First Class is First Class Just watched the local show "First Class" on Channel 5. I must say that it is actually a great show.It is not outright funny due to the common plague that is bad acting, but it's humour is actually quite subversive.Let us save the better part for the latter and see how shows like this can improve.The opening and closing music is a huge turn-off, it makes awful sound like a classical symphony. Perhaps the songwriter had to write within the constraints of the theme of the show.The acting of the kids is also bad, perhaps that is due to the low budget. It would have been better if they found youngsters with better comic timing. Perhaps the scouting/HR could have sweated a little more for this.Okay, enough of the bad. Time for the good, and quite a lot of it.The script is first class. "Achiever Secondary School" and "Pan Island Secondary School" are such hilarious names on their one, and their abbreviated forms, "ASS" and "PISS" are a cherry topping.Stereotypes are played out well and glorified to a hilarious extent, and at two levels, one at the students' and the other at the adults'. What makes a show with many characters memorable (in the case of popular sitcom "Friends" with its cast and supporting cast) is the characterisation and character development. You have the nerd, the jealous/possessive admirer (who called another rival "vixen" if I am not wrong), the beefcake, and the sexual minority.Speaking of sexual minority, one gay foreign student actually told me that he had watched the show last week and told me there was one gay guy on the show, which is probably why I chose to watch it today. As my research focuses on sexual minority media representation, I am intrigued to find out what's so special about this show.Not only have I caught a glimpse of the effeminate character (perhaps the only way to represent gay men on national prime time television for the moment), I realised there is even a "tom-boy" female character. Never mind the poor acting, the script actually aims to represent more than just the staple token ethnic minorities (Indian teacher and Malay student, who happens to be playful, and not to mention one Eurasian kid too).Watching "First Class" reminds me of a revival of humour never seen since the days of the "Ra Ra Show", "Gurmit's World", "The Donny Lee Show" and the like. Back then in the 1990s, these shows were not received well and Kumar's "Ra Ra Show" was apparently, to put it most respectfully, way too advanced for the straight-laced and buttoned-up Singaporeans.It is a minor flourishing of local entertainment we are witnessing, and "First Class" is not alone. "Police and Thief" and "The Noose" deserve some mention. For the first time in a long time, Singaporean viewers are not fed the politically correct clean and pristine entertainment. Perhaps, there have been changes in Channel 5 and its programmes and they finally realise they are no longer competing with other local channels, but with cable channels and the internet."Police and Thief" looks at the stereotypical relationship between the Chinese and the Malay, and the show carefully plays that relationship and its respective stereotypes out. The script is also well-written, although the show could do with a little more money (which is perhaps a problem for every production)."The Noose", although I have only caught 2 episodes, is quite funny, which reminds me of "Gurmit's World" and "The Donny Lee Show", which have done their part in entertaining us with parodies.Parodies are subversive, no doubt. But they attract an audience, which are once apathetic. Parodies not only make people laugh, but make them think about themselves. And when you think about yourself and your community/environment, you might be inclined to have some sense of ownership. You know where I am heading.There must have been some shake-up in Channel 5 that have allowed such shows to be aired. I would love to watch Kumar back on Channel 5, either headlining or starring in his own show. This will show that we have gone back to where we once belonged, rather than progress, as we have regressed since the mid-90s, never mind the success of "Under One Roof" which features the archetypal middle class family with upper-middle class aspirations. We are mature now for Siva Choy-ish Kopi humour, just like we had been in the 1990s, but due to some high-handed moral authoritative decision-making, we have imprisoned our creativity with a chastity belt.The themes dealt with in "First Class" are current and thus relevant to viewers. What makes it a class apart from "Under One Roof" is that it has multi-layered humour, to cater to kids (in body and in mind) using slapstick and simple humour, at the same time catering to adults (in body and in mind too) with suggestiveness, nuances and parody.Saved for a couple of jokes that are used (the child's phone prank on the eldery teacher mimicking Bart Simpson's prank on Moe the bartender) and dry (perhaps due to the poor delivery of the inexperienced child actors), "First Class" has a first class script. And we can only expect more interesting stuff from Channel 5, unless some some right-wing moral crusader decides we are regressing. Philosophy of Dawn Yang 101 My wife and I were talking about Dawn Yang last night. Of course most of us know who she is (roughly).A friend told me of one Dawn Yeo (I've no idea why she's now known as Dawn Yang) about 4 years ago and she showed me what she looked like. "Quite hot", I thought to myself. I guess praise, based on individual taste, is deserved, so I said that and thought that.Fast-forward to a few months back, Wendy Cheng of Xiaxue caused a storm (as usual) and posted somethings which made Dawn's camp irate enough to serve her some lawyer's letters.Concurrently, there had been expose and gossip websites out there, which expose Dawn to be a lot more than meets the eye. Of course, in between, there has been a lot of mean-spirited and scathing comments hurled at Dawn.But if the gossip and expose articles are true, it is going to be really interesting (if it already has not). There are allegations that she lies about her heritage, her cosmetic surgery and also pose as different persons under different pseudonyms, perhaps for the sake of image control.In my conversation with my wife, we discussed if these allegations were true, our opinion of Dawn would probably contain the following terms: "gone bonkers", "mentally ill", "BDD", "mad", "crazy", "schizo", you get the psychiatric drift, but of course, we are not experts in that field.I've come across people whose peers have labelled them as pathological liars, but to merely reduce lying to pathology is rather limiting. Perhaps they lie to maintain their morale, esteem and self-image.After all, we are socialised into believing that lying is bad. But we could consider lying as transcending society, rather than transgressing it. Unfortunately, being imbued with deontological ethic/reasoning, we do not like lying and treat it rather seriously with punishment.Perhaps such disgruntled persons exist in cyberspace to enact their perceived moral right(eousness) and do what they have done to Dawn, believing they could bring justice to this whole thing. We often want to see blood being drawn for people who manage to "get away with it".The whole thing about Dawn is no longer about Dawn, but with people's obsession with Dawn and her antics. Maybe she is eccentric, or tortured, or detached from society, requiring some form of escape, yada yada psychological-reductionist schtick.I suggested to my wife, that make she is happy to create a persona and live it, something that can be used to engage people (but of course, people are more willing to engage the creator rather than the created). I used Brian Warner and his creation of Marilyn Manson, but my wife said, "Yes, but he is in control, but I don't think Dawn is..." I cannot say much lest her camp sends me a letter.Maybe it feels good to be part of a persona you have created for yourself, as a resistance to dominant social norms and values. Why can't we all do that? Perhaps Dawn is here to remind us that we too could have other means of expressing ourselves, but we might be too inflexible to accommodate stuff like that.If Dawn were to claim she's natural or of mix ancestry, just play along and take it from her as it is not as if she has caused pain or harm to your person. What is the obsession with the pursuit of truth any way, when the idea of truth still remains subjective? A lot of people pursue the truth with expectations, but once you harbour expectations, you end up shaping the way you want truth to unravel.Why can't we engage the fantasies created by others, instead of ruin it with fantasies of our own? We do not really need to be fighters of freedom or of the truth, as how we define these two terms. No one who is responsible to you is obliged to tell you what you want to hear.I think things are compounded by the fact that Dawn appears to come from a privileged household, so that stokes the fire. The educated and lesser privileged (but still privileged enough to access the internet and argue fairly logically) are and will forever hold a grudge against those on the upper rungs of the socio-economic ladder, although the latter's position would often be a common desired destination for most.Every time there is a witch-hunt (or something of that sort), one wonders who is the witch-hunt hunter? My gaze is usually on those who participate on the witch-hunt because they create the drama, not the "witch". I guess that is the disciplinary mechanism for society, if the government wasn't involved. That is people's way of dealing with what they think as "wrong" or "deviant".Maybe Dawn has transcended the madness we put ourselves into, but maybe she could have transcended the sanity we are comfortable with (which explains why my wife and I think she could be of the unsound mind). In the end, drama is better than no drama for the most of us meaning-seeking creatures. Technological dystopia My heart just dropped.My thumb drive, containing a couple of assignments due soon, and other readings, was just wiped out. It was as if it was formatted, but I would not have done such a thing.I feel very disappointed and dejected. Right now, I've to rewrite a four-page dissertation analysis. Do it all over again.The last time such a thing happened was when my mum, with the good intent of backing up computer files, used a collection of floppy disks which contained my songs, settings and compositions on the Electone organ, a culmination of 3 to 4 years of work, and 6 to 7 years of songwriting. These contained the earlier musical incarnations and blueprints of some of the earlier songs I had written. I cried bitterly that day.I guess the latest experience with technology cannot top the previous. I did not cry this time, although I felt a bit dizzy upon the realisation. I just uttered "fuck" and immediately sent an email to the lecturer to request for an extension, but I do not expect her to grant it, so it is time to work again.The sickening part is that the assignment is almost done and that I had taken my time to do it. Now I have to rush it, which is personally not a favourable option. I hate datelines given to me by others because I work best with my own. It may sound like a "duh" statement but there are people who do not even follow datelines set by themselves.The thumb drive was a freebie given to us at some conference on interoperability by Novell and Microsoft. But I will still gladly take freebies, but place less reliance on them from now on. Sorry I don't believe in NS Read the article by Joel Tan on National Service. In it, he talks about being called up for in-camp training during his undergraduate study.In truth, the government and the various ministries and statutory boards do not share information, unless you are a political dissident or deemed dangerous to the ruling party (then you will be checked rather thoroughly by the internal security department).But Tan's suggestions are definitely useful for the parties involved. In all cases when it comes to policy, the citizen should be the winner.By the way, I have already gone through four in-camp trainings, all during the mid-year vacation of my four years of undergraduate studies. I felt really discouraged to go for any internship like most of my peers, because of the disruptive nature of the national service obligation/liability.I am not so lucky next year when a two-week in-camp training clashes with my semester. In fact they will enjoy the savings in renumerating an unemployed graduate student. I doubt the Ministry of Defence (MinDef) will send a representative to fill in for me, help me do my readings and research in the two weeks of my absence. It would be very interesting too if they could assign some to write to the press, on my behalf, to advocate sexual minority rights and equality. But they will not do that, because I am only valued by the NS rank I hold.Even when I did a contractual stint at an internet business, I had a six-day downtime. All MinDef would do is provide a monetary compensation pegged to the wage I earned as stipulated in my contract. They might have forgotten that "talent" (assuming I am talented) is worth more to the company than just the wage.My case may be a "small fry" case, but there are always examples out there in which (private) businesses and enterprises will feel shortchanged when their Singaporean-born talents have "down-times".For example, Company A pays a talent $6000 a month. A 15-day reservist training comes aknocking. MinDef tells Company A they need not pay for the 15 days of the absence of their talent, which amounts to $3000. This is equivalent to taking no-pay leave, but MinDef will compensate the talent $3000. On paper, it seems that nobody loses. Company A does not pay for the absence of the talent. The talent does not lose a single cent of wage. MinDef has its labour.In fact, I have a problem with "on paper"-ness. Firstly, people are not digits. But unfortunately, policy revolves around that. No problem, since policy protects the interest of these people, ensuring their rice bowl is not shaken.But what about the companies and enterprises? The absence of a talent for a period of time may result in multiple disruptions, of communication, of projects/gigs, of creative processes. Having someone else to cover or fill in will yield different results, assuming all talents are unique.The "down-time" may cost the company more money and opportunities, never mind wage savings. It may cost the talent his bonus, commission, career advancement and so on.In a society and culture which oozes from the ears the rhetoric of meritocracy and the obsession with performance, a company/enterprise has the right to discriminate against Singaporean-born talents. If a talent has a down-time which costs the company some opportunities, the company has every right to refuse to offer him any bonus, commission, promotion, etc. because he is simply absent. How is the government going to protect the Singaporean talent? And of course, to be fair, how is the government going to protect the Singaporean enterprise?In my limited experience, National Service (thankfully cut from two and a half to two years) is limiting and disruptive. I know of a friend who was a budding entrepreneur, aged 17. He has established his business for 3 years when he was called to serve. His business was obviously affected.National Service destroys entrepreneurship, the very thing our government is encouraging us to explore. Is the state encouraging us to be entrepreneurs after National Service? The whole idea that "there is a time and place for everything" does not apply to everything. You have to develop at an early age our local talents and creative minds, not crush the remnants of their youth with low wage forced labour.I have caught glimpses of the underground music scene for a couple of years, a few years back. There are very talented musicians out there. As a musician myself, I feel their pain. Music is all about expression. I guess I have found another avenue for expression, in the form of academia, although I consider it a lot more inferior form of expression to music.The only reason why I am obedient to the country and serve my National Service is my fear of incarceration. I value my freedom (although ironically, my freedom is granted to me by the state, which makes me a puppet thinking it is free). My decisions, in this case, is based on an assessment on the implications of my freedom. Like I probably have mentioned before, I serve Singapore out of fear, not love.Imagine King Xerxes (of the graphic novel and movie, 300) this way. He decapitates those who disobey or disappoint him. So everyone is always cowering in fear of him. They are scared into obedience, which is construed by King Xerxes himself as love. He will think of himself as kind because he perceives his subjects as loving him.We Singaporean citizens are all the minions who carry the elaborate sedan on which King Xerxes sits. When he dismounts, we all use our bodies to form a flight of steps for him to descend.There are Singaporeans who are willing and proud to be part of National Service, while there are others who, if given the choice, will choose not to serve. The whole idea of defending a concept and a bunch of symbols representative of Singapore and Singaporean identity is often polished by the government machinery to make it look noble, manly and a duty for all.We either buy into it or are coerced into following. Either way our participation, or rather, our being "volunteered", legitimises the system. People who question the system are punished.On a sidenote, I am interested in the concept of "manliness" (as explored in previous articles). It is quite ironic that National Service will turn Singaporean boys into men, only for Singaporean women to think that they are still pampered mamas' boys.Moreover, in light of the rather Western idea of moving out and being independent, we have a growing culture in which it is perceived to be inferior for one (usually a male) to continue to stay with his parents even into the many years of his adulthood. Of course, in reality, one will need a lot of savings to actually live independently. Moreover, sacrificing two years for National Service puts the male back two years, although the civil service has enforced wage discrimination to ensure what they perceive as balance or gender equality.Government policy also does not favour independence from one's parents, because such a paradigmatic shift in familial relations and arrangements will affect the larger socio-political macro-cosmos that is the relationship between citizens and the state. That is why the issue of individualism is handled with lots of care by the government, wherein individualism is only celebrated if it has economic benefits.Times have changed now. The once dominant (and much criticised) are now marginalised - the Singaporean man. Both ego and esteem are continually bashed.In view of our country's low birth rates, the spotlight is on our single men and women. Of course, women have the right to choose to marry or not and to have kids or not. Policy cannot do much to change their will.It is to my concern a portion of men have been criticised for being undesirable and simply not good enough for our Singaporean women. It is not because men are evolving to becoming perceptibly weaker as eugenicists would like to have it. The socio-political and economic culture has influenced the way people make decisions, which in turn affect how we are brought up now. That is why, men today, like women, are different from their counterparts of yesteryear.Most of us are always under the impression that toughness, aggression, decisiveness, and related traits, are desirable and superior. But we forget that these just happen to work well in certain economic systems and modes of productions, that yield the right results for economic prosperity, and therefore should be reproduced.Toughness, aggression, decisiveness and so on, are meaningless in a vacuum, so too will be their perceived diametrically opposite counterparts in wimpy-ness, weakness, soft-spoken-ness, limp-wristed-ness and so on - all meaningless. Either way, we are all slaves to these definitions.And speaking of slavery, I bring us back to the topic of National Service. I personally see no meaning in National Service, as the only meaning I see in it is the meanings that have been inscribed/ascribed to it by a political power which exclusively holds the right to commit murder and imprisonment.Hypothetical question: What if all the men in Singapore resisted National Service? What will the republic do? Can it possibly incarcerate everyone? That is not possible.But of course, given the strong internal security and intelligence organisations, any one who tries to instigate such a resistance will be imprisoned and made an example of - as in the Chinese saying goes, you kill one to scare many; or you kill the chicken to scare the monkeys.How can one be loyal to a geographical and symbolic concept any way? Is it rational? If it is Singapore and Singaporean policies that make (some) Singaporeans unhappy, why would they want to serve to protect such a system? If the government is making (some) people unhappy, how is it rational they serve to maintain it?We have a bad habit of individualising/atomising our problems, which is expected of a country that treats its people like numbers. We depoliticise the examples in which people leave Singapore so that they need not serve National Service, among other reasons, and we blame and criticise them without looking at the larger situation.As said before, I always loved Singapore. It is where family is. There is nice food, although prices is rising. But the love Singapore has returned to me (not that I expect it) is one of tough love, where I have to do things against my will and principle. I do not believe in National Service, or sacrificing lives for a flag. Like closeted queer persons, this is how some of us live a lie. We have our own beliefs, but in order to fit in, we adopt the beliefs of a group/organisation more powerful than us.I may just pretend to serve and give my labour power to the state; and that is all that they need. Nothing beyond that, because I am entitled to believing that National Service is not meaningful. Maybe if the government were to offer rewards in the area of public housing incentives, greater tax reductions, and so on, for good performances (and loyalty) in National Service, we will probably be a lot more professional. In a country where people are treated like numbers, there is always a place for mercenary-friendly policies/enticements.A major reason why some Singaporeans are unhappy with Singapore is that they feel they do not benefit from living in Singapore, never mind the differential levels of individual expectations. If the costs (monetary, emotional, physiological,etc.) outweigh the benefits, they will want to leave. If they cannot leave, because they do not have the means to, they will have to stay (and be a lot less happy). It is as simple as that. For those who feel they have benefited greatly, although they may on occasion pride themselves in being the rare few who are capable of being grateful and do not take things for granted, they will stay and be happy. No one is in the business to make everyone happy, so exit the disbelievers, the disillusioned and the disgruntled.The rhetoric of a compassionate government is to create the illusion that the government aims to make more people happy. After all, who doesn't like compassion? But it is the very same compassionate government that coerces its citizens to serve it, but under the banner of serving the concept that is the "nation".The government is in the business of staying in power, not making people happy. It only makes critical segments of the people happy, so it can stay in power. For now, the unhappy National Servicemen are not of the critical numbers. We are just minorities whose voice and opinion mean little. Square peg round hole I haven't been posting as much as I would liked to have.I normally write my articles/rants on Microsoft Word before pasting them on Blogger and publishing them, and I see 3 uncompleted files staring back at me.Blog updating, and its (in)frequency, is a seasonal thing. I cannot quite find my footing and momentum doing my graduate studies and classes, and there are 5 or 6 assignments that await me during the course of this semester.It is equally frustrating not having decided what my thesis would be, although the focus will be on sexual minority-oriented media studies, in the area of media representation. It does not help if much of the coursework has little to do with that area of research. Of course, a student is obligated to fulfill the course requirements, but they appear to be mostly excess baggage. Having aspirations to be an expert in a particular field of research, I probably have to do a lot of self-study while going through the motions and routine of the institution. I feel like a square peg being forced into a rounded orifice that is the University.It is society and socialisation which helps us assimilate and easily become institutionalised. We are empowered with the accepted social skills so we become slaves to them. We are socialised into internalising the institution, and into reproducing it, so that the institution will live on around us and within us.I recently got acquainted with some guy through another friend and he is a happy member of the student union. He sees fun in joining its activities and meeting people.As such, both of us are puzzled at each other's perceptions of fun. I asked him what's the point in joining all these extra activities. He was shocked that I have never at any point of my undergraduate life joined any group or society, nor had the interest or consideration to.Both of us were equally curious and astounded. Of course, I sensed that he thought I was crazy for not wanting to be part of any student-related activities, confounding the kind of social behavioural logic he is accustomed to. Yet, both of us are equally satisfied with what we are doing.So who is the square peg, or who is the round hole (ignoring the Freudian connotations of course)?It is our individual beliefs system that has created the round hole for us, and our identity, often being a square peg, is a source of dissonance.Some people need the help of others (and their presence) to know who they are, while others have less of a need for that. Is the identity of the latter thus more misformed and underdeveloped? Does that imply the identity and self of the former are more developed? SDU & SDS merger alarming! (A parody combining the various rhetoric we have heard time and again.)As a nation whose leadership was once based on the guiding principles of eugenics, I am appalled by the merging of the SDU (Social Development Unit) and the SDS (Social Development Service).Inter-racial marriage was the slippery slope and now we have degenerated and devolved into inter-intellect marriages. If we allow inter-intellect marriages, how will we be able to draw the line on incest and bestiality? It is moral dilemma.It is simply unnatural that a graduate and non-graduate get hitched. I mean, it is just wrong!This nation was founded on the brains of graduates and post-graduates, the latter of course being a better breed than the former. It was their brains that created such a lovely place that is Singapore, never mind the sweat and blood of the non-graduates.Such mixing of the blood of non-graduates and graduates is utterly disgusting and the thought of it makes me cringe. Have they not thought of the consequences of such inter-intellect marriage? Think about their children! What will happen if their children cannot be pure graduates? Their blood will be tainted by the blood of a non-graduate. Think about the stigma they face from their graduate peers!I urge the government to strongly reconsider this merger of the SDU and SDS. We should keep the graduates and non-graduates separate. We should upkeep the gulf between graduates and non-graduates. This is the stratified diversity we have always been enjoying.Heaven forbid such mixing. We will lose our graduate identity if we do not protect it. Our children are being influenced by Western ideas of “blind love” and “follow your heart”. We should exercise greater censorship to protect the graduate-non-graduate dichotomy that is integral to our society and morality. If hybrid or pariah children are born from inter-intellect marriages, what will their chances of career advancement be? The non-graduate genes in them will corrupt their morals and intellect, and they will not be top scholars, but ordinary scholars! This is blasphemy.The reproduction of graduates is important to the advancement of the graduate community, because they know the right policies to benefit themselves. To even have a drop of non-graduate blood running through your veins will easily destroy this fragile system. We cannot be complacent and allow this to happen.If more hybrids or pariah children are born, newer minorities are created. Our society has been kind enough to accommodate various minority groups, but the generosity of the graduate leadership and tax-paying community should not be abused.God be willing that there are still some sensible pure graduate couples out there who will reproduce for our beloved fatherland. It is simple logic and only natural that a male graduate and female graduate will produce a graduate baby, but there are a lot of non-graduates who do not appreciate that fact, which led to the removal of the graduate wives scheme.Non-graduates are simply not educated enough, reproducing like stray animals. This led to the “stop at two” policy, which applied to everyone, because the graduate leadership wanted to make it look fair to all, but they always needed more graduate babies.Their shallow wit means that all policies have to made to look as though they applied across the nation. The thing is, we do not want non-graduates to mate too often or we will lose our competitive edge.With newer pro-family schemes in place now, non-graduates should know their role in society and try not to outnumber the graduates. I urge graduates to outproduce their non-graduate counterparts, so we can establish a high culture that will never be tainted by the inferior spirit, lesser culture and dim presence of non-graduates.Without a strong graduate culture, our economy will suffer. When our economy suffers, the non-graduates suffer first and we have to dig into our resources, so well-established by the graduate leadership, to make it look like we are helping them.Inter-intellect marriage is like the mingling of a plus and a minus – you get zero. And zeros do not ensure economic development and progress, which are what our country prioritises over civil rights and welfare, among many other things.Our economy and our morals will go down the drain if we allow such inter-intellect marriages. The entire foundations on which our society is built will crumble and we will never have the right leaders, pure graduates, to run the country.---Thoughts on SDU and SDS: I actually never really had an opinion on the bodies or the merger though. Baby-friendly Singapore Singapore is still not family and baby friendly, in my opinion.But when we talk about "friendliness", we have to know towards which segment of society it has to be "friendly".Are we talking about the middle-class English-(and fairly) educated ethnic Chinese?Picture above taken from Channelnewsasia.comLook at those cute (Chinese-looking) babies.So what is the message here? Is the birthrate problem an ethnic Chinese birthrate problem? Of course, it is still taboo in Singapore to racialise issues, so I do not wish to pursue this matter, for fear of my rice bowl, *insert economic pragmatist rhetoric here*.The fall in birth rates is just a symptom of Chinese elite ideology which prioritises economic development and sustenance over many other domains of life.While we may cheer the increase of maternity leave from 12 to 16 weeks, there has been discussion that an increase in paternity leave will not help the economy. Again, people here are reduced to numbers.The high cost of living, high levels of stress, the humidity and climate are few of many factors that discourage the average Singaporean from starting a family.You have to have sufficient savings to (attempt to) negate some of the factors such as living costs.At the same time, people do not produce children because there is a monetary incentive. Women do not become mums because of financial carrots.Although women may be attracted to financial independence/empowerment and choose a more career-oriented path, creating infrastructure (in the form of financial incentives) to entice family and baby-creation is a whole different ballgame. The government thinks everyone has a price, but this is not true in most cases.To have positive changes in birthrates, there are a lot of changes that need to be done. Culture, mindsets and the (social) environment have to change, but the culture, mindset and environment we have now is the result of years of post-independence policy, but having our attention diverted from these policies and the responsibilities of the state depoliticises the situation of low birthrates.Does more tax breaks and other incentives for baby-making signal an impending increase in taxes for others?The government is an expert in numbers. They use good case studies, role models, heroes, and combines numbers to provide us with healthy and awesome figures. But these serve to cause citizens to feel cynical, distrustful and dissonant because their realities do not match what is conveyed to them by the state.Think about it. If Singapore has a truly "Singaporeans First" culture, why aren't Singaporeans happily producing new Singaporean babies? Singaporeans must feel like second, or third, or even last, which are good enough to deter them from having kids. How's married life? How's married life, Sam?Quite a common question to hear.My "life" is of the English-educated, potentially middle income one, well-provided for with adequate meals, shelter and opportunities.We often reduce life and "coming of age" to phases, a rites of passage, and so on. But it is just something that ages/matures/grows on a daily basis.A phase is only a phase after we select and identify a period of time in our lives that have passed, and call it a phase.Sometimes we would prophesy, when encountering a difficult time, that this particular point in time who be a pivotal moment, a time of change, the rite of passage.My wife would take jibes at me when I complain (I complain a lot by the way) about a potential problem/hurdle, "This is where you'll become the man" or "You have to do this to become the man" or something along those lines (I'm sure I have explained this before).Married life is the same as dating. The accumulation of newer and heavier responsibilities is a gradual process, so gradual it doesn't seem symbolic or too obvious to qualify as new chapter in one's life.A new chapter involves flipping a page, but I see my life as just a one-page narrative.The flat is under renovation. There is the gradual "handing over" of responsibilities, the transference of responsibility and power from our own parents to us, to look after aspects and domains of our lives, for which our younger selves could not have looked out.Perhaps moving into and living in our new home will signal a new chapter in our lives, because it is a permanent logistical change.There are tons of things to pay for, which is not very family-friendly, or dreams-friendly. You put family and dreams on hold just to be "pragmatic".On the one hand, I would love to have kids, so I can play with them, among many other things. On the other hand, at times it does not seem worth it bring a child into a world of suffering, hypocrisy and "group think".I think, amidst all the existing and incoming responsibilities and anxieties of married life, there can still be room for fun, enjoyment and bonding. There is often too much of a focus on the unhappiness and inadequacies of life and living that people forget the little pockets and moments in time where they felt really happy about themselves. Judging by the complaints and unhappiness of people, it seems that all people want is just freedom to have fun (although some consider making more money fun).I still have the same likes and dislikes, before and after getting married. Being together has gradually seen some changes in both of us, so marriage is just a small addition to the "togetherness".Being married to a good friend and lover is like having finding friendship and romance in the same person. There is the intellectual banter and a mutually identifiable sense of humour, and there are also differences in opinions and tastes which makes it more interesting than it already is.In my opinion, you do not have to be married to prove anything so long as you feel your love and friendship is as strong as ever. Unfortunately, there is a construct called a marriage, which is seen as a normative rites of passage. Tag along with it are economic incentives. So why not?Being married does not make one less responsible than he/she already is (which can be very generalising, but that is how I feel about ourselves at the least). What matters more is the amount and level of laughter and happiness in the days to come, for once they are continually absent, any marriage or relationship is meaningless. If and When Wow.I hope I am either the first or second one you've told, same goes for your mother.It won't change a thing we think about you. And I hope it doesn't make you see us differently either.It is good you tell us, because this is a place where we can be at home with one another.I worry for you because other people will not accept you for who you are. Worse still, they are not obliged to do so.I hope you will be respectful to yourself and not F around. Be an honest, gracious and loving person and we are more than proud.I hope you will also find others to love and be loved, because we all won't be around forever to ensure that happens. But at in this home, you don't have to worry about loving or being loved.What is more important for all of us is that you are healthy and happy.- - - - -I will probably say at least half of the stuff above if I found out my kid was queer.Having attended one event at Indignation which dealt, rather poignantly, with the issue of one coming out to one's parents and the subsequent struggles to acceptance and for support.I got the vibes from the session that sons and daughters who have come out, seem to view parents as inadequate, ill-adjusted and ill-equipped, that they do not understand and lack a sufficient level of love and empathy when their kids come out to them.I believe while one cannot choose one's parents, one can make the right decisions, choose the rightful beliefs, and lead a happy life.Dissecting the parent does little to help. You may diagnose the problem as a mum's want to "save face", or a dad's staunch religiosity, or parents who are generally narrow-minded and/or old-fashioned.In the end, it is all about the development and esteem of the son/daughter concerned.The parents we know are mostly the products of their parents' parenting and various forms of socialisation. We children were never there to socialise our mums and dads when they were young. They have learned in their own way.Maybe I'm idealistic, but I believe the best a parent(s) can do is to create an environment where the child feels at home, feels loved and always feel free to love.To me, a family should at least have this function, nevermind its form (although the government would encourage a certain form that would benefit the whole economic process).I think if parents are encouraging and supportive of their child at most times, it does not really matter whether their child is of a different sexual orientation or has a different gender identity.Any how, the past week has been an interesting one. I am quite happy to have completed the event organised by the Singapore Queer-Straight Alliance (SinQSA), and there were lots to take home from the audience participation. I will have to work on the points and suggestions put forth by them and see how SinQSA can benefit and improve.Also started my first week as a graduate student, doing nothing much other than basic administrative procedures as well as deciding on what I was going to do for my Masters Thesis. The topic of course would be sexual minority-focused media studies, but am deciding whether to go the social science way, the humanities way or the hybrid (which was used in my Honours Thesis).I cannot wait to get into the routine of learning all over again. This time, there are some teaching duties, as part of the obligation of a research scholar.You have to teach what you know (that's the assumption).Some teach what they love.For myself I never fancied teaching, because the lure of being a student, on the receiving end of an education, is too great. There is always an investment in another person when you teach. I believe we should invest in ourselves first before we can invest in others.I have my anxieties. The results of the Diagnostic English Test is around the corner. Did not feel very confident doing it. I think it is because I have never fancied an examination setting where you have to churn out a piece of work within a specified time.I'm very proud to say that I have generally done very well in most of my term essays, relative to that of the exams. For my thesis, I spent almost a year writing it (and researching), compared to others who have done it in less than 5 months. This strength is also a weakness, if given the same short amount of time to write an essay, I will probably be less than mediocre.I have also finally settled my HDB flat recess area purchase, after being stalled for more than a month. There has been a gulf in communications and expectations between HDB and the Town Council. The loser is the resident. Very relieved this is over and we can move on (I sound like Wong Kan Seng).I realised I am very lucky and privileged to have been granted the scholarship to pursue my Masters degree. Some have worked to save up for their further studies, while others have taken loans (like a large portion of undergraduates). I could never have imagined being in their position. I always worry about the future more than I care about it, but at least for now, there is one less thing to worry about. National Day Song: We are Singapore (I still love Singapore by the way). In the tune of "We are Singapore".There was a time when people saidThat we won't have GST, but we did.There was a time when we didn'tNeed no ERP, but we did.We built a nation, stressed and weak,We have to run the rat race, even if we're sickThis is my country, it's not too bad.They have ISD, they are your dad.This is a minister, get paid like mad.We are Singapore, Singaporeans.Singapore our homeland, we're all girls in sarong,All of us united, suck money from Ang MoWe've come so far together, to favour the FTSingapore forever, divided, unhappy!This is my country, it's not a rock.To get to somewhere, you suck some cock.To be somebody, you carry ball.We are Singapore, Singaporeans.*pledge*We are Singapore, we all carry ball.We are apathetic, yet we all want more.We are Singapore, get watched by dai gor.We all do things wrong and think we're right some more.*fade out* Goh the bagpipe player 7 to 8 years ago, hanging out with friends (when I was a little bit more sociable then), and at the age when we were more angsty and starting to grow disillusioned with Singaporean life (now I'm almost fully 'grown'), I discuss the issue of "following one's dreams in Singapore".Can you follow and live your dreams in Singapore?Out of triviality, I conceived of the hypothetical question, "What if (then Prime Minister) Goh Chok Tong was a talented and skilled bagpipe player?" Of course, I recall my dad, at that point in time, joking about one BBC radio programme 'Wright around the World' poking fun at some Singaporean Ensemble that played the bagpipes, so that laid the foundation for such a hypothetical question.If Goh was talented and skilled, would he give it all up and pursue his passion? There will be so many doubters and fellow Singaporeans who will conjure the rhetoric of pragmatism and practicality, just to hinder him and make him hesitant and non-committal.We are not compassionate, benevolent nor encouraging enough, because we still harbour the same mindset we had decades ago when we needed to survive. Survival is only viewed through the financial lens.There are also structural rigidities, both in institutions and society, that prevent most of us from chasing our dreams. A teenage prodigy or entrepreneur, who happens to be male, will have to shelve his pursuits for compulsory National Service.Budding musicians have been told the age old thing that "Singapore is too small". Yes, Singapore is small in size, market, population, but can we be more encouraging and look for solutions to help, rather than to hinder? Of course, most of us see it as pragmatism, rather than hindrance, because our priority centres on financial survival/stability.A close friend (although people whom I consider "friends" are already close, which explains why I don't have many friends or people whom I'll consider friends) told me a story he heard from someone else. It goes something like:A man worked very hard most of his life and earned all the money and decided to retire early to pursue his first love. It was fishing and he decided to do it for the rest of his life, while living off on the money he had sweat for. As he sat down by the pier to fish, he met a very old man who was also fishing. The rich man said he was going fishing because he always loved it and now he had all the time in the world to do it and that he was happy. The old man replied that he loved fishing too and had been doing it all his life and had always been happy.Last evening, at one of the sessions organised by IndigNation'08, Otto Fong, former Raffles Institution science teacher delivered a talk. There were many takeaways from it, but one that struck a chord with my wife and I was the part when he decided to pursue his first love, which was to create comics.My wife was quite fascinated by his passion, skills and technical know-how behind his comics. Being a web-comic artist herself, she plans to do something about her interest too.Her passion is always in the area of creativity, with drawing of cartoons and comics being the main form of expression. I feel a bit sad that she is more distracted with work and paying the bills than spending more time (while she is young) to hone her skills and gain the experience to reach her true potential (and maybe even beyond it) in comics. She has always told me that given the choice, she would not work at all and just draw comics.Given the choice, I would make music. I would give music the same amount, or even more, of the sweat and blood my wife would have put into drawing.My dad had introduced most of the 1960s music, namely The Beatles, to me for the most of my childhood. There was so much musical stimuli and encouragement around me. My parents had always supported me during the 13 years in which I had Electone (electric organ) lessons. My aunt (I think) gave me a ukulele and my dad taught me how to play it. My dad bought me a guitar and taught me how to strum. My brother taught me how to pluck. My dad paid for my first harmonica. My mum forked out lots of money for one Yamaha Electone Organ (the EL-87) in the mid-90s. When I expressed great interest in it, my parents paid for the multi-track studio.Making music - writing songs, playing the instruments, arranging them and mixing them, everything but the singing part (because I hate singing) - has always been a dream of mine. My younger self yearned for the fame and recognition, but the essence of the dream had never changed: I just wanted to create music.Otto Fong (it is always common for most of us to use the full name of someone who is famous/popular) had worked a few jobs before reaching his current position. It just goes to show that we undergo stages of change and searching, while balancing the realities of growing up and growing older, the pressures and experiences that come along with them.Fong said that you had to be true to yourself in order to feel complete. He was true to himself, publicly coming out on his sexual orientation, and he felt complete.I don't know about 'coming out', but I know what it is like to suppress something that is so important to you. I have always regretted every time I meet someone, experience an eventful episode in my life (most the rejection and helplessness felt in some BGR boy-girl relationship), been randomly or serendipitously inspired, I suppressed the tune/melody that played in my head. I never acted on them by writing it down or developing it with the aid of the organ or the guitar that sit in my room. I told myself that there is no point doing all these because they are useless, there is no future, and people won't like what I do.In actual fact, these are the little demons that society put in my mind, and I have let them won. It seems so rational the explanations and criticisms that I am just simply wasting my time on something that is so small, irrelevant and not money-making.Fong said that to pursue your dreams, you have to make sacrifices. That is very much similar to what my mum said more than ten years ago, "If you want to do well in something, you have to sacrifice some things." (I eventually spent more time on my studies and music, and did not hang out with friends at all. I probably have not been to popular teenage hangout Orchard Road with friends until I was past 16 years of age.)Not only queer people have their closets; the closet is not only a gay slang.All of us pretend to be "straight" people so we can fit in. It is all out of "practical" and "pragmatic" reasons.I guess one of my many closets is the musical one. There could be Sam the sociopathic anarchist (but there's no place in society for sociopathic anarchists, not that they would want a place in society in the first place). We have heard of gay-bashing homophobes with deep-rooted hatred for gay people who are closeted. Perhaps my being upright, too righteous, politically correct and "by-the-book", could be indicative of a closeted anarchic self.I have had more than ample musical training to express and manifest any musical idea or tune in my head, but for most of the time, I never acted on it. I confine my music to close friends because I am afraid of criticism and discouragement. What scares me more than people is discouragement and antagonism (and maybe rejection) from people, which explains why I often reluctant to engage others.The most creative I have ever been was when I was aged 11 to 16. And I know why. These were the years when I acted like I wanted to. I felt free and true to myself. I did what my heart felt (of course, taking into consideration I had the shelter of being a kid). I knew I was good and talented and had the potential to make better music than some of the stuff that was playing on the radio. As I got older (in teenage), I felt a greater need to fit in, to listen to others as if their opinion mattered more than my beliefs and identity.Thereafter, I was more reserved, reclusive and full of unhappiness (although they actually served as creative inspiration for more songwriting). It did not help I was engaged in a fruitless pursuit of a girl I had a crush on. When I decided to end the chase and just be contented being single, I met the woman who would be my girlfriend and wife. I was still reserved and reclusive, but was much happier.The woman I met said she liked my songs (prior to us dating). I always thought my wife (that woman) was always just being nice whenever she said that. She would always lampoon my songs with off-tune singing to irritate me, but I soon realised that she actually remembers the lyrics to most of them.Years back, I was hooked up with Clement Chow, local songwriter ("Count On Me, Singapore" being penned by him), and also met Ken Lim (from Hype Records), and I felt very discouraged by these guys. Ken Lim even asked me to learn Mandarin. I sent demos to different production houses, with no goal or ambition, and duly got no response. So the dream died a slow tragic death, fading into nothingness.One opportunity came in the form of those street busking festivals in 2003, and I formed a band with my good friend and two other guys and we played the first and last half-hour set containing a sample of my songs. It was a wonderful feeling, a small sense of accomplishment. I wanted more, but did not pursue it.I chased material (money) for happiness. Money only helps to a certain extent, but in the end, money does not make me a happy person. I guess it is only feasible to be the man who works hard to earn all the money, so that he can retire early to pursue his true love.There is a house to pay for. There are families (old and new) to love. Along with them come the conventional means to fulfilling them. Passions and interests just get pushed further down (and out of) the priority list. People will probably get to see a different side of my wife and I when we become debt-free, but in the mean time, we have to work to rid the debts. We are of course also prepared if we are never to be able to attain such a privileged position.So many people have died, taking their hidden talents and secret passions with them to the grave. They have never had the chance to share what they love to do or what they could do with the rest of the world. It could have been world-changing or life-changing, but under certain circumstances (social and economic, among many), they decided not to pursue their dreams and passions.How many Singaporeans have grown old or died, along with their passions and interests (I'm referring to the non-money related ones)?My passion and self-belief have been shattered and disintegrated, and I am responsible. I never dared take the risk nor made the sacrifices to pursue them, and I let doubters and critics win. I am sure there are many others out there like myself.Fong's talk was inspiring in many ways. His passions and his abilities just dovetailed and the result is a testament. Doing it and having done it are, in my opinion, what made him happy. People buying his work and praising him, are just a bonus.Maybe it is about time I pick up the pieces one at a time and start making music again. If you have it in you, it will never leave you, and only you have the power to make it stay or go away.7 to 8 years later, I now look at the hypothetical question. There is no point answering it, because it does not concern the self. I realised the world does not end when people do not give a shit about you, but only when you give up on yourself.If you are interested in listening to the stuff I have done over the years, 1997-2007, go here: http://amp.channelv.com/theglamhour. From the white to the red side of Hougang Greetings, another plug for the Singapore Queer-Straight Alliance’s Indignation event at 72-13 Mohamed Sultan Road, August 2, 3pm. Bring your friends along for the interactive forum where we will be addressing the verbal manifestations of discomforts towards queer people (a.k.a. homophobic outbursts or verbal abuse). Ok, end of plug.I am at the NUS computer lab right now, writing this entry.It is such a wonderful feeling going back to school and being in a familiar place.There have been many of my peers and contemporaries (are they the same thing?) who harbour the goal of never wanting to work in an office and be in the drudgery of the proverbial nine-to-five working hours (it is nine to six or more these days). I have never expressed interest in working, because “work” is what society wants me to do. I have an interest, an interest to learn and to know, but most unfortunately such an interest is accompanied by the requirement to study and to teach. We seldom have the opportunity to learn in the way we want to learn any way.I have been very anxious and frustrated in the past couple of weeks regarding the renovation of my new flat. It is not the contractor, who is a wonderful person, but the various bodies I have to liaise with.I’m buying the recess area of my flat. The rules state that the owner has to deal with HDB and Town Council to settle the administration. After a few rounds of enquiries, my wife and I felt even more confused.The guy from HDB branch office briefed us on the process, saying we have to propose the relocation of the recess area light and the cable television unit, and send it to all three bodies (to expedite the approval processes).The guy from the Town Council came down and verbally told my wife, contractor and I that the Town Council will be settling the relocation of the light.After calling up the Town Council following almost a week of non-response, the same guy from the Town Council told us to follow the HDB directive, saying the Town Council is not settling the relocation of the light.My contractor, in the mean time, told me he found out I had to purchase the recess area first, before settling the proposal.I called up the HDB branch office and was told to make the proposal first, before paying.Today, I called the HDB branch office again to clarify and I’m told I have to settle the relocation of the recess area light with the Town Council before proceeding with the renovation proposals of the recess area with HDB.Now, I am waiting for the Town Council to get back to me on the relocation of the recess area light.So, who will propose the location of the light? Who will physically relocate the light? The Town Council or the owner?Initially, my wife, contractor and I were under the impression, following our face-to-face communication with a Town Council officer, that the Town Council will be settling the recess area light, but he had indicated that he would have to confirm this with his superior. However, there was no follow-up and I was not updated on the news. Upon calling the same person, he told me to settle it myself and follow the HDB directive in the mean time (i.e. make the proposal first).So we followed the directive and made the proposal. My contractor feedback that HDB required the light to be relocated first.I have been screaming a lot of expletives.Now, let us just wait for the Town Council officer to contact me and we will settle this once and for all.All these could have been settled a long time ago if HDB could have just gave us a simple plan (not the rock band) telling us, in chronological order, what to do, when to do, step-by-step.For example:Step 1: Liaise with the Town Council. Figure out who is going to do what. (also liaise with relevant bodies such as Starhub or PUB)Step 2: Once the light is relocated, contact HDB and make the proposal and payment when they demand it.Step 3: Propose the renovation plan for the recess area if applicable.Step 4: Say bye bye to administrative rubbish by living happily ever after in HDB flat and start producing children.Very simple! My wife and I are graduates for crying out loud, and we have had trouble understanding what is the simplest process to settling our flat administration. Are we stupid? Do we have Asperger’s Syndrome or something? Why can’t things be simpler? Just send out a simple letter with step-by-step instructions.My wife has just remarked that we would probably get on our knees and kiss the recess area should we finally complete the administrative process of acquiring and renovating it.Simply vexing.I live in the red side of Hougang by the way.Which brings me to the next topic.I will be moving from the white side of Hougang to the red side of Hougang.In the white side of Hougang, it occasionally smells like piss, with the daily random decoration of an eclectic mix of litter (rice, bread, sanitary pads, furniture and so on). This proto-wasteland ecosystem is once in a while disrupted whenever an important person (e.g. MP) arrives; it is cleaned up. Of course, we have to look at the top of the food chain – the irresponsible, ungracious and inconsiderate minority who shower the neighbourhood with more than just their love. They are just one of those minority minorities whom you’d think twice when it comes to fighting for their rights. At the same time, there is little effort done at the grassroots level to ensure that residents have that community spirit and bonding, which can translate to a decrease in the incidence of littering.Although the red side of Hougang seems old and crippled (transport amenities for one) by some mysterious force (perhaps the hand of the government), it is relatively cleaner and does not smell like piss.Having voted in Aljunied, I look forward to exercising my precious democratic right/obligation to vote in Hougang. Perhaps it is time MPs ‘go back’ to their constituencies. What we should understand and appreciate is the fact that PAP constituencies with their PAP MPs have the support of their fellow PAP counterparts in the government machinery. No matter how hard the opposition works to get the same upgrading for their constituencies as their PAP counterparts, they will meet a lot of difficulty.You see, the political opposition does not exist to carry the metaphorical testicles of the ruling party, but that does not give the ruling party the right to cripple them or cast them in bad or disrespectable light in the media.The vote is feedback, criticism and response all rolled into one. You cannot threaten to beat feedback out of one person, nor can you bribe feedback, because the feedback itself will become less sincere. The vote is an opinion and everyone is entitled to one.In all honesty, I do not care much about the larger politics of our country. I care most about having a decent place to live in, start a family and aiming towards a debt-free life. If people or groups of people have to make decisions or actions that will affect these plans, I will be obliged to react. This is not apathy, but the romantic pursuit of self-interest (we have many of those by the way). And by “decent place to live in”, I refer to one that is clean and filled more with love than ‘assholism’. There are still people who rattle my esteem by discriminating me as poor speaker of Mandarin despite my Chinese ethnicity, dismissing me as “THAT gay guy” just because I write about sexual minority rights, or who try to think I’m a smart aleck or a prickhead just because I like to sit alone and in front of class. I can do with more love and less ‘assholism’.Goh Chok Tong talks about winning Hougang. Well, my message to Goh is simple: Just win the hearts of people first, because Hougang is just peripheral. A government can be loved, just like leaders can be loved. But why are there people who hate the government so much? Of course, Hougang may not be “peripheral” if the ruling party has plans to gerrymander, so voters for the opposition will find themselves in the minority whichever new political boundary they find themselves in. One possible solution is to relocate all the other constituencies and group representation constituencies under Tanjong Pagar GRC. It will remove any election anxieties of the ruling party. I would do that if I were in power and am motivated to do anything to stay in power.I wonder what will happen if PAP won Hougang but lost Aljunied (assuming there isn’t any more gerrymandering till the next elections)? Will Hougang get its mliiions of dollars of upgrading? Will bus services become mysterious infrequent or cancelled in Aljunied? In essence, we should be “Singaporeans first”, not “Aljunied or Hougang residents first”.I have yet to meet Low Thia Kiang, but he has already sent a welcome letter. So sweet. Of course my white side of Hougang PAP MP also sent me a congratulatory letter on my registration of marriage, but then again, it just shows the nature of information flows within the ruling party and the government. I wonder if Low has that information, so he can wish well other newly-weds in the neighbourhood if he wanted.I am out of here now. Let us hope that the recess area issue will reach a conclusion by today. I truly despise admin.The transition into the next chapter of our lives always involves the laborious turning of the page.Speaking of life, I learnt something interesting from my exchange with Miak Siew. Life is a winding road with many turns and junctions, but when you look back, it is a straight road. This is because of the decisions and commitments you have made and you would not be able to see other routes. So simple, yet so enlightening. Thanks. Not built for society I am not a good talker. And when I do speak, one of the following usually takes place:1) I would speak in Singlish (an English-Malay-Hokkien creole).2) There is a high probability of my using words which are commonly considered to be offensive.3) Someone will eventually feel awkward because I have said something popularly deemed to be politically incorrect.I guess I am not built for society, given my strong disinterest in meeting its expectations.This week, I will be completing the registration of my Masters candidature with NUS. It makes me happy and excited to be back in an environment where I believe I can be and feel "normal".I am about to finish my three-month contract with an internet company and I must say that it has galvanised my resolve to go into academia. Apparently, I have little idea what kind of future lies in academia, but so long as the desire to question and learn exists, I feel secure.One very perplexing issue has been a thorn in my side for the past couple of weeks. There is this Diagnostic English Test, that has apparently been made mandatory for all incoming Arts and Social Sciences graduate students, regardless of nationality or university of graduation.I have completed my 'AO' General Paper at the 'A' Level examination with an A2, and have attained an A grade for my thesis. I was never required to take the Qualifying English Test, that is required of undergraduate students either from non-English-speaking countries or locals who have attained below the grade of B3 for their General Paper.In other faculties, incoming graduate Singaporean students or those from English-speaking countries are exempted from the Diagnostic English Test. It is utterly perplexing that I am required to take the test, having been through the Singaporean education system.I shared the news with my brother and he said that the standard of English has declined. I agree.I do not want to take the test. It is not because of pride wherein one thinks such a system and test insults one's ability and achievements, but rather the fact that I am one who performs erratically in tests and examination conditions. For all we know, I may "flunk" the English test and will be required to go for English language classes!It is important to note that such a stance by the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences in the National University of Singapore is reflective of the condition of Singaporean education. Simply put, primary and secondary education is not good enough to produce and sustain a satisfactory standard of English. As such, graduate students (we are talking Masters and Doctorate candidates here) have to sit for English language proficiency tests. Amazing and disgusting.The test involves spotting grammatical errors, doing a comprehension passage and some writing. Sometimes I do not trust my interpretations of texts, because their intended meanings interact with my opinions, often times leading to another form of "comprehension", which may not be, as how every Singaporean would know as, 'exam standard'.I had always wondered, from young, why should we sit for the tests that society has set for us? For every examination we sit, we are actually dignifying and justifying the legitimacy of the system, of society. We have "developed" to such an extent where society has its own set of definitions to determine success, and its own set of apparatuses to measure success and individuals; while individuals are robbed of their will and ability to define, determine and measure society.Society has made it so that we are dependent on money and the rigid processes to attaining the necessities for survival. You need food, but you need money to buy food, so you have to work to earn that money - one legitimate means to survival. Very miserable if you are not in the capacity to work because of physiology and a lethal dose of social or political discrimination.By following the legitimate processes, we in fact give it legitimacy and justification, allowing for its unnatural longevity, making it rigid and less inclined to change and evolution.It is such a system in which sickening mentalities are enshrined. We are a society that can believe that poor people are lazy workers.Problems cannot be individualised nor medicalised, which will lead to their depoliticisation. In this case surrounding my reluctance to sit for the Diagnostic English Test, people might think that NUS is a lousy school because of the poor standard of English. We must consider the system through which the students have come.In my time, as early as in Primary School, English lessons are functional towards the attainment of good grades. Who cares about foundation? We just practised comprehension and cloze passages like they were mathematical equations. When I reached Secondary School, not many of us knew what a preposition or a conjunction or a collective noun was! Wait a minute, shouldn't all these be taught in Primary School?Maybe the Ministry of Education has put the cart before the horse. Heck, they just probably bought only the cart because of "pragmatic reasons". Horses just grow old, while carts are immortal and have replaceable parts. So typical of a government that consistently espouses rhetoric of practicality and pragmatism.The study of English at Primary level was mostly for examinations. I was just very lucky to have a tutor who taught (drilled into) me English grammar, although my standard now isn't as good as it was under her tutelage.It is true, linguistic and grammatical ability and proficiency can deteriorate. They require practice, in the form of speech and writing. A good example would be my Mandarin (not the orange), which would be comparable to a Primary Three student's. Since I do not speak well nor much, the only practice of the English language comes from writing.Philosophically speaking, I have always believed we should transcend language, because language itself is confining and limiting. How do we specifically convey instructions or feelings that cannot be communicated using language? We end up using social cues and facial expressions and other gesticulations. Speech, in communication, cannot do without its "crutches".I hate to talk to people for a couple of reasons - they get offended because of the ideology they hold (that is a people problem); they misunderstand what I say and my intentions (that is my limitation to expressing myself and the limitation of language itself).Weird enough, to choose not to speak is to transcend speech. Avoidance and independence is a form of transcendence. Speech is an apparatus of society. It does not belong to any one.Unfortunately, I am entangled in society. I cannot steal or rob or kill or do anything as I please. In order to pursue a goal, which might have been put into my consciousness by society itself, I have to abide by the human-made rules of society.It is with great reluctance and resignation that I sit for the Diagnostic English Test. I personally see no meaning in it, because it is a tactic employed by an institution that sustain itself in a larger network of other institutions.One test may be believed to measure and determine the standard of approximately 12 years of formal education, but the extra English language courses/classes cannot easily repair everything.Students like myself suffer the extra administrative checks and segmentisations, because of the declining standard of English. It is about time we turn the spotlight on the Ministry of Education. Will they be accountable? Or will they blame Phua Chu Kang? The freedom to hate Don't you hate it when there are moments in which you knew the right word/term/phrase to describe the events/episodes?For example, over dinner today, I was wondering under which classification of "logic" the following fell:Wife: (Dinner's) so expensive. We could use the money to buy books.Me: But you don't buy books.Wife: Because they're (books are) expensive.So what do you call this conversation/logic? My mind is blank. It probably go along the lines of:Person A: Don't waste water when you bathe. You could water the plants with the amount that you have wasted.Person B: But you don't own any plants.Person A: Because I save water.Maybe it's some off-tangent cross-talk humour. The "reasoner" creates a statement with a justification, using another example, and the attention is refocused onto the item/example discussed in the justification. It's simply quite entertaining.Onto today's topic. I have read a few books on Marilyn Manson, the persona, the act and the band, as well as his autobiography. Yes, I bought the books and they were not cheap. He sees a problem with American society, that it obsessively embraces political correctness and suppresses hate speech.On the surface, it seems fine, because people, groups and even individuals (who have their own beliefs) have made themselves vulnerable to being offended. An offended person or group will often seek redress with various types of action and reaction. This upsets any predisposed definitions of "harmony" and "peace".But in suppressing hate speech, seen as an expression of hatred, a feeling deemed by Manson as real and as legitimate as love, people seek other means to expressing hate. The more permissible (but still probably offensive) means of the expression of hate are destroyed and cordoned off: These include art, music, literature, speech, performance, and other metaphorical and symbolic expressions/parallels of hate. Of course, in Singapore, there is no market for or career in the arts and entertainment, which constitutes one form of "suppression".How then do people express hate? Some bottle it up. Some express it physically and that is when lives are endangered or taken. After all, hate (to some) is an emotion.Sometimes it is difficult to discuss an issue such as the "freedom of speech" because to whose freedom is the speech directed? Who becomes freed, more free or un-free?Considering the rhetoric of responsible speech in the discourse of the freedom of speech, do such advocates actually seek to place restrictions on the notion of freedom and speaking? In this case, such "responsibility" in responsible speech benefits whom and threatens whom?So why can't we hate and have the freedom to express our hate? To sanction hate is hatred itself for it restricts hatred with suppression and oppression.If emotions are bits and pieces of our characters, which are subsets of our individual and identity, why are some emotions and expressions suppressed? Is the suppression causing us to think and act the way we are now?The hater and the hated, or the offender and the offended, have a symbiotic relationship, an interdependent and special bond.The hater may have been offended into hating.The hater or offender may just hate.The offended, on the other hand, needs hate and offence, to qualify and self-identify as offended. To be offended is a reaction. To hate is to act and/or to react.The basis for a person being offended is his/her individual and group identity, his/her esteem, ideology and beliefs. Without strong and rigid expectations of what healthy and good and morally correct esteem and ideologies should be, how then would be the susceptibility of one being offended?Hatred may be against a system, a morality, a reasoning, an identity, an aesthetic, so on. Hatred may be the rational or irrational antithesis to the specific thesis.Unfortunately, there is a system in place that protects the thesis, putting in place a structure which suppresses the antithesis from interacting with the thesis, and forming a synthesis. What we get is continuity, rather than (re)invention, innovation, reflexivity, (r)evolution, change.In continuity, the power elite retain their political and ideological dominance.Well, how we deal with hate and hate speech is another topic altogether. What I am focusing on is the manner in which hate is suppressed by us and people around us. The domain of hate is confined to specific areas whereby the public can see how "bad" and unhealthy it is, for example villains in movies, criminals in jail, executed terrorists and so on.When the speaker of hate gets beaten by a mob which has reacted to his/her speech, who then is wrong? Who then is right? Who has more hate? Who has expressed more hate?Isn't it weird we are a society that regulates love (censors sex and love scenes in the media, tell scientifically untrue tales to children about the birds and the bees) but permits violence through various media (the news, television, movies, books and so on)?So, is hate then a symptom of ideology? Is there a belief we hold that affects the balance of our worry, fear, anxiety, grief, enjoy, etc.? Does hate derive from the imbalance of such a belief?What if we discarded such a belief? Won't the powerful, who have invested so heavily in sustaining this belief in our psyche, now be fearful of the new "non-believer"? In discarding a belief, one acquires a different kind of "knowledge", which now governs one's attitude and behaviour. Now, doesn't that threaten the powerful since the powerful cannot cope with such different episteme?Assume we are all string puppets. Even though some strings can be severed, others remain. The puppeteer will jerk and pull harder to compensate for the severed strings, and the puppet will be in greater pain (due to greater imbalance of support).If the puppet totally severs himself/herself from the puppeteer, cutting all strings, conventional knowledge (the fear the puppeteer put into the puppet) follows that the puppet will be lifeless, immobile and incapable.However, being lifeless, immobile and incapable are only to the benefit and disadvantage to the puppeteer, not the puppet. What about seeing it from the puppet's point of view? Although lifeless, immobile and incapable towards the puppeteer, the puppet may not be such to himself/herself. In the end, the puppeteer needs the puppet, but the puppet may not necessarily need the puppeteer.Back to hate, hate is a dominant discourse that has been turned into a subversive discourse, hence not seen as politically correct. If love and understanding can be counter-dominant or subversive, why can't hate be dominant?Well, I have not, will not and can not share my personal view on hate and matters discussed above, as I am firstly not obliged to say so and secondly do not want to offend any one. I must stress that such deductions, inductions, reasonings, derivations, reductions and perhaps generalisations have their limitations and flaws. But flaws give more impetus for continual thinking. The importance of being socially inept I will be speaking briefly at an interactive forum on August 2, 2008, 3pm, at 72-13 in Mohd Sultan. The event addresses the gender and sexuality-oriented discomfort as verbally expressed by different people. Crudely put, it has something to do with homophobia. Do attend the event if you want to see what I look like and sound like. *End of shameless plug.It will be the first time in a very long I will be doing "public-speaking" and facilitating a forum. Butterflies, yes.For someone who is growingly introverted and anti-social, it feels like growing up all over again and trying to learn how to be social or sociable.I have noticed a steady decrease in the number of words spoken a day over the years in me. Sometimes there is nothing really much to talk about, because it has become so rational to me not to talk for the sake of talking.Like an interest, I find writing (or typing for that matter) so much easier. There is also not that great a motivation to seek a reaction from such an expression.In acting on a belief, engaging people on a face-to-face level becomes part of the package.Another possible reason why I am reluctant to make (new) friends and maintain contacts is the fact that I hate the idea that we will always be judging one another in our minds. "Nice guy", "mean guy", "type A", "type B", etc. Prevention is better than cure, so I forget about socialising in the first place.Besides having common and fundamental differences, other persons/people have different stakes in different areas and domains. The decisions they make are in part influenced by the nature of which they hold these stakes. Every person has an ideology, and along with it a set of expectations. With ideology and expectations, one has defined for oneself the boundaries of satisfaction and dissatisfaction, of love and hate, and so on.There is thus the strain to achieve consensus. And again, to me, if there is no person, there would not be any need to reach consensus.The bad thing about being "socially inept" is when one is socially inept in an environment that is negative towards socially inept'-ness'. What is at the same time interesting to note that "socially inept" is a labelled created by the "more sociable" folk. There would not have been any name for it if people did not really bother about it.To disassociate with people is to divorce oneself from the dominant mode of economic production, and distance oneself from social power dynamics. Unfortunately, there can never be a full disassocation, as society is such that we have to be dependent and dependable (interdependable) to survive.Here, even the notion of "survival" is laced with ideology of the dominant group. Why the need to "survive"? Who else will benefit from such "survival"?Although I will be speaking for a short while in front of a small group of people, I still feel that may not be the best way for me to reach out to others. Nevertheless, it is for a cause I believe in and this is the medium (at the moment) to be used to spread the awareness.Persons evolve, like from the worm to the social butterfly, and the other way around. Maybe I might see a point in being a little more sociable. But being sociable involves being able to perform and reproduce socially acceptable norms (of the group), and it does not help that since everyone has an ideology of their own, they will still be susceptible to being offended in some way or another.It would be a paradox if I formed a group advocating non-discriminatory treatment for introverted and socially inept persons, as being part of a group and believing in a common idea defeats the whole purpose of one's individual identity.It is more of a paradox from my point of view, that in order to be deemed normal, you have to be different (from who you comfortably are); while being different (as deemed by others) would be considered abnormal by others.Yes, the takeaway point may be that Sam Ho is actually capable of writing 'emo' teenage blog entries, but this is to show that there are introverted and/or antisocial persons out there who should be understood. There are also happy introverts out there, those who have found their inner peace. Not all "socially inept" individuals are sad and miserable.For the moment, I'm going to make sure this is a moderately successful event. So please attend it, whether you're straight, queer, questioning, or however you comfortably identify yourself. Racial and religious harmony cannot be just a wayang (I didn't bother sending the following to the Straits Times after drafting a reply. Must be one of those days.)I read with interest Jeffrey Law's letter 'Mosques show our multi-religious spirit' (ST, Jul 17).What various religious organisations and places of worship have done over the years was to engage the community with volunteer and welfare work.They may have a strong sense of civic consciousness, compassion and responsibility, as observed from such community-oriented initiatives.However, it cannot be taken for granted, as such initiatives are still not indicative of multi-religious spirit, nor do they entirely contribute to racial and religious harmony.Volunteer and welfare work is should be racially and religiously blind, among many other impartialities and neutralities. It will only deepen the divisions of our society should community-based volunteerism be confined to related or selected racial or religious communities.To invoke the rhetoric of racial and religious harmony at times reinforces our differences and awareness of these differences.Compassion, goodwill and volunteerism may be exercised by people and organisations within and outside socio-religious spaces, but our concept of harmony should not merely be based on the observation of these acts.I believe racial and religious harmony should be appreciated at the ideological level.If every Singaporean truly believes in and is willing to uphold such harmony, the acts of compassion and volunteerism are just a bonus.Ho Chi Sam Practising a lifestyle "So Sam, do you know any one who practises that lifestyle?"Some time ago, that question was innocently shot to me by a friend, who is actually a very morally upright, virtuous, level-headed, grounded, (Christian) God-fearing young man.From a certain perspective, some say that it may be out of ignorance the manner in which the question was formed. In answering it (yes or no), I would have dignified it. I would have endorsed the view that homosexuality (or sexual orientation other than heterosexuality) is a lifestyle that is practised.By convention, a lifestyle is seen as something that is adopted. In practising something, there is an allusion to the notion of rational choice, wherein homosexuality is seen as a choice taken up by an individual. Thus, the assumptions that it can be unlearned and discarded as a practice accompany the definition.Discourse pertaining to homosexuality in Singapore is often steered towards the origins and causes of homosexuality. The gaze and our attention are always focused on these areas.We come from a society that prides itself in rationalising and reducing complex phenomena to specific and perceived critical variables. Psychiatry and medicine, fueled by politics, creep into the discourse and turn it into the way they want it to be.Why can't our attention be turned towards the inequalities that are being harboured and institutionalised?How have social forces come to influence our perception that sexual orientation other than heterosexuality, is a lifestyle?Why do institutions of power and influence want to monopolise sex and sexual orientation?Could it be because diversity is difficult to organise, to manage, to dictate, to abuse (unlike homogeneity)?Although sexuality is part of one's identity and in that respect, part of one's life, it is simply too reductionist to associate that aspect of one's identity as a lifestyle. Individuals, whether straight or queer, deserve the right to self-identify. It will not help if there exist a people to tell them that "deviant" sexual orientation is wrong, temporary, a choice, and so on. If I am not mistaken, esteem is also part of one's identity and life, and I believe sexuality is intertwined with esteem. Imagine people making fun of your "small dick" or "airport tits".To hammer "deviants" into conformity, society hits below the belt by shaking the esteem of individuals who struggle to find or even love themselves. It thus can be very insulting if you labelled a person's sexuality as a lifestyle when he/she believes it to be an integral part of his/her identity, character or even life.As written last year, I have questioned the definition of the "gay lifestyle". It is more of a stereotype than anything else, perhaps to steer the rest of us away from its perceived corruptive influences. What then is the "straight lifestyle"?There are "loud" gay men. There are also "quiet" gay men. Same goes for other queer and questioning individuals in our diverse society. And the same goes for straight people too.During my reservist training, the guys indulged too often in conversations about women and sex and all that, perhaps to reinforce their masculine dominance and libido. Macho talk and all. Would that not qualify as the "straight lifestyle"? Moreover, why can't gay men talk about men, if straight men can talk about women (and even objectify them)?The role of taboos and rules are observed to keep our society in order. But I believe there exists an immaturity that prevents us from creating an order in diversity. The presence of taboos and rules (and OB markers) helps create conformists, such that order is built on homogeneity. This is explained by a well-disciplined press system and a harsh penal code.As such, it appears that this society is one that does not belief in an order moulded in diversity. Hence, we dismiss difference with our own set of socialised and predefined vocabulary, i.e. "gayness is a lifestyle".I hope one day, our society will be more open towards diversity, other than those which are defined and limited by the government. Diversity is beyond age, religion and ethnicity - beyond the Chinese boy interlocking arms with fellow token ethnic minorities, beaming from ear to ear and that kind of stuff.Diversity exists in physical ability/appearance, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, political beliefs and so on. If we can bring ourselves to understanding and appreciating difference, we can and will be able to understand and appreciate diversity as we will be less inclined to discriminating based on differences. That quite simple in theory, but if there is a lifestyle I will encourage others to practise, it would be one of asking questions with the goal of wanting to learn. The fellator, the irrumator and the rimmer. It is often entertaining when the most widely distributed (I have not mentioned “widely read”) newspaper, the Straits Times, publishes outrageous letters once in a while to tickle the belly of the Singaporean population.Syu Ying Kwok, among a handful of regular letter writers to the press, had wrote a hymn of a praise to the establishment. While there is nothing wrong with an individual expressing his or her opinion and views, it is sometimes incomprehensible the frequency at which the Straits Times publishes letters which are deemed to perform the metaphorical acts of fellating, tea-bagging and rimming (as aptly described in one Chinese dialect).While the fellating of the metaphorical penis, the irrumating of the figurative scrotum and the rimming of the imagerial anus of the state and establishment may be self-inspired and consensual, many are often quick to point out that the fellater, irrumator and/or rimmer has bought into the dominant ideology of the establishment.Insensitive comments (about Tan Lead Shake) aside, a person like Syu Ying Kwok is entitled to express his admiration and support for the government and its leadership. What makes some of us cry foul is the fact that letters criticising the government often do not get published, illuminating a stark imbalance of “public opinion” as presented on the famous English daily.There is also a complex, in which exists a perception that should a person praise the establishment and those in power, he or she is seen as a willing fellator, irrumator and rimmer. The government becomes anthropomorphised into a man's appendage – penis, scrotum and anus (with buttocks) and all.Political conservativeness here seems to be regarded as to have intimate oral relations with the lingum of the one-party government. I have glanced through a few online forums, whose entries have associated Syu as a person who metaphorically orally pleases the phantom private parts of the power elite.Our attention should be turned to the media that so indulges in such acts of political fellatio, irrumatio and rimming, almost fetishist and exhibitionist in its support for the government. Here, the media is the lapdog, not a watchdog.Everyone has a right to express his or her views and ideas, and should be able to do so without fear, without facing discrimination and without facing violence. Apart from his views on Tan Lead Shake (again), Syu should not be discriminated against for his support for the government and its leadership.It is very interesting how dominant discourses and forms of soft-soaping, curry-favouring and apple-polishing are often greeted with subversive discourses – in the form of ridicule, criticisms and dismissals. What do we ultimately achieve, from the viewpoint of Hegelian synthesis between the thesis and the antithesis?The synthesis becomes a “new” thesis – what I observe to be the continual usage of sexual metaphors in the critique of political conservativeness. But I am sure androcentrism still lingers on in the repeated usage of male-oriented sexual imagery.Essentially, the acts of fellatio, irrumatio and rimming are commonly associated with sexual submission to the appendage and orifice of the male. In heterocentrism, the admirer and supporter of the establishment is seen as either the submissive “woman” or the genetically and psychologically inferior “male homosexual” whose role is to orally stimulate the sexual organ of the state. The supporter is then seen as a willing sexual servant or slave. The supporter is seen as a “vagina” (since the mouth would be one proxy for the female anatomy), receiving the “penis” of the government. In another subversive reading, we could say he/she is an asshole (literally and metaphorically) that is being (duly) penetrated by the political elite.In criticising a believer, admirer and supporter of the establishment like Syu for example, those who christen him with the title of the fellator, the irrumator and the rimmer, are in fact not only reinforcing dominant gender and sexual norms, but also making suggestions of an imbalanced dichotomy in which the heterosexual male is king.Subversive political discourses, which counter dominant political discourses, still employ and maintain dominant gender and sexuality discourses. This makes society fertile for the continued perpetuation and sustenance of homophobia and discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation.Sucking the penis, blowjobs, handjobs, licking the scrotum, carrying the scrotum, kissing the buttocks, licking the anus – these are all literal translations from the various Chinese dialects used to describe people who express their admiration and support for the political higher-ups. However, the same language is not commonly used in other domains, such as in the immediate familial and in socio-religious domains. This is how a society comes to define the areas, boundaries and limitations for dominant and subversive discourses.It is also suspiciously Freudian that the logo of the ruler party, the People's Action Party, is one of a reddish (with excitement) phallic lightning placed majestically over a gaping “vagina” of a circle. The phallus is the figure of power and dominance, ready to make the active decisions and conquer the submissive vagina beneath it.Is the “vagina” the people and the “penis”/lightning the state? We are after all constantly impregnated with the rhetoric and ideology of the ruling elite, and occupy ourselves with materials that distract us from questioning the system which perpetuates this. Taxes, the rising cost of living, the fear of political expression and so on, would be the deposited “semen” that lies dormant in the people, who are not prepared to be “pregnant” and are thus for the time-being too burdened to finding the answers rather than asking the questions. You get the rest of the imagery.Rather androcentric and bordering on misogynist (Freud, what!). But it is always entertaining to appreciate the ironies that exist in our lives and society. You cannot change how people think, but you can observe how their thinking contributes to discourse.I will never see the PAP logo in the same light again. Syu Insensitive (Unpublished - Jul 9, 2008)I refer to Syu Ying Kwok's letter 'Five years? MM Lee's estimate was optimistic' (ST, Jul 8).Syu made a comment about opposition politician Tan Lead Shake's “tragic event in his family” and referred to Tan having contested in the last three elections, in which a small percentage of voters are alleged by Syu to have “little consideration of his credentials or abilities”.The irrelevant and utterly insensitive statement should not have made its way on a newspaper which prides itself on integrity and credibility.Tan has been wrongfully discredited as a politician, and audaciously insulted as a human being.We have been engulfed with the rhetoric of vigilance and complacency in light of Mas Selamat's escape. However, it is completely incomprehensible such comments are published.While praises and soft-soaping of the establishment are tolerable in the mainstream press, the media should exercise some responsibility when conveying messages that wrongfully discredit or insult individuals. If such decisions and actions are meant for “nation-building”, a role tagged to the press by the government on many an occasion, it is time to reconsider whether there is a justification for the publication of irrelevant, tactless and offensive material that misrepresent individuals. Nation-building should not be committed on the destruction of persons who constitute the nation.It is tolerable for the press to be conservative and government-friendly, but it is very bewildering and disgusting such comments are published.Ho Chi Sam Mas Selamat was at my ROM (Again, please do not take the title in a literal sense. There are tons of sensitive people out there, but the possibly larger number of mis-readers is what frightens me. Post is about the omnipresence of the said person's posters.)While serving my compulsory national service reservist training, I was greeted with a decent number of Mas Selamat posters.Such are the quantity and branding of Mas Selamat posters that they far outnumber and perhaps outdo other posters and portraits of say, the President of Singapore, S.R. Nathan.Mas Selamat, an alleged terrorist, is a wanted fugitive. The state, with a poster campaign that would embarrass any incumbent Member of Parliament campaigning for votes for his/her constituency, has turned him into a celebrity.Mas Selamat is portrayed as dangerous, but he is equally as mysterious because most of us do not know who he really is and what he does. Though not very well-liked since he is viewed as the “bad guy”, he is wanted (pun intended). Is that not considered ‘sexy’ for any modern day celebrity?The message in the posters is dead serious, but I am amused by the way in which these posters find their way in every nook and cranny of our daily lives. He lies there in the background, watching all of us; watching a society that should be watching out for him.When I went to school, Mas Selamat was there.When I got married, Mas Selamat was there.When I went for my reservist, Mas Selamat was there.When I made my way to the toilet, Mas Selamat was there.Such ubiquity of a single individual is probably only matched by the silent presence of the state in our daily lives.Though portrayed as the villain, the machinery that has established the omnipresence of Mas Selamat has inadvertently made him into a hero and a powerful being.Campaigners for political power and dominance have put up posters. Fans have put up posters of their idols. We have pictures of the President and the First Lady in most government places.Pictures of individuals that are prominently positioned in public places (nice alliteration, huh?) usually mean either one of the following two things, to generalise a bit: The pictured is either in a position of power, or wants to be in a position of power.If going by this general reasoning, where does Mas Selamat stand? Is he already in a position of power such that his imagery is so potent? Or are we wanting him to be in that position of power?It is apparent everyday is Election Day wherein the sole candidate is Mr Mas Selamat. We do not need to go to the voting booth to vote for him because he is already in our minds and hearts.It may seem like the straightforward nationwide campaign to engage the public to assist in finding the fugitive, but in a twisted sense, we have glorified and promoted a new hero and celebrity. It is almost fetishistic that a short man with a limp becomes the centerpiece of mass production.Perhaps the sheer number of posters will divert the publics’ attention towards one (and I stress, one) villain. The whole purpose is to villainise and demonise the man, but if the process actually turns him into a hero, it will come to a point where the machinery that turned him into a hero, will be seen as villainous.Mas Selamat has a greater presence than S.R. Nathan, Zoey Tay and probably Lee Kuan Yew, just simply because of his posters. Even Huang Na in her media frenzy heyday could not rival Mas Selamat. Starhub with its early aggressive marketing campaign will also take a hat off to the poster campaign that has launched Mas Selamat into superstardom. I shall refrain from talking about Jesus because John Lennon had made a point about it in the mid 1960s.It is a nationwide effort that brings Singaporeans together for one cause – to help find the mystery man. Now we can draw comparisons between the imagery of Mas Selamat (not the person) and other important figures in history. Imagine that, a poster of a man is being used to unite people. Even if that does not take Singaporean nationalism to another level, we can be sure that individuals like Lee Kuan Yew, Otto von Bismarck, Mahatma Gandhi, William Wallace, and more, probably had to sweat and sacrifice a lot more to spread/convey even half a message.Posters of persons are put up because of another set of two reasons: We either love them or fear them (and sometimes both). Do we fear Mas Selamat? Probably, because he is after all thought to be very dangerous. Do you love Mas Selamat? Given the fetishistic campaign and media frenzy, it seems there exists a fixation with the personality.Will this campaign end if he is found? Or will Mas Selamat be inadvertently immortalised? Famili-nation Back from reservist. A lot has been invested into making national service reservist personnel feel comfortable. There is an internet room, gym, swimming pool and other recreation rooms. Still, most of us are affected by the usual Singaporean existentialist dissonance: Why are we doing this? For what?It is funny how a construct that is the nation tries to force itself into reason and moral ethical discourse.One commonly present sense of moral obligation, which involves the love for and willing defence of one's family, has been hijacked by the nation, resulting in the rhetoric that links family with the nation.The state creates a conservative system wherein the family is seen as a microcosm of the nation. We are rewarded, in the form of immunity from discrimination and harassment, if we respected our elders and the people in relatively higher positions of power. There are thus similarities between the structure of the family and that of the nation, worth exploiting.The family (blood or water) is such a powerful symbol that we become "morally vulnerable" whenever it is evoked. The sense of duty is packaged with the feelings of love, guilt and other powerful and affective emotions.When brought up and authoritatively discussed by the state to justify national defence, which indirectly encompasses the preservation of the status quo of the state's political dominance and power, the concept of the family becomes monopolised by an entity outside the family, rather than the concerned family itself.The form of the family, with persons in positions of power and influence and in positions of dependence, is juxtaposed with that of the nation, consisting a powerful government which has the legitimate right to commit murder (i.e. death penalty).As such, other forms/manifestations of the notion of family are suppressed or invisibilised, making way for a dominant discourse which primes this one type of family as the "correct" one.Like the nation, the family requires an economic structure to sustain itself. It will be very interesting if ever we could note that the state had ever imposed a particular mode of economic production/sustenance on the family, to ultimately sow the seeds for conservativeness and maintenance of existing power structures.As such, our "love" for the nation is one that has in a way been carved out of a type of reasoning into which we have been socialised. It will thus seem rational, reasonable and logical to accept a discourse which involves the entities of the family and the nation.Speaking of family, it appears that most of us modern-day Singaporeans seem to have a common view of the family and what it should constitute. I met one peer during my reservist training and learned that he had been married for 4 years and has a two-year old daughter. That surprised me because he was actually studying in the same university as I was.Then we start to question, how can students have families?I think we should start questioning the socialisation processes which have come to shape how and why we ask certain questions (of course, putting aside the perceived and legitimate practicalities of income, financial stability/independence and so on).Why should the/this rationality for the creation/starting of a family be a monopoly? Truly intriguing.Any how, I look forward to beginning (again) my studies as I enjoy being a student. With the world and possibly anything as a mentor and teacher, how can one not love being student?I believe a teacher needs a student to teach; but a student doesn't need a teacher to learn. Chicken rice without the chicken This coming Monday will be my fourth reservist. And there would be six more to go after that.As usual, they will tell us not to blog about it. But of course, why would I? I'm only very worried about getting any injury. That's all.There are other fears too, not only the with National Service.I ordered chicken rice at $2.50 (the minimum price) today and when I went home and opened the packet, it was full of rice and a few pieces of chicken. It finally hit me that times are bad.I am not shy of the fact that I lead a rather sheltered life, that I also see myself as a frog in the well. I'm probably the stereotypical Singaporean guy, not the most world-savvy and I still get culture shocks once in a while.Reading about something in the news is nothing compared to experiencing that something in reality. My parents talk about inflation, and newspapers talk about food and all that. The media is playing it really well, so as not to cause panics and hatred for the government. "Cheap" food are featured, providing publicity for the few lucky hawker stores.The sociological imagination creates a link between individual private problems to the larger social structure. In this case, this is, to a large extent, economic. This incident got me thinking about the notion of "bad times". I guess I never really understood what are "bad times" till now; now that I am working and earning something, and have the opportunity to be genuinely shocked at the amount of chicken in my chicken rice. (I have sandwiches for lunch everyday at work by the way, because I need to save for housing renovations).The rectangular styrofoam box was filled with rice, and in the middle was 6-7 thinly sliced pieces of chicken meat. Maybe I did not look hungry enough to the stall owner.Times are indeed bad and the first people who suffer are those who do not have the luxury to choose meals that go beyond $2-$3. I have observed foreign workers going to the economy rice stalls and paying under $2 for rice with 2 vegetables. I don't think I will ever want to be in that position, and I am sure there are Singaporeans out there who could/need to eat more, but are only able to buy less.The poorer will definitely be threatened by the lack of nutrition, which brings along with it other health issues. While I believe Singapore is a place where no one starves, we should do better to make sure people are sufficiently nourished and are able to afford to get the relevant nutrition. Everyone deserves to have a minimal standard in the quality of life here.I think my quest for materials (which isn't really ambitious) is driven by the fear of living a less than standard quality of life, rather than the enticement of living a luxurious life of riches. I want to have enough money to be debt-free, where I owe no one (but family) a living; that the government and capitalistic corporations will not be able to guilt-trap me and tell me what I should be doing with my life.To me, happiness is not about money (although sadness and anxiety have their correlation with the lack of it), but about the freedom to express oneself. The attainment of a debt-free existence would pave the way for any other pursuits.But unfortunately, most of us live a lifetime of debt, so the want to express is lesser prioritised, shelved or suppressed. The path to economic survival is conformity. One way to conform is to eat the rice, eat the few pieces of chicken and shut the hell up.Have a good week ahead. I'll be back in a week because of my compulsory obligation to the organisation that prides itself in unquestionable conformity. Valuable Values (Unpublished - June 26, 2008)Stella Tan Peck Kheng's values could be more valuable than mineI read with interest Stella Tan Peck Kheng's letter 'Programmes convey wrong values' (ST Jun 26).Tan pointed out a Mandarin drama depicting a female character moving out of her home to cohabit with her boyfriend, and thus conveying the wrong values.It is important to note that whatever that is enacted, depicted or represented in the mass media should not be at once construed to be a conveyance or promotion of a set of values.In most cases, depictions of otherwise non-mainstream or socially-labelled deviant acts and phenomena often get scrutinised and criticised for the pushing and promotion of “wrong values”; while mainstream depictions and representations that seek to sustain certain dominant prejudices, predispositions and ideologies go undetected and unquestioned.Another issue worth noting is the tunnel-vision subscription to early Twentieth Century mass media theories which posit a causal relationship between viewership and behaviour.Such a belief will only cause one to hold the media solely responsible for perceived negative social phenomena, turning the attention away from the larger social, economic and political issues that could have played a role in defining the perceived changes or decay in morality.The term “values” is also highly subjective. Focus should not be on the continual transmission and conservation of “values”, but on the questioning as to whose cause and benefit such conservation serves.The portrayal of perceived alternative social phenomenon, rather than threatens, actually provides the dominant social institutions, for example the “normal” family, with the opportunity to discuss the relevant issues with their young as part of their socialisation.Discussion and dialogue are more meaningful in cultivating well-adjusted, responsible and reasonable individuals and citizens. They also serve to prevent moral panics and witch-hunts.Ho Chi Sam Mortal combating I feel really awful learning that Lee Kuan Yew's wife, Kwa Geok Choo, is critically ill, as reported.First and foremost, I would like to say what is more touching and lovely than longevity of an individual, is the longevity of a friendship between individuals. In this respect, I look at Lee and Kwa's marriage.I had briefly glanced over the "official" Singapore history textbooks, the Lee Kuan Yew Memoirs, when I was young, but did not quite understand most of the content. On top of that, I was then not really interested in reading at all. But of course, this entry is not about the top-selling book.They married in 1950 after a few years of courtship. There are quite a number of privileged individuals who have had the opportunity to spend half a century in the company of their partners and companions. It is truly amazing.What makes it as tragic as it is amazing, is the mortality of such a friendship. Illness and age have to rob us. But if it weren't for mortality, illness and age, will we have as strong a friendship as we could have had?Physiological and biological limitations and weaknesses shape our worldview, and how we treat one another and our loved ones. These attitudes and behaviours in turn affects mass culture. Our concept of "anxiety" and "grief" revolved around it.It is in biological difference that effects changes in cultural attitudes and norms. How cultural meaning is ascribed to the child-bearing person with respect to the impregnator defines the norms of the group/society. Stelarc (now) speaks of a post-human, and I share the positing if birthing were to be externalised, our whole concept of the woman will change, leading to a chain effect in the form of paradigmatic and ideological changes in the domains of culture and politics.If our mums and dads did not grey or be shrunken by osteoporosis, would we have loved them differently? If all mums and dads today never grew old, what kind of effect will that have on the transmission of social and cultural norms? More interestingly, how will norms change?Although I have been over-indulgent in structuralist and post-structuralist social theories (maybe a bit of culturalism/symbolic interactionism now and then), I believe we also need to appreciate biological determinism, for biology, although culturally shaped with cultural interpretations (there I go again), has an effect on culture.Death gives us inspiration, and not only grief. Death gives society inspiration to create rituals, which are cultural in nature since they require practices that have to be taught, reinforced and conserved. Social and cultural mechanisms in the form of norms seek to facilitate the teaching and conservation.(Physical) Suffering, because of our physiological and biological limitations and weaknesses, also serve as instigator and catalyst for ritualistic behaviours and the formation of group and cultural norms. We respond to suffering with rituals and a concoction of symbolic activities, such as congregating or lighting candles.I personally see ageing as a weakness and a totally uncalled-for phenomenon, for it brings with it suffering thanks to the body's deterioration. Of course, countries with gerontocratic governments/rulers will beg to differ and in fact, put the "age" in "political leverage". Most of us are socialised into linking age with wisdom, but what if the variable of age was infinite, would that not render the long-term concept of wisdom arbitrary? I'm sure it will at least affect how CPF is conceived.Going back to Lee and Kwa's marriage. What makes an individual like myself admire the 58 years of their union is a composite of factors, including the reality of physiological and biological weaknesses and limitations. These make the social construct-cum-institution that is marriage all the more mystical, sacred and "special", despite it being an economic means to a political end, i.e. reproduction for exploitation.Of course, and sidetracking, although it is not part of the dominant mode of production nor do they directly contribute to that particular political goal, why should we deprive sexual minorities the same feelings and reactions associated with marriage by depriving them the right to marry? Ok, end of digression, but you get the drift.What we have done is to create our own concept of longevity, in the form of books, music montages, legacies and truckloads of symbolism and rituals. All these compensate for the deteriorating physiological domain of the self. For example, though I never expressed any "I love you"s to my dad, I will always remember the two days in 1999 and 2008 when Manchester United won that European Cup and we hugged. He may be mortal and ageing, but his well-socialised (or perhaps over-socialised, after thinking too much) son will continue to conserve the memories with the ritual of recollection. I guess that is how things work in our society.On an ending note, I guess I can only say "all the best" to an elderly woman who is suffering. No one deserves to suffer (or make others suffer, for that matter). But it is the imbalance, differential and uneven timing of suffering that affects how culture and power relations are structured in society. Suffering may serve the function to unite us for a cause. And in this respect, I feel I am among those who will personally give their well wishes.Speaking of well wishes, my MP has given me a card, congratulating me on my marriage. Thank you for the card and your wishes, although I think my neighbourhood smells like piss and has the highest "litter index" (welcome to Aljunied GRC baby!). I was like "Awwww, so sweet of him! Waaaiiiitt a minute, how did he know?", then my mum said, "They're the government. They know everything!". Talk about the panopticon for newly-weds. Singapore needs tuition lessons I am proud to say that I had tuition for the most parts of my schooling life, from when I was 9 to 17 years of age. However, I was only tutored for 2 subjects.Being from an English-speaking home, Mandarin was (and still is) rather alien. Never mind my dad's occasional effort to engage us with conversations in Mandarin (even though it was never a natural language for him), my mother felt it was best I had Mandarin tuition.The private Mandarin tutoring sessions probably started when I was in Primary Three. It was just practice practice and more practice. Comprehension and cloze passages, essays and oral/conversational skills. I got an A grade in Chinese for my PSLE.The tuition lessons continued, with different tutors, because there would have always been suspicion and doubt whenever (a series of) grades seemed dismal. I had, on two occasions for both my 'O' Levels and 'A' Levels, requested my Chinese school teachers to stay back with me after lessons in school for me to ask questions and so on. A different level of difficulty required a different approach, and of course a different set of expectations, because all I wanted was to pass my Mandarin and not ace it.On the occasions I did well, it was with the school teachers who stayed back after school with me. On the occasions I did not do well, I had private and group tuition sessions. I was very fortunate to have those Chinese school teachers (from Ang Mo Kio Secondary and Nanyang Junior College) who were actually more than happy to stay back after school with me to entertain my requests.Having experienced having tuition, I have come to realise that having tuition lessons could be both useful or useless. Before I delve into that, I have yet to disclose my other subject for which I had tuition lessons.It was English. It was my mother, again, who felt I had a poor command of English in Primary 4. And so, I had tuition, although with only 2 tutors. I learned more than just the English language. The first tutor taught me in a way that made me inquisitive and ask a lot of questions, but the stint lasted only a year because grades are often and sadly the measure of a tutor.The second tutor, who has taught and mentored me from Primary 5 to Secondary 4, was an elderly ex-principal/teacher who has perhaps tons of experience in education. Although very stern and disciplined, she probably single-handedly changed my life.One-hour session, once a week, 50-60 dollars a month. I doubt anyone could beat that, but she was never in it for the money. I learned more than English, but also Geography, History, Literature and Social Studies, which was then an arbitrary subject. English was only just about doing comprehension passages and writing essays (which I had to do every week), but also about grammar. I can safely say it was her who has inspired my style of writing - the way in which I structure my clauses, position my prepositions, you get the picture. What was also a defining moment in time was the day (first day) she told me to forget about writing stories for my essays, and forced me to write expository and argumentative essays. Thus, I had "training" for a good 6 years, writing essays every week and subjecting them to her criticisms and suggestions for improvement.I could not say that it bore immediate fruit, although it culminated in an A2 grade for my 'O' Level English. She decided I was ready and felt she need not tutor me beyond secondary school. I only realised how her efforts and our sessions have paid off when I started writing in Junior College. Even till today, after finishing my degree, I see the value in her tutoring/teaching/mentoring. When my thesis supervisor praised my writing style and (written) command of the English language (I cannot say that I speak the language well and fluently), I immediately think of the elderly woman who taught me for those 6 years.Singapore is the "tuition nation". I see this as a combination and culmination of factors. There are expectations and the need to excel and achieve. There is also the fear, shame and stigma of being in a worse class, stream or school. There is the belief that education is the only ticket to success and happiness in life, and maybe rightly so, because society is structured in a way where the quality and property of education are primed, prioritised and incentivised. Formal education has become naturalised as the rites of passage for any and every Singaporean youth.If having healthy and muscular bodies is the ultimate means to being socially accepted and incentivised, every one will be exercising and investing in muscle-gain and protein supplements. Now that having good grades is of a certain priority, we indulge in the belief that having tuition will be a means to helping us and our children to attaining "success".Of course, it does not help that we are a society that is obsessively result-oriented. We are result-oriented because of the way in which society and the economy are structured. Unfortunately, we turn on one another with criticisms for being individualistic, kiasu and having lost sight on the "finer things in life".We have become obsessed with the prestige that accompanies having good grades - good school, "better" friends and social environment, good scholarship, good professional opportunities, and of course, good relationship prospects (I may be pushing that a little bit too far). Who doesn't want that?My question is: Why do we want it? Is our self-worth measured by how others see us? Why is our esteem intertwined with socio-economic structure? This structure has predefined the markers of success and happiness for us to the point if it told us wearing expensive hats was a marker of success and happiness, our aspirations and anxieties would revolve around it.I believe the sole purpose of having tuition is so that one would eventually not require it. Many will point the finger at unreasonable parents who indulge in such beliefs and practices, who make the final decision as to whether their child would require tuition or not. I say society is the problem, not parents.If our education system was not competitive, would there be a need to "up the ante"? Would there be a greater fear of failure?There is another perspective here (less sociological one). Students themselves are not wanting to have accountability and responsibility for what they learn. I have heard of students complaining about how bad or poor a certain teacher is, or how useless a tutor is. They blame bad grades on these mentors. "I failed my science because my teacher isn't good enough!"Society has a decent level of sociological imagination, and diagnoses this problem as poor parenting. Of course, being a patriarchal and Confucian society, it is almost natural to view the family as the seeds of socialisation. There is actually more beyond that, for we have to be equally critical of the larger socio-political and economic pressures that have come to shape the way the family socialises its children.Back to the less sociological perspective, or rather psychologico-moral (a view technocrats and conservatives would often adopt, as other views will expose their abusive powers), children/students become the ones who are to be blamed. Even I on occasion believe this way. The lack of motivation and accountability for one's education is a problem. If there is a subject children should be tutored on, it should be on responsibility and accountability.Countering this perspective with another socialisation (and pseudo-evolutionary) theory, it is believed that children have to be socialised into conformity, and the apparent lack of motivation and responsibility indicates an inadequate socialisation. In that sense, all babies and children have by default transcended the norms and institutional expectations that have so imprisoned the most of us. We label the children and teens who hold no accountability for their education as deviant and in need of help.We are born outside the herd. But it is the warmth and protection of the herd that draws us back to it, so we conform and follow the rules of the herd.Having tuition lessons is not conformity, but having good grades is. It is society and usually those in power, that decide what are the "subjects" for our "examination". In the Singaporean syllabus, the most important subject is "education", and not to mention "monetary and material success". Sports and the arts are just extra-curricular activities that hold no weightage. As one can see, our education system is a microcosm of the structure and ideology that run it.We thus see having tuition lessons as a necessity. It has become an accessory that few have come to question its true purpose. Many believe having tuition lessons will translate to good grades. We are a society of flawed logic and methodology - believing in cause-and-effects. For example, more ERP gantries will lead to lesser traffic congestions, and a harsher penal code will reduce the rates of incarcerations, and not to mention, the more we pay a politician, the less corrupt he/she would be.I would like to ask the question, "What is this like that?"Why have society come to think this way? Why is this conventional knowledge, never mind a large subscriber base?The whole "tuition nation" thing is just a symptom of modern Singaporean society, but we see it as an isolated phenomenon/problem. Our politicisation of it is limited, in focus, to the family. Society's (and ideology's