lack of literacy in English, for instance, and thus speak their own language. But they live in an economic space dominated by Chinese culture and politics.Even I, with my education and all, require some reminding of this cultural reality. The reason why I am sometimes unable to immediate think of this is because of the very fact that I live in my Chinese privilege, whether or not I consciously see myself as Chinese. It is a privilege I enjoy, unknowingly or not, for the colour of my skin, access to ethnic Chinese-releated cultural capital and resources and so on, resultant attitudes around me arising from these circumstances, that give me such perspectives, bundled with blinkers blocking out the possibilities for any critical amount of introspection.I mean, it is like using two mirrors to see what is at the back of your head. We do not do it all the time. At the most, we are able to use one mirror and reflect on the things we see. But we forget about the things we do not see without two mirrors (triple negative, sial!)I think my fascination with ethnic minority politics (or minority politics and representation in general) stems from several realities I experience as a majority in many aspects. I may qualify as a numerical majority in many instances, but I feel like a minority most of the time. At the same time, knowing more about the realities that minorities face will help me understand my position as a "majority" and the things I take for granted.Knowing about the things you take for granted is not an end on its own, or for you to feel grateful, so that you can continue voting for the PAP (right?). But at least, when you are in the position to make decisions, influence another person or just develop relationships of any kind with others, you can create stronger bonds and minimise suffering for everyone on the whole.Any how, I feel there is generally nothing taboo about race or religion so long as we want to find out more. Of course, having extra institutional affiliations, stemming from the institutionalisation (or tribification) of race and religion, gives people an extra reason to be offended. I mean, it's like having a flag, and an extra reason to die for (sorry, I just hate conscription and reservist, especially one that doesn't tolerate conscientious objection).My bunkmate told me that he feels quite cynical about all these "good news" being featured about the Malay (and Muslim) community. He explained that there are so many Malays in trouble and in need, and they have to feature only the nice, good and happy stories.Our conversation drifted to the representation of Malaysian politics (simply because my mind keeps drifting). I was telling him how I feel about the representation of Malaysian politics, saying that I observe in the past few years, the Straits Times have been presenting Malaysian politics as something that is vibrant and "very happening", in a very negative sense. I gave him my analysis, that I believe that the local press presents a shitty image of our neighbours just to make us Singaporeans feel lucky we have our PAP government and our PAP government-led stability.I asked him how is it like in the local Malay papers. His impression is that the Malays papers do not portray Malaysian politics as too "vibrant", because a decent proportion of Singaporean Malays have relatives all across Malaysia, and it is a potentially sensitive thing.It is really interesting. I am no expert at all in these affairs but I really enjoyed my conversation with my bunkmate. While his and my perspectives are only two of numerous positions on Singapore and Malay politics, I am probably reminded of the certain things I have taken for granted, more so than him.Both of us were equally surprised at each other, when each of us claimed that we feel forgotten and that it was the ethnic other who got better attention from the government. Of course, to be more specific, while I agree that Chinese folks in general get more attention from the government (simply because they are a numerical majority), 1) there are certain segments of Chinese folks who get proportionately more attention than others, and 2) I still have the impression that Singaporean Malays get proportionately more attention than other ethnic communities.Our exchange was never an angry one, nor did we feel angry at our positions. It was, for me, more like a "what to do?" position, a bordering-on-sad kind of a feeling, coupled with healthy doses of disempowering helplessness. You know, the kind of disempowering helplessness when you are part of SAF, doing your reservist, cannot get your deferment even though you are on a full-time graduate studies course and when you write to feedback to Teo Chee Hean, the perm sec thinks you still want to defer even though you just want to feedback, indicating that the government only reads what they want to see and not what you actually want to say, so fuck off.Our exchange offered a sharing of perspectives, and although problems were identified, we didn't and couldn't think of the solutions. Nevertheless, I feel that we should have more of such conversations, at different levels, so that we can make better informed decisions to ensure that "no Singaporean is left behind" is not merely a Chinese elite rhetoric, as are the notions of multiculturalism, pluralism, prosperity, progress, racial harmony, etc. (like how "Asian values", "mainstream values" rhetoric should neither be spearheaded nor monopolised by the Christian right).And of course, let us involve the ethnic Indian Singaporeans next time okay! I am finally an "insightful" blogger I'm home already (but booking in Monday night for the second week of my reservist) and got to see my prizes.It is great to have the bragging rights as "The Most Insightful Blog".Of course, it depends on who's nominated for the competition and whether you answer the nomination.I'm lucky there are a number of blogs, older and with more authority, who aren't in the competition. Perhaps, they are unknowingly gracious enough to let me go to Phuket, the top prize for the category, although I would have to pay for my own airfare (WTF goes the husband and wife).It is both easy and difficult to win the category given the other nominees are considered insightful in their own right. Perhaps, in the future, insightful can be further defined.And perhaps, in the future, they would allow the same blog to feature across multiple categories. A good example would be mschorlor.com, a blog that will probably challenge not only the category it was contending for this year, but many others like "most insightful", "best individual blog" and so on.Of course, we cannot please everyone. See http://singapore.groups.vox.com/library/post/6a00d4142545853c7f011017f7645f860e.html.The OMY Singapore Blog Awards is a young competition, confined to Chinese and English bloggers. Even the wife, who attended the awards ceremony on my behalf and who got to shake the hand of the ubiquitous George Yeo (yes, he IS everywhere), said it was rather, to put it politely, "sino". Moreover, she was a bit uncomfortable with the pouting and posing for the cameras.I really wanted to attend the awards ceremony. Get to see the Supperclub, see George Yeo in the flesh (since he is also the MP for Aljunied GRC, my former home, which smells like urine occasionally), see Yu-Kym and see what's the fuss all about haha.Speaking of Yu Kym, I think she should have her own category, and she'll probably win it given she is, well, bold. If I were to blog about what she blogs about, I'll be labelled a pervert and MINDEF/SAF will filter my blog as ADULT/MATURE:PORNOGRAPHY.The competition and organisation should only get better in time. That's the nature of the business of events and contests. Maybe next year's prizes will include healthier food and beverage prizes, you know, the kind of stuff that will not raise the salt content in your body, and not to mention airfare for hotel stays.Speaking of prizes, I believe future competitions should feature more technological/hardware/software prizes and vouchers, along with a larger assortment of food and beverage items, like dining vouchers, and not to forget fashion apparel and lifestyle related items. With events/competition organising, it's always a chicken and egg thing, where you have to balance/snowball the participation/audience versus the sponsors.And there will always be people who believe their blogs are beyond this, or try to invalidate such competitions. Then again, it's like Singapore Idol. Some say it's shitty, and then there are others who join.It is true that you do not need to win a contest or a category to be an "insightful" or "most insightful" blog. That is why I believe that a site like mschorlor.com could genuinely win the "most insightful blog" category, hands down.Organisers will always be concerned with the credibility of the contest, and will make the necessary decisions.Maybe future competitions should have separate categories, English and non-English/multi-lingual blogs. This will pave the way for more entrants.I'm surprised to find out that the "Best Modeling Blog" features only one guy. On the internet, a female blogger will always be more exotic than a male blogger. Readers (male or female) are more likely to appreciate feminine beauty. Maybe that's how our culture goes.Maybe I should put more pictures here and give the "youngsters" a run for their money next year? Haha. But that will probably come at a price, when people see too many visuals and start treating what I write less seriously. Imagine I write a serious article on single mums and inserted a topless picture of myself that screams "look at my abs!".The more I look at the RazorTV interviews, I begin to realise that sometimes self-confidence (or self-deprecating humour, or pseudo-arrogance) comes across as arrogance, similar to how some of us "read" Ris Low. BOOMZ.Maybe it's a blessing I wasn't at the awards ceremony and had to be put in the spot. I prefer to write releases than do live interviews.Nominated twice, won once. Not a bad achievement. It's also great that some contemporaries and the organisers recognise that visits/traffic don't really matter too, but content. Maybe they didn't. People generally don't really want to read long wordy blog entries, when they could spend a couple of minutes ogling at some bikini-clad girl or some pretty boy (whatever your aesthetic taste).When it comes to a popular vote, I'll probably lose out. So I guess this year's judging criteria sort of played into my favour.I'm also proud to say that in winning this award, it's wonderful to know that I'm doing some justice to my discipline in sociology and discourse analysis, and that academic discussions can have a place in the blogosphere.Lastly, a big thanks to OMY and the organisers. I look forward to being nominated again next year and more holidays for my wife and I. Combing the Mane of Singanews for Lice This is probably old news. Buzz, mainly of suspicious nature, recently surrounded Singanews.Like many issues, they have a lifespan, and apparently the interest and discussions have slightly withered away, given how they have appeared to gather full momentum a few days ago.As with any cyberspace-based discourse, we find ourselves negotiating an ecosystem of facts, subjective truths, cynicism, one-upmanship, and of course, speculation.The Online Citizen has provided an "About Singanews" factsheet earlier in the week, reproduced at the permission of CEO Mathew Yap. It can be accessed here (http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/09/about-singanews/). Do note that Singanews has referenced Goh Chok Tong's 1997 Singapore 21 Vision as a probably inspiration of its launch.One gripe some Singaporeans have with Singanews is that they believe the news portal might be a sheepskin for a Christian movement, one that probably has doses of puritanism, conservatism and righteousness too high for others to accept, or even respect.A point of contention remains in the rhetoric of "mainstream values", of which Matthew Yap already has elaborated in an interview with The New Paper as one includes, or stars, a "generational, natural family which focuses on procreation".While the conflation of "family" and "procreation" is not entirely exclusive to Christianity, it suggests many things about a possible conservative agenda. By conservative, I refer to sexual conservatism, a system of beliefs often under the guise of a general term like "conservative" or "mainstream values".This form of sexual disciplining ignores its own history in Victorian puritanism, from which Western conservative ideas of body and sexual discipling derive. And here we are, Asians appropriating these values as if they were indigenous to us when it was Western Christianity which had colonised our minds.What my Christian friends will see as truth and the right way of life, I see a disregard for history and cultural circumstances. An open mind will come to realise the extent to which Western Christianity has been borrowed into the discourse of "Asian values".Yes, even I have joined the bandwagon of speculation, as it is evident how inevitable I bring religion into the launch of a news portal.For the record, the soft launch on September 9 was private and so was the event at which it was launched. It is unfortunate that news of it broke into the mainstream.I feel it is a little ironic that a champion of mainstream values did not want mainstream attention.Nevertheless, we could recognise it to be a small humble launch at a small humble event attended by a small humble crowd. We could recognise that a portal foundationed on "mainstream values" may want to consult a section of society that supported this moral agenda. After all, the discourse of "mainstream values" cuts across many segments of society.Given Chinese Christian connections, a demographical convenience, we could recognise that it would be easy to reach out to the converted, and there would not be much of a burden for the launch to be part of such an event. In that view, there is nothing wrong with that. After all, those who have done events, should know that the success of events depends a lot on connections and convenience.Say if there was a socially liberal news portal to be launched, it will probably want the opinions and consultation of a private audience of a particular demography too.What is slightly unsettling is the fact that we will never know, despite official releases and explanations from Singanews representatives, that there is a Christian agenda.Reasons for such suspicion are aplently. We will never be able to see a salient Christian agenda, because it might be entangled with moral discourses on gender norms, sexuality, secular pro-life politics, secular/multi-religious ideas of what constitutes a family, and so on. Hence, a discourse on "mainstream values" will always be suspected of harbouring a Christian agenda.At the same time, we could be wrong in giving Christianity in Singapore too much credit, as not every narrative is a euphemism for Christian doctrine. We could be wrong in speculating that it might be a Christian agenda to unite other religions in Singapore, by highlighting certain commonalities in beliefs and values, and steering this ad hoc alliance towards or against specific issues - we could be wrong in suggesting a Christian lynchpin in these affairs.Christianity and Christian faith in Singapore has been re-articulated, re-rationalised, and in simple terms, evolved. I believe it has even entered the lives and mindsets of non-Christian Singaporeans. After all, some of us think in English, some of us mingle with Christian friends, some of us watch television programmes.Christians themselves have also articulated their Christian faith as not merely a religion, but a relationship with the biblical god. Christian faith is also re-articulated as a familial entity, which of course is not exclusive to them.With monotheism, there is "monotruth", singular truth, truth with the capital T, wherein capitalisation in the English language indicates importance, like how most of us, Christian and non-Christian, have come to capitalise "god". (ooo, capitalise "god". it is a pun that explores many possibilities, but I don't think I shall delve into that.)Monotheists believe in one truth, and there have been different manifestations across time and space. We used to excommunicate, prosecute, punish or kill those who do not subscribe to the one truth. Given modernisation, nationalism and immigration, a new politics of multireligiosity, multiculturalism, entities so crucial to the economic sustenance and progress of a country like Singapore, we discard this bloody history for newer ways of propagating the "monotruth".I believe the acceptance of other faiths (and the faith-less) is not what it seems. Amidst the political correctness, I believe there is some degree of condescension and begrudgement. It is here where religion, the institution, attempts to lay claim over "knowledge" and "truth", whatever they are. The stakeholders are every individual's faith.It is under the circumstances of our informal Christian/non-Christian contact with Christianity that makes us less able to challenge specific discourses. We are thus more like to dismiss suspicion because a specific issue appears to us as a concern for all, and not only a Christian thing. The entwinement of Christian doctrine and politics with mainstream politics becomes unproblematic, therefore appearing to be natural and authentic social issue for the multicultural masses.This is why some Singaporeans are suspicious of Singanews. They see something that some of us don't. They are asking questions some of us cannot even think of asking. I believe the problem does not start with us not knowing the answers, but rather us not even knowing what to ask at all.For me, a Christian Chinese elite (elite as in relatively privileged socio-economic status and fairly educated) discourse on "mainstream values" raises a lot of alarm bells. To put it crudely, but not intending any disrespect, it is a wolf in sheep's clothing. We are accustomed and rather warm towards the rhetoric of "mainstream values", which makes discourse on "mainstream values" a fertile ground for certain entities with desires for hegemony to infiltrate, scavenge, hijack, (re)claim, conquer or crusade.The discourse on "mainstream values" deserves the participation of non-Chinese Christians too, by the way, and not to forget non-proponents of mainstream values themselves. Everyone, mainstream or subaltern, has a say in it.Speaking of participation, the existence of Singanews appears as a reaction to the apparent lack of participation of proponents of "mainstream values". Perhaps, this is a genuine problem in Singaporean cyberspace, where it is rather easy to raise your pitchforks and light your torches and do your cyber lynch-mob routine, championing a certain brand of political correctness we dare not whisper in the corporeal world.Obviously, the people behind Singanews have long felt there is a need for the representation and participation of the "generational family structure", and that the mainstream press is thought to have forgotten about them.I believe this is a reaction to how growingly globalised and cosmopolitan Singapore is, and the extent to which our government is indirectly allow non-mainstream (or "alternative", as the "mainstream" would like to call it) value systems and identities to proliferate. A clash in values will always put the incumbent on the defence. In a country where we (try) tolerate different races and religion, people continue to feel threatened.Non-mainstream value systems and identities, that directly contradict perceived mainstream values, are discarded and demoted to "alternative lifestyles", suggesting they are inferior and more flawed.As the "Values" of Singanews indicate, we seek to "promote truth, peace, compassion and justice". Is this promotion couched in a certain perspective that ignores that presence of other perspectives, that embraces universalism over subjectivity, that passes off a particularly popular and powerful beliefs system as the only beliefs system?Any how, is the government and the press not "mainstream" enough for Singanews to enter the cosmos of Singaporean journalism?We need to see for ourselves how legitimate there is a need for this particular brand of "mainstream values" to be part of news reporting. Perhaps, we are truly missing something out. Only time will tell.I believe Singanews is here because there is a perceived lack of focus on "mainstream values" and the "generational family structure", as well as their representation and participation. That perceived lack might be genuine and that is why I believe we should support Singanews to some extent. However, I still believe this problem is mainly confined to cyberspace discourse.Perhaps, with Singanews on the internet, we will no longer engage in "liberal" monologues, or outshout websites into closing down.No matter what the (true) leanings of Singanews, its online presence should provide for more dialogue, even though it might be conservative. It is not wrong to be conservative or liberal (you could be politically liberal and morally conservative any way), and it will always be natural for you to feel your beliefs system is better than others. What matters is that we get to participate and from our participation, we become better informed.And it is the perceived lack of participation of the "generational family structure" in cyberspace, for one, that makes some of us not so informed, even though we claim to be wiser and seen it all. That is why I welcome Singanews, as it will pave the way for more voices, some of which might support, and some of which might challenge the notion of "mainstream values", revealing many possibilities and positions.Once Singanews defines and communicates its idea of "mainstream values" through its publications, I am sure there will be invited many other voices to articulate their idea of "mainstream values", because after all, every Singaporean matters, so it says.We need to give Singanews credit for identifying its moral position, because there are organisations that hide their positions under vague rhetoric.Any way, in a political climate where we are faced with Islamophobia, some of us Singaporeans have Christianophobia. We see the extent to which Christian doctrine is deeply rooted, entwined, how it appropriates, (re)claims and hijacks certain issues and discourses. Christianophobia in Singapore lies deeper in the areas of ideology and way of thinking. Do we then blame the Christianophobic individuals, or do we start looking at the conditions that led to people becoming suspicious of Christianity in Singapore?As said, I find it too convenient to link Singanews with the Christian agenda. And this is why I believe my suggestion of self-interrogation for others should also be applied to myself. Unfortunately for many, the self-interrogation of your prejudice is sometimes confined within your prejudice, as it begins with your prejudice and ends with your prejudice. Heck, there is even prejudice and bias when we talk about being fair and gracious, for we are speaking about fairness and graciousness with a certain ideal and from a certain position.Maybe Singanews could free up a few spaces on the Straits Times previously hogged by one George Lim?-Add- I am still in camp, doing my reservist training. There will be more from me on this issue, whether or not it is still considered "newsworthy".And with regards to the title of this article, I am not suggesting anything when I say the following word: Homophone. I realise it's just cheeky, that's all. Singanews There has been some buzz surrounding Singanews, a news portal.It had a soft launch on September 9, at a forum event organised by ATRIA in Kum Yam Methodist Church, following a talk by Dr Thio Li-Ann discussing the involvement of Christian Singaporeans in public space.More can be found at the following links (will be updated; please do the proper attributions/citations):The Void Deck:http://thevoiddeck.org/?p=568http://thevoiddeck.org/?p=573http://thevoiddeck.org/?p=577The Secret Political Blog:http://secretpoliticalblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/thio-li-ann-christian-agenda-and.htmlThe Kent Ridge Common:http://kentridgecommon.com/?p=5189http://kentridgecommon.com/?p=5206The Temasek Review:http://temasekreview.com/?p=13485 http://temasekreview.com/?p=13559http://temasekreview.com/?p=13601 http://temasekreview.com/?p=13604http://temasekreview.com/?p=13648The New Paper:http://tnp.sg/news/story/0,4136,213533,00.htmlYawning Bread:http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2009/yax-1062.htmThe Brotherhood:http://dotseng.wordpress.com/2009/09/14/singanews-the-theory-and-reality-a-study-in-internet-stupidity/Akikonomu:http://akikonomu.blogspot.com/2009/09/plausible-deniability-or-are-you-stupid.htmlThe Online Citizen:http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/09/about-singanews/Sex sells, so does politics:http://politicssg.blogspot.com/2009/09/thio-li-ann-is-back-with-new-weapon.htmlSilent Assasin's Archive:http://silentassassinarchive.wordpress.com/2009/09/17/spectacularly-secular/Where Bears Roam Free:http://wherebearsroamfree.blogspot.com/2009/09/thiophobia-why-are-gays-and-pro-gays.htmlFukzpaper:http://fuzkpaper.wordpress.com/2009/09/16/singanews/Pseudocritic:http://pseudocritiques.blogspot.com/2009/09/singanewscom.htmlTrapper's Swamp:http://callantham.org/blog/2009/9/15/bring-it-on-singanews.htmlSocially Aware:http://sociallycivil.blogspot.com/2009/09/josie-lau-sugar-mummy.htmlCivic Advocator:http://civicadvocator.net/singanewsDiscussions at:Sam's Alfresco Heaven:http://singsupplies.com/showthread.php?p=307261#post307033http://singsupplies.com/showthread.php?t=37886http://singsupplies.com/showthread.php?t=37923http://singsupplies.com/showthread.php?p=307180Trevvy:http://www.trevvy.com/sgboyx/index.php?showtopic=32017Hardwarezone:http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/showthread.php?t=2493961My Car Forum:http://www.mycarforum.com/index.php?showtopic=2642582SgForums:http://chitchat.sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/375528There seems to be some growing degree of sensitivity towards certain Christian movements in Singapore and of course towards the movements of specific individuals. Most Christians, if not all, will see it as their duty to make "right" and do "right", but this unfortunately does not go down well with those of non-Christian subjectivity.It is thus inevitable that one will develop a healthy dose of suspicion when Singanews was presented at a seemingly Christian forum. So what is "wrong" with this?In an interview with The New Paper, Singanews CEO Matthew Yap had explained, "repeatedly stress(ing) that the news portal does not have a Christian agenda", but "will be written from the perspective of mainstream family values, which he defines as 'a generational, natural family which focuses on procreation'."It is commendable for a news source to identify its position with respect to news reporting and journalism. It shows that it is open as to through which lens of journalistic objectivity it will be reporting. So what if this is a conservative stance?People who subscribe to "mainstream family values", whether or not a discursive camouflage for Christian doctrine, deserve to participate and be represented in the public domain.For those skeptical, critical and suspicious of some of our Christian fellow Singaporeans, they will be able to understand better and more clearly such (conservative and/or perhaps Christian) perspectives and definitions of "secular" and "mainstream family values". To be it crudely, and in view of what I think is growing animosity and suspicion, you will know the "beast" a little better.I mean, we are already well indoctrinated by a Chinese elite definition of "secular", why not get better acquainted with an allegedly conservative Christian definition of "secular"? What matters more is that people get to participate in the discourse of "secular", and not let it be dominated by a single ideology or ideological institution.Subconsciously, I think about "objective" (as in objectivity) when the idea of news is brought up. The word "objective" poses a paradox in this instance. There is "objective" as in objective news reporting, and then there is "objective" as in a goal, a target, with respect to an outcome you personally deem ideal.There is an objective in every attempt to be objective. Beautiful isn't it? A single word and/or idea has such tensions and paradoxes.Matthew has already cleared the air on the stance Singanews will be adopting. Furthermore, the presence of ex-journalists (or ex-reporters) will provide the news portal the experience and credibility any portal/paper needs. Journalists look for news, reporters wait for news by the way.Of course, there is always the skepticism that a religiously informed or Christian ideological core underpins a rhetoric that contends with vague stuff such as "mainstream family values" and "secular" and what is "good". For instance, I myself can claim to support and endorse "mainstream family values", but I do harbour ideas similar to my social and institution associations, which inform my mindset. In the end, I support an idea that has its exclusions, limitations, advantages, sanctions, that makes certain groups more visible, more equal, more legitimate than others.But what matters, philosophically, is that when I articulate my view or my organisation's view of certain concepts, an equal right is bestowed upon my critics to articulate their own view of the very same concepts. A rejection of either side is indicative of a desire to silence, overpower and ideologically cripple.The conservative folks in Singapore are to some extent victimised, by liberal journalism and bloggers. Of course, their victimisation has been played down in our specific climate of political correctness. This is why it does not really matter much to me whether Singanews has a Christian agenda or not, for it ultimately creates yet another platform for the seemingly voiceless and perhaps victimised folks to participate in the public domain. They get to express and articulate their views. Fair enough.At the same time, such an expression will inevitably be accompanied by criticism and challenges, all of which, put together, create dialogue. Dialogue is important, in my opinion. One side will take another side's idea/concept of X and show to what extent it is exclusive and what implications there may be. Theoretically, it's great, but the practical world of power-hunger, fear-mongering and good old fashioned assholism make everything a little spicier and complicated.I believe whatever information we have right now on Singanews are a combination of information and speculation. We are drawing the lines connecting the dots that we are only able to see. As we want to interrogate such a "Christian" movement, we need to interrogate ourselves. We need not develop a sympathy towards what we want to criticise, but we need to know our individual biases and demands first before we enter the public domain and entangle ourselves in specific discourses and rhetoric.Like the people we want to challenge, we see what we want to see. In a society where people see what they want to see, we create differences. It becomes more problematic when there are claims that certain perspectives are more authentic and legitimate than others.We criticise the Straits Times, and come up with online content/blog aggregators. But then again, aggregators also have the same strategic (but different tactic and objective) of framing as the party we first criticised. So, it is very natural that spaces are created for specific people and organisations to participate.It is very much similar to why there are many LGBTQ interest and advocacy groups in the States. Everyone probably has the same goal, but prefer to take different routes and positions.This is why, based on the (limited) information I have right now, I believe that Singanews should be supported. Of course, questions still linger, like the Christian connection, the source of funding and all that. We can deal with those in time. We should also lend some attention to the fact and principle that Singanews wants to provide a space for certain demographies to participate and be represented.I am also interested in finding out to what extent it will be "secular" and to what extent "mainstream family values" is articulated. There are a lot of good people I know who may fall within or outside "mainstream family values", so I'd like to find out more. But to hinder and silence Singanews, while being indicative of the intolerance most of us seek to battle, will be bad for dialogue.My main contention is only when Christian (or religious) folks try to pass off their ideology, doctrine and values as universal, which has severe implications. Some get left out of the picture, while the presence and ideas of others become invalidated, delegitimised. When you pass something universal, it indicates your intention of ideological and political hegemony. What makes it less innocent is that we think of it as innocent.In the mean time, I look forward to Singanews and its reporting from the perspective of "mainstream family values". There are many types of families in Singapore, different strategies of love, care and creating safe environments for our loved ones. And even within circles who subscribe to "mainstream family values", there will be different opinions. I may post another piece when I can get more information to clear out the speculation.I look forward not with suspicion, but with curiosity and interest. Transgender Representations: GID I shall now use this blog to write my thoughts down as I organise and write my thesis, titled "Transgender representations". A lot of people tell me I should just write (for fun) as it gives me the opportunity to reflect more.Many trans persons have claimed or explained they once (or still are) suffering from Gender Identity Disorder, or GID.When such medico-psychiatric diagnoses are invoked in the articulation of a person's condition or identity, alarm bells will ring for many a social scientist or a humanities scholar.The trans articulation of GID reveals a relationship between the individual and the medico-psychiatric institution, a historically and politically established authority - not to mention, legally recognised and respected.The institution of medico-psychiatry is very much intertwined with the domain of social life. To a large extent, it normalises and justifies certain cultural practices, and cultural categories, legitimising and transforming these aspects of life into entities that appear natural, ontological and taken for granted.In the case of Singapore, medico-psychiatry dovetails with prevailing social and legal sanctions imposed on nonconformity to the gender binary. We need to understand that in other geocultural contexts, in different economies with different histories, and subsequently, the extent to which societies and their institutions orientate themselves according to preexisting cultural categories and taxonomies.The fields of medicine and psychiatry have play a significant role in creating and preserving certain taxonomies, which in turn provide the very similar categories for these fields. This is the positivist building of knowledge - piling new research and knowledge on previous knowledge.This is where we have to be critical, for such an approach has implications on how people see themselves and the world, live their lives and how policies are formulated.The nonconfirmity to the gender binary is labelled a disorder, thus it is understood as a disorder.Transvestism, for instance, casts a huge shadow over cross-dressing, as the act, identity or lifestyle are not merely a psychiatric or psychological issue.The term "cross-dresser" indicates a turn away from psychiatry-informed rationalisations of the the world. Not all individuals who cross-dress see themselves as ill. And even those who do see themselves as ill, does this reveal the extent to which their relationship with the institution of medico-psychiatry is articulated?The institution of medico-psychiatry has enjoyed a one-way relationship with people like you and me. We question not its knowledge foundations, prejudices, historical male over-representation and positivism. We are subsumed under its discourses, and in the process, we forget about incongruences and outliers, and are choiceless when we straightjacket other individuals into adopting certain understandable medical categories.While there is a legitimate arguement that trans persons are in risk of losing their subjectivity in a modern social domain informed and authorised by medico-psychiatry, we have to appreciate the paradox that medico-psychiatry (along with its essentialist notions of gender and sex) constitutes also part of their subjectivity.Given linguistic limitations - considering language is informed by culture and cultural notions of gender, as discovered by cross-cultural studies on gender categories - there is insufficient vocabulary to explain and describe the trans experience and identity. Medico-psychiatry currently fills in the gap, and provides trans persons and lay persons the tools to making sense of transgenderism.The representation of the transgender, specifically the transsexual, revolves around the axis of medico-psychiatry. Sandy Stone observes that the social institutionalisation of behavioural profiles symptomatic of GID perpetuated itself when patients seeking sexual reassignment surgery had already read the famous German endocrinologist Harry Benjamin’s book and “provided the behaviour that led to acceptance for surgery”. In addition, Virginia Prince quips that transsexualism had become a “communicable disease”, wherein the more awareness it gained, the larger the number of people who identify with it.In Singapore, the identification with GID is a means to getting medical clearance for sexual reassignment surgery or SRS. This is a medical, administrative and legal process. GID is the passport to SRS in Singapore, and this is somewhat communicated between trans persons in the country seeking SRS. And then, there is always Thailand.It is under the very same medico-psychiatric discourse that creates a trans stratification. Certain trans identities are legitimised and receive the necessary attention, while other trans identities are dismissed as deviant, sickly or perverse.Such stratifying selectivity serves to sustain the dominant institution of gender, and to a large extent heteronormativity.For instance, a male-bodied person who wants to be a female-bodied woman who happens to be sexually oriented towards men, will receive more institutional support for her transition. Such a situation poses little threat to society, as gender and sexual "queer-ness" is systematically eliminated. Since little or no threat is posed to the gender binary and heteronormativity, there would be little opposition to SRS, despite the post-SRS reality of employment discrimination, among many others.For the genderblender, genderfucker or genderqueer persons, they are continually disincentivised, as they transgress the boundaries of gender and heteronormativity.A divorcement from medico-psychiatric discourses is not possible, not only because of its historical enmeshment with contemporary discourses on gender, but also due to way our cultural and economic institutions are designed. Since the institutions are not accommodating, onus is on the trans person to compromise and assimilate into a language and culture informed by medico-psychiatry.There may be movements to end the pathologisation of transgender and/or intersexed bodies and identities, believing that pathologisation entails stigma and some extent of haplessness in body "repairs" or "modifications". However, does this immediately and entirely retires the discourse of medico-psychiatry from the trans domain? How will this affect trans individuals who orientate their rationalisations and experiences around the medico-psychiatry discourse?Stigma will always exist, given the degree to which our cultural expectations are entrenched in our gendered and heterocentric culture and prejudices. Pathologisation may be a branch of this prejudice and it may serve to reinforce the very same set of prejudice that exacerbates it in the first place, but we have to acknowledge the reality that pathologisation also figures significantly in trans discourses and the articulation of trans identities. Pathologisation sustains the universality of the gender binary, and that cannot be deemed unhelpful to all trans persons.There should instead be more plural spaces for transgender persons, because different persons identity with different discourses, trans and non-trans. Or trans persons risk jumping out from one straightjacket to another.We can politicise and implicate the institution of medico-psychiatry as we analyse trans discourses, but how far can we actually go without silencing other trans identities around the world? Transgender Representations: Problems with discourse I shall now use this blog to write my thoughts down as I organise and write my thesis, titled "Transgender representations". A lot of people tell me I should just write (for fun) as it gives me the opportunity to reflect more.In a forum I attended, one of the panelists of trans men identifies himself as a heterosexual man who was once a lesbian, an "ex-lesbian".This utterance poses a epistemic (and perhaps linguistic) challenge. I believe such an expression exposes the limitations of our language - and hence our understanding and knowledge of the world through this language.In front of an audience probably sharing a common theory of queer identity, the trans person invokes culturally established queer labels to articulate his position as a man.As we put aside feminist and gender studies' constant attention on gender essentialism, we should turn our focus to the amalgamation of pre-established identities, informed by (hetero)normative discourses and queer discourses on gender identity."(Hetero)normative discourses", in a plural form, would probably have taken more credit than it deserves, but I figure it is important to acknowledge differences within heteronormativity - along the lines of culture, age, geography and so on.For the trans man, being a man entails certain physicality, aesthetics and behaviour. Being a straight man will involve further narrowing and certain specific traits which are culturally recognised and performed.It is this oxymoronic conscious performance of one's idea of the constitution of masculinity, which reflects the reality of trans assimilation into a society of cultural categories normatised into pre-cultural entities.According to Judith Butler, performance of gender (and sex and sexuality) is involuntary. The body (and self) is gendered and sexed through culturalisation, such that certain routine/routinised behaviours seem normal and agreeable with our respective categorical genders and sex. These categories become unchallenged as they appear to be ontological.In the case of the trans man, there is the very valid need to assimilate. Assimilation does not merely involve being part of the pre-established gender binary, but also the social, cultural and economic 'privileges' one enjoys as a member.I find it very interesting when one's identity disagrees with one's body and the expected set of behaviours culturally attached to it. This disagreement is further highlighted by the open and highly conscious subscription to another set of gendered performance alien to their bodies. In explaining "a straight man trapped in a female body", this indicates the voluntary adoption of specific (male) gendered performance.However, there are blindsides to this observation. There is a limitation(s) to language in the communication of identity and experiences. To indulge a little bit more in categorisation and taxonomisation, we cannot solely use or rely on certain feminist theories.There are disastrous scholarly implications, as we box and frame transgender identities and experiences within singular and/or specific theories and concepts. While non-trans individuals have a stake in trans discourses, given a multitude of interactions at the level of the layperson or scholar, we must be aware that narrow framing and convenient conclusions made on trans identities and discourses will pose great threats to trans people and how they are represented - and how we articulate their respective self-representation.Even the use of "their" is generalising, and runs the risk of reducing individual experiences to convenient pre-existing understandable ideas and concepts, for instance the invocation of "nature versus nurture", wherein a trans person may lose his/her (see the linguistic reflection of my subscription to the gender binary?) subjectivity or have his/her experience diluted and misrepresented through singular generalising theories.At the very basic level, I find it convenient to rely on existing categories and feminist theories to explain trans discourses. However, given trans discourses are intimately entwined with other discourses, both dominant and subaltern, we have the obligation to explore how trans discourses are situated in, part of, or intersect other discourses, and how other discourses figure in, inform, are part of, or intersect trans discourses.And (un)fortunately, I believe there is the need for self-interrogation. To borrow loosely from Anthony Giddens' theory of the double hermeneutic, the main course, if not the backbone, of the social sciences, wherein the scholar interprets a preinterpreted world (i.e. I interpret your subjective interpretation of the world), I believe we should make one step further and interrogate the interpretation of the preinterpreted world.This (self)interrogation will reveal certain limitations of scholarly interpretation (scholar biases, prejudices, socialisation, etc.) and the foundations of scholarly interpretation (language, socialisation, etc.).So, I believe when we talk about trans discourses, our preoccupation should not be with the trans person. While trans discourses reflect certain conditions of society and realities trans people face, they do borrow from and share similar ideas from other existing discourses and systems - indicating their respective limitations in articulating trans experiences. We also have to recognise the fact discourses are a lot more permeable than we think they are. We become the unknowing intruders, whether layperson, scholar or member, when we make observations and enframe specific discourses, limiting them with unsighted linguistic and conceptual limitations, along with unchallenged and un-queer-ied prejudices. The Low Blow on Ris: It is trendy not to give credit to others Amazing. I mean. Outstanding.Ris Low has drawn flak and harsh criticism in cyberspace for her poor diction, basically her poor English. Since the YouTube video has been taken down, you can give SPH's RazorTV the visits they need at http://www.razor.tv/site/servlet/segment/main/lifestyle/32776.html. If you're not too visual a person, you may want to check out The New Paper's report.Firstly, I would like to say that when people (this time, a large number of people) start criticising, they reveal more about themselves rather than the person they are criticising.What is revealed is our bias towards a certain kind of representation/ambassador of Singapore. Yes, we do not like Singaporeans with apparently broken English to carry our flag. We want women with education, or a certain class (in almost every sense), to represent our nation.But the reality is, in doing so, we further invisibilise other segments of the community, who may not have the upbringing or opportunities that endow them with good English.It is obvious to me that the English language may not be the primary language of Ris Low. There are many Singaporeans whose primary (and comfortable) language isn't English. Why should we be ashamed of this? Is there anything wrong with this?Why should our local pageant winners speak fluent English when they could speak better in another language? Maybe their ideas and messages would not become diluted or distorted by their otherwise limited vocabulary and/or poor diction.Ris Low could have done the interview in another language, but at least she is the one who is trying.Singaporeans, so disempowered and generally impotent in many areas, are just too quick to deny credit to people who try.I get mocked for speaking poor and broken Mandarin, but I still try. And recently, I tried speaking Mandarin to a taxi driver, who told me to continue speaking Mandarin and "heck care" people who react in a mocking way to me.Others: Sam, you're Chinese. Why don't you speak Chinese?Sam: (It's Mandarin, fuckwit) Ke yi. Wo .... bla bla bla bla Mandarin stuff....Others: Ok. I think you better don't speak Chinese. Ha ha.Whether this is said trivially or seriously, it reveals how trendy it is not to give credit to fellow Singaporeans.As reported in The New Paper, one interviewee asked critics to put their money where they mouth is: Join a pageant and see for yourself.I share that sentiment, but feel that is a little unfair, considering everyone has different talents and comforts. I can say that doing interviews require some degree of experience and PR savvy. I do feel nervous when I am interviewed by the press. Sometimes, simple questions become tough questions, and other times, I distort my intended message with some fluffs. People do that. It is very much similar to unscripted public speaking, or scripted public speaking and presentations.What is more important is how the criticism reveals our society and the people we are.We are apparently ashamed of other breeds of Singaporeans. We want to dust the broken English-speaking folks under the carpet. We want a quarter Chinese, quarter Malay, quarter Indian, quarter Eurasian girl to represent us, not some alleged "Ah Lian". Why? Because we are uncomfortable with what we see are the "imperfections" of our society - apparent "Ah Lian" subculture/aesthetics, poor English and all that.So what if her pronunciation is atrocious and comical? There are so many Singaporeans who speak like that too - pronouncing "fifteen" as "feev-tin": "EE"s are not stressed, "k"s become "g"s, "r"s become "l"s. So what? These reflect their position and socialisation, and why are the rest of us ashamed of it?It is not as if they are lying, preaching hate, or revealing how evil they are.I used to be critical of Singaporean representatives, asking "How the fuck these guys/girls get to represent Singapore?"But now, I ask myself the standards and criteria I use to determine what is right. And I realise how my prejudices, both personal as well as informed by socialisation, play a huge role in how I think.Sure, a woman like Ris Low is definitely not aesthetically appealing to me, not because she is ugly, but that judgement is due to individual taste. I realise, perhaps given my exposure to media and socialisation into various English-speaking Singaporean (sub)cultures, that Ris Low will fall outside what I like as a woman, and national representative. There is a cultural and social class dimension to all these, but of course, people do not like to self-interrogate, and that is why we probably have religion.Yes, I support Ris Low, not because of Ris Low, but because the criticism is stupid and reveals how stupid and insecure we all are. Maybe Ris Low is the unintended performance artist who draws out reactions from all of us to reveal the condition of our society and psyche.(picture from Lancerlord.blogspot.com)