What pomp, what ceremony! Rajaratnam's funeral is a full-dress rehearsal for papalee's great requiem mass!
How does one plan for the Great Leader's death spectacle? By setting precedents, by letting the state media machine work itself into pious breastbeating and tearing of sackcloths on the death of a member of the Old Guard.
Rajaratnam may have been a decent man, but he was no great man. One has to wonder about what went on in the vast expanse between the ears of the man who wrote the national pledge: "One united people, regardless of race, language or religion" but silent on the issue of sex and gender, class and political belief, this man is no thinker and no humanist.
26 February 2006
23 February 2006
The creeping SumikoTanning of the Straits Times
Attention! A mutant strain of the SumikoTan virus, under development in the top secret labs of ST's Toa Payoh labs, has broken out and infected other journalists!
Seen in a recent edition of the Urban ST section, otherwise respectable fashion reporter and Urban art director Dylan Boey writing a full-page article on how and why he got his braces.
According to unnamed sources in the virological research unit of the Straits Times, this outbreak may be less unintended and accidental than let on. "This virus has been perfected through months of testing on bloggers. We've already succeeded in the Bantustanisation of the blogosphere, and with that, do you think they'd let this weapon sit around, with so many rebellious ST journalists inserting subtle barbs at the establishment?"
Expect a SumikoTan pandemic, and even more inane, chewed curd writing from ST soon.
UPDATE
It appears fashion reporter Dylan Boey has proved to be a superspreader of the SumikoTan virus. At the Toa Payoh interchange/MRT station/mall, scores of ST journalists were observed wandering aimlessly, whining piteously about their singlehood, their failed relationships, and the trials and tribulations of 30somethings. Dear readers, if you come across one of these journos, please do not breathe in the air around them!!
UPDATE
Intrepid reporter Aki spent the day yesterday connecting the dots and tracing the history of the anomalous pathogen! Did you know that a previous outbreak was contained in 1999? We speak of none other than Richard Lim!
The former chief editor of the Life section, he with the fey mannerisms, overweening ego, and a desperate habit of namedropping literary greats, was a former victim of the SumikoTan virus. His rivalry with his eventual successor is the best-kept secret among journo circles, but even he succumbed to a rare fit of narcissistic introspection, when he wrote an entire series of articles about his travel experiences, which include lamentations of lost opportunites for relationships with exotic Japanese ladies, and being hit on by an elderly but debonair English gentleman.
Apparently the antidote that brought Richard Lim back to the reality-based universe was his retirement and his work on the biography of Papalee. That's a cure that might be much worse than the ailment, but there are troubling signs that the virus has had time to gain resistance to this antidote...
Seen in a recent edition of the Urban ST section, otherwise respectable fashion reporter and Urban art director Dylan Boey writing a full-page article on how and why he got his braces.
According to unnamed sources in the virological research unit of the Straits Times, this outbreak may be less unintended and accidental than let on. "This virus has been perfected through months of testing on bloggers. We've already succeeded in the Bantustanisation of the blogosphere, and with that, do you think they'd let this weapon sit around, with so many rebellious ST journalists inserting subtle barbs at the establishment?"
Expect a SumikoTan pandemic, and even more inane, chewed curd writing from ST soon.
UPDATE
It appears fashion reporter Dylan Boey has proved to be a superspreader of the SumikoTan virus. At the Toa Payoh interchange/MRT station/mall, scores of ST journalists were observed wandering aimlessly, whining piteously about their singlehood, their failed relationships, and the trials and tribulations of 30somethings. Dear readers, if you come across one of these journos, please do not breathe in the air around them!!
UPDATE
Intrepid reporter Aki spent the day yesterday connecting the dots and tracing the history of the anomalous pathogen! Did you know that a previous outbreak was contained in 1999? We speak of none other than Richard Lim!
The former chief editor of the Life section, he with the fey mannerisms, overweening ego, and a desperate habit of namedropping literary greats, was a former victim of the SumikoTan virus. His rivalry with his eventual successor is the best-kept secret among journo circles, but even he succumbed to a rare fit of narcissistic introspection, when he wrote an entire series of articles about his travel experiences, which include lamentations of lost opportunites for relationships with exotic Japanese ladies, and being hit on by an elderly but debonair English gentleman.
Apparently the antidote that brought Richard Lim back to the reality-based universe was his retirement and his work on the biography of Papalee. That's a cure that might be much worse than the ailment, but there are troubling signs that the virus has had time to gain resistance to this antidote...
17 February 2006
Brokeback Mountain eBay bidding
(seen and heard on eBay)
Jack's Shirts used in the filming of BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
Item Value: Priceless!
The two shirts that Jack's mother gave to Ennis for him to remember Jack by. This is more than just a costume; this prop is an integral part of the story.
These are the men's shirts, originally selected by BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN costume designer Marit Allen and director Ang Lee, that have become iconic pieces of film history in the most Academy Award-nominated film of the year. The 2 (two) shirts are worn early in the film by Ennis Del Mar (Heath Ledger) and Jack Twist (Jake Gyllenhaal), in the portion of the story set in 1963, and then are seen again as the epic love story nears closure many years later.
(Hmmm. I'd buy the jeans Jack used in the filming of Brokeback Mountain instead)
15 February 2006
Crackpots, Damn Crackpots, and PLU Activists
Kelvin Wong is the secretary of PLU, the local gay rights lobby group. Even though he's based in Japan, the gentleman continues to take a firm interest in happenings in Singapore - he has chimed in at the 11th hour on Singabloodypore to lay the smackdown on me for casting aspersions on the sanity, incompetence of the policies and PR of the lobby group. He plans to send some letters to the ST forums to keep the Christian fundie school sex ed issue in public consciousness.
I definitely agree that the public should be further informed about how Christian fundamentalist groups are somehow getting invited to give fairly misleading and unfactual sex ed talks in Singapore's state-funded schools. I also believe that the public should be further informed about how PLU's leadership has a equally non-reality-based hangup on Christianity.
Kelvin Wong says so himself:
I definitely agree that the public should be further informed about how Christian fundamentalist groups are somehow getting invited to give fairly misleading and unfactual sex ed talks in Singapore's state-funded schools. I also believe that the public should be further informed about how PLU's leadership has a equally non-reality-based hangup on Christianity.
Kelvin Wong says so himself:
The japanese are quite unabashed about their bodies or being naked, unlike the hangups that Singpaoreans have, most of which comes from conservative Christian values. Whatever hangups the japanese have about being naked probably comes from the American christian and other Jesuits Priest when they landed in Japan.I believe in freedom of speech. And I also believe the forthcoming Christian crackpot vs PLU crackpot ST forum deathmatch will be very, very entertaining.
10 February 2006
Ministry of Manpower non-reply
When bureaucrats are caught red-handed massaging figures...
Utter mendacity, malevolence, incompetence, and sheer disconnection from reality!
Somehow MOM has forgotten that government mouthpieces ST and Channelnewsasia reported the unemployment rate as 2.5% - and not 3.2%.
Somehow MOM has forgotten that the 3.2 per cent figure wasflattered flattened into 2.5 per cent because it included the foreign workers.
Somehow MOM tries to play a non sequitur argument, misreading that the FT took issue with the 3.3% unemployment rate was 'flattered' into a 3.2% rate.
Somehow MOM insists that the Singaporean rate of unemployment benefitted more from a 'record increase in jobs' - without showing that these jobs actually went to Singaporeans more than they went to foreign workers.
Impeach Ng Eng Hen. Impeach him now!
"MOM refutes FT report on jobless rate" [Buried on page 5 of the Home section!]
by Leslie Koh
The Manpower Ministry (MOM) has refuted a Financial TImes report that suggested it had changed statistical methods to lower Singapore's jobless rate. The four-year low of 3.2 per cent last year was due to a record number of jobs created, it stressed, and not because of a change in how the ministry measured unemployment. The methodology was revised last year to match international standards, MOM said, adding that it had been issuing employment data using the new method since last June.
The Ministry was reacting to a Feb 1 article by writer Jim Burton, which said that Singapore's latest jobles rate "was flattered by a recent change in how the data was measured". It noted that the SIngapore Government had last year decided to include foreign workers with temporary work permits when measuring unemployment. This effectively reduces the overall jobless rate because unemployment among foreign workers is much lower than among SIngapore residents.
Utter mendacity, malevolence, incompetence, and sheer disconnection from reality!
Somehow MOM has forgotten that government mouthpieces ST and Channelnewsasia reported the unemployment rate as 2.5% - and not 3.2%.
Somehow MOM has forgotten that the 3.2 per cent figure was
Somehow MOM tries to play a non sequitur argument, misreading that the FT took issue with the 3.3% unemployment rate was 'flattered' into a 3.2% rate.
Somehow MOM insists that the Singaporean rate of unemployment benefitted more from a 'record increase in jobs' - without showing that these jobs actually went to Singaporeans more than they went to foreign workers.
Impeach Ng Eng Hen. Impeach him now!
05 February 2006
Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics
Ng Eng Hen's Ministry of Manpower clearly knows the difference between lies, damn lies, and statistics. Consider the recent release of Q4 figures by his ministry: the unemployment rate fell to a 5-year low of 2.5%!
Let's hold back the picture of Ng in a coverall on a factory floor, with a giant banner proclaiming MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, okay?
A look at Channelnewsasia's and ST's versions of the story will reveal the standard message: Record employment in 2005 (2.3 million serfs), 32,800 jobs created in December (No metion if they're just holiday-specific jobs), and expectations by unnamed economic experts of moderate wage increases (tell me if any economic recovery since 2001 has been accompanied by wage or even job increases?).
Then take a look at the Financial Times coverage of the same story (archived on SBP).
Such an important point got conveniently left out of ST and CNA's press reports. Why are our national press run by these fools?
This is blatant statistical massaging that puts several question marks on all the figures quoted in the reports.
How much of the 32,800 jobs created last December, for example, went to Singaporeans and not temporary foreign workers? How much of Singapore's record-high of 2.3 million workers were Singaporean workers? How much is the SINGAPOREAN rate of unemployment?
Okay. Apparently Financial Times does have the figure, which it got from the Min. of Manpower: 3.3% in Q4. Is this a reason to pop out the champagne? The 2005 Q1 unemployment rate was 3.5% (2005 figures, of course, did not include foreign workers), so we have 3.3% unemployment in Q4 2005 vs 3.5% in Q1 2005. This, contrary to what FT's reporter says, is not a cause for celebration, nor a worthy achievement, nor a harbinger of more good things to come.
Why this insistence on the Singaporean rate of unemployment? Well, apparently during the Budget debate in 2005, Minister Ng Eng Hen vowed to "re-take jobs for Singaporeans".
1. Has he?
2. Why does his ministry now deprive us of even finding that out, with the "new and improved" method of calculating unemployment?
Let's hold back the picture of Ng in a coverall on a factory floor, with a giant banner proclaiming MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, okay?
A look at Channelnewsasia's and ST's versions of the story will reveal the standard message: Record employment in 2005 (2.3 million serfs), 32,800 jobs created in December (No metion if they're just holiday-specific jobs), and expectations by unnamed economic experts of moderate wage increases (tell me if any economic recovery since 2001 has been accompanied by wage or even job increases?).
Then take a look at the Financial Times coverage of the same story (archived on SBP).
Singapore said on Wednesday its unemployment rate last year fell to a provisional 3.2 per cent, the lowest since 2001, although the figure was flattered by a recent change in how the data was measured. The government decided last year to revise the measurement of unemployment to include foreign workers who have temporary work permits, including construction workers living on site and those who commute to Singapore from Malaysia.
"The revision has the effect of reducing the overall unemployment rate as...(the) total labour force is now larger, taking into account full coverage of the foreign workforce," said the ministry of manpower, which compiles the statistics. Unemployment rates for foreign workers are lower since they normally lose their work permits and can no longer stay in Singapore if they become jobless.
Such an important point got conveniently left out of ST and CNA's press reports. Why are our national press run by these fools?
This is blatant statistical massaging that puts several question marks on all the figures quoted in the reports.
How much of the 32,800 jobs created last December, for example, went to Singaporeans and not temporary foreign workers? How much of Singapore's record-high of 2.3 million workers were Singaporean workers? How much is the SINGAPOREAN rate of unemployment?
Okay. Apparently Financial Times does have the figure, which it got from the Min. of Manpower: 3.3% in Q4. Is this a reason to pop out the champagne? The 2005 Q1 unemployment rate was 3.5% (2005 figures, of course, did not include foreign workers), so we have 3.3% unemployment in Q4 2005 vs 3.5% in Q1 2005. This, contrary to what FT's reporter says, is not a cause for celebration, nor a worthy achievement, nor a harbinger of more good things to come.
Why this insistence on the Singaporean rate of unemployment? Well, apparently during the Budget debate in 2005, Minister Ng Eng Hen vowed to "re-take jobs for Singaporeans".
1. Has he?
2. Why does his ministry now deprive us of even finding that out, with the "new and improved" method of calculating unemployment?
03 February 2006
NTU Blogging Survey: Redirect
Q: What role do you see blogs playing in society and politics in Singapore in the future?
I'll take this question (and 'blogs') to refer to generally blogs devoted to social, political, or cultural commentary or analysis.
Researchers need to understand the density of bloggers with respect to their readership, and then to the population in Singapore. Then, they need to compare how blogs play a part in society and politics elsewhere.
There are a few models available, which I'll categorise according to how they're organised.
a. original commentary and analysis by varying degrees of experts. You'll need the participation of academics and professionals whose work or field of interest are related to policymaking. Singapore doesn't have much going for it, aside from Cherian George...
b. groupblogs. Often, posting on complicated topics takes time, research, self-questioning, informal peer review (and so on), and hence individual blogs aren't updated so often. Groupblogs get around this problem by having a roster of writers who double as commentors - ensuring a deep discussion on any post.
c. social mobilisation. There's not much original commentary in their posts, which seem to be just cut and paste jobs of current news. The key is these blogs function more to mobilise and provide a forum for ordinary citizens to discuss their responses to the current events. File Joe Trippi's Deanforamerica blog, Atrios and Daily Kos under this category. Does any Singaporean blog remind you of this category?
d. minionblogging. Not a judgemental term, actually. It's quite normal for the RNC's campaign heads to decide on a message of the week (on say, a policy issue) and disseminate the stand to political pundit shows on tv, select Republican bloggers, and watch the message of the week multiply in diverse variations in ordinary blogs all over the place.
We're already seeing this happening in here. How and why did PLU's media release get picked up by the blogosphere? How did the bloggers reproduce, modify, reject, co-opt the message?
e. viral. The shorter, simpler, and more self-evident the message, the less problematic its defense, until none is expected. You'll even have traditionally non-political bloggers replicating these messages on their sites.
That's why there was an overwhelming response to the Acidflask affair. Or why the NKF peanuts comment spread like a wildfire. Or why every blogger commented on the white elephants. Or how many poked fun of yet another (s)Elected President.
No matter how they are organised, blogs are engaged in the reframing of political and social issues. Depending on their reach and how they incorporate discussions, I see them as a new extension of civil society. Whether or not blogs have any impact on politics and society has to do (again) with their role in social framing, and their dominated position within the mainstream media: often, blogs have a direct impact only with cooperation by decision makers in the MSM.
Do you see that happening here?
I'll take this question (and 'blogs') to refer to generally blogs devoted to social, political, or cultural commentary or analysis.
Researchers need to understand the density of bloggers with respect to their readership, and then to the population in Singapore. Then, they need to compare how blogs play a part in society and politics elsewhere.
There are a few models available, which I'll categorise according to how they're organised.
a. original commentary and analysis by varying degrees of experts. You'll need the participation of academics and professionals whose work or field of interest are related to policymaking. Singapore doesn't have much going for it, aside from Cherian George...
b. groupblogs. Often, posting on complicated topics takes time, research, self-questioning, informal peer review (and so on), and hence individual blogs aren't updated so often. Groupblogs get around this problem by having a roster of writers who double as commentors - ensuring a deep discussion on any post.
c. social mobilisation. There's not much original commentary in their posts, which seem to be just cut and paste jobs of current news. The key is these blogs function more to mobilise and provide a forum for ordinary citizens to discuss their responses to the current events. File Joe Trippi's Deanforamerica blog, Atrios and Daily Kos under this category. Does any Singaporean blog remind you of this category?
d. minionblogging. Not a judgemental term, actually. It's quite normal for the RNC's campaign heads to decide on a message of the week (on say, a policy issue) and disseminate the stand to political pundit shows on tv, select Republican bloggers, and watch the message of the week multiply in diverse variations in ordinary blogs all over the place.
We're already seeing this happening in here. How and why did PLU's media release get picked up by the blogosphere? How did the bloggers reproduce, modify, reject, co-opt the message?
e. viral. The shorter, simpler, and more self-evident the message, the less problematic its defense, until none is expected. You'll even have traditionally non-political bloggers replicating these messages on their sites.
That's why there was an overwhelming response to the Acidflask affair. Or why the NKF peanuts comment spread like a wildfire. Or why every blogger commented on the white elephants. Or how many poked fun of yet another (s)Elected President.
No matter how they are organised, blogs are engaged in the reframing of political and social issues. Depending on their reach and how they incorporate discussions, I see them as a new extension of civil society. Whether or not blogs have any impact on politics and society has to do (again) with their role in social framing, and their dominated position within the mainstream media: often, blogs have a direct impact only with cooperation by decision makers in the MSM.
Do you see that happening here?
26 January 2006
2005 Birth Rates Released
Minilee Baby Bonus Failure!
Today, the Straits Times reports the official birth rate for 2005 in Singapore. Almost 15 months after Minilee's upsizing of the baby bonus in August 2004, the country's official bean counters report a staggering 1.13% increase in birth rates.
No doubt Minilee and Vivian Balakrishnan will stage a photo op at some hospital, with both of them in maternity dresses in a room full of newborns, and a huge banner overhead proclaiming MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.
Let me just disabuse them of the notion.
1. Over the past 20 years, annual increase in births ranged from 15% (Dragon year effect) to 2%. Minilee's 1.13% certainly sets a new record, for lowest birth increase!
2. The release by Vivian Balakrishnan, of a 3% increase in birth rate for the period of May to July 2005, was designed to be a 'teaser' of the immediate effect of Minilee's new baby bonus plans (i.e. couples who conceived immediately after the bonus was unveiled in August 2004). For the average figure for the entire 2005 year to whittle down to 1.13%, it means no one else was fooled into reproducing - aside from the few stupid Singaporeans who bred in that short period.
3. Our national propaganda press has been at it since last August, reporting anecdotes of couples giving it a go after Minilee's 2004 NDRS, to surges in hospital visits by expecting parents. As with all Leninist states, reports of good news to the Dear Leadermay be are indeed slightly exaggerated.
4. Note the figure for 2000. Mr Goh's baby bonus plan was unveiled in 1999, causing an 8% spike in births. Minilee has failed to beat his predecessor's plan, despite increased gifts to conceiving couples!
5. Gavin Jones of the National University of Singapore apparently believes that Minilee's baby bonus might take time to work, and looks forward to better figures next year. How very droll. I suppose he hasn't consulted the statistical records on the aftermath of Mr Goh's 8% spike: Birth rates have fallen steadily and continuously after 2000.
6. However, I'm waiting to see if Minilee will defend himself by saying Mr Goh had an unfair advantage (2000 was a dragon year!). This, of course, will invite questions from the public, such as: Why on earth did Mr Goh throw money at couples who were already going to conceive en masse anyway?
This will be very interesting, and I'll want to see how Minilee keeps the baby bonus failure out of national discourse.
Miscellaneous musings: What has happened to Singaporeans' will to live? Survival and reproduction being irrational urges that plague all living creatures, something has tipped Singaporeans to deny this Will, to seek permanent relief.
Is it life in industrial society? Or have our leaders failed to socialise Singaporeans, that they have become conscious of social reality, and hence rationally refuse to reproduce society by their refusal to reproduce?
Today, the Straits Times reports the official birth rate for 2005 in Singapore. Almost 15 months after Minilee's upsizing of the baby bonus in August 2004, the country's official bean counters report a staggering 1.13% increase in birth rates.
No doubt Minilee and Vivian Balakrishnan will stage a photo op at some hospital, with both of them in maternity dresses in a room full of newborns, and a huge banner overhead proclaiming MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.
Let me just disabuse them of the notion.
1. Over the past 20 years, annual increase in births ranged from 15% (Dragon year effect) to 2%. Minilee's 1.13% certainly sets a new record, for lowest birth increase!
2. The release by Vivian Balakrishnan, of a 3% increase in birth rate for the period of May to July 2005, was designed to be a 'teaser' of the immediate effect of Minilee's new baby bonus plans (i.e. couples who conceived immediately after the bonus was unveiled in August 2004). For the average figure for the entire 2005 year to whittle down to 1.13%, it means no one else was fooled into reproducing - aside from the few stupid Singaporeans who bred in that short period.
3. Our national propaganda press has been at it since last August, reporting anecdotes of couples giving it a go after Minilee's 2004 NDRS, to surges in hospital visits by expecting parents. As with all Leninist states, reports of good news to the Dear Leader
4. Note the figure for 2000. Mr Goh's baby bonus plan was unveiled in 1999, causing an 8% spike in births. Minilee has failed to beat his predecessor's plan, despite increased gifts to conceiving couples!
5. Gavin Jones of the National University of Singapore apparently believes that Minilee's baby bonus might take time to work, and looks forward to better figures next year. How very droll. I suppose he hasn't consulted the statistical records on the aftermath of Mr Goh's 8% spike: Birth rates have fallen steadily and continuously after 2000.
6. However, I'm waiting to see if Minilee will defend himself by saying Mr Goh had an unfair advantage (2000 was a dragon year!). This, of course, will invite questions from the public, such as: Why on earth did Mr Goh throw money at couples who were already going to conceive en masse anyway?
This will be very interesting, and I'll want to see how Minilee keeps the baby bonus failure out of national discourse.
Miscellaneous musings: What has happened to Singaporeans' will to live? Survival and reproduction being irrational urges that plague all living creatures, something has tipped Singaporeans to deny this Will, to seek permanent relief.
Is it life in industrial society? Or have our leaders failed to socialise Singaporeans, that they have become conscious of social reality, and hence rationally refuse to reproduce society by their refusal to reproduce?
24 January 2006
Reason #1,846,778,387 why the gay movement in Singapore is infantile
Blogger requested in email to cease criticisms of PLU
Yesterday evening, pleinelune, who speaks for gay lobby group PLU on Singabloodypore, emailed me, requesting that "for the sake of community image" and the image of PLU, I should not expose the public to further criticisms of PLU's modus operandi and public statements. Somehow, the image of PLU and the community is threatened every time I comment that I do not agree with their policies or actions. Newsflash: PLU does not have a mandate for sole representation of the community. Newsflash: Even in a one-party state, people are allowed to openly raise disagreements with party policy. Newsflash: Wong Kan Seng, Minilee, and Papalee have NOT said that criticisms by Singaporeans will lead to a diminishing of the public image of Singapore.
Most recently, Alex Au issued a statement that the NVPC is not a real NGO, because it gets funding from the government. His usual spokespersons on Singabloodypore also maintained that as the offices of NVPC are located in a ministry building, NVPC is not an independent organisation.
I have taken pains to point out this line of argument is untenable. Alex Au, with more than 10 years in activism and what his defenders call "constructive engagement" with the government, wouldn't know an NGO if it came up and slapped him with a trout. I pointed out several NGOs which receive substantial proportions of their budgets from governments:
1. A quarter of the US$162 million income in 1998 of the famine-relief organization Oxfam was donated by the British government and the EU. Applying Alex Au's logic, Oxfam is not independent!
2. The Christian relief and development organization World Vision US collected US$55 million worth of goods in 1998 from the American government. Therefore they are run by the government!
3. Médecins Sans Frontières gets 46% of its income from government sources. It's a stooge of the French government! It's NOT an NGO!
Gentle bloggers, these are facts that one can easily look up on the internets. Did Alex Au conduct due diligence before he accused NVPC of being non-independent due to government funding?
I have also commented that PLU's second press release "Behind the Liberty League Scandal", was a strategic failure. When the Ministry pulled a reporter's news story off the papers at the last minute, PLU went ballistic and accused the government of censorship, of poor governance of NVPC, and said "the hole is being dug deeper and deeper".
PLU's defenders then went on to say that MCYS and NVFP ganged up on the lobby group. Presumably, that's why the news article was pulled off. And presumably that's why PLU has issued a statement that preemptively cuts any lines of communication and goodwill it has with the bureaucracy.
1. NVPC is an NGO. It is not a "government body", as PLU's statement erroneously claims. Did PLU do any research before typing out its statement? The ministry provides the funds, but it is up to NVPC to spend it, as it wishes. There is no issue of governance here, merely an issue of poor judgement: NVPC foolishly funded a sex ed quack.
That Liberty League is a Pte Ltd is irrelevant. As long as it declares itself a non-profit to NVPC, it is obliged to provide full and regular accounts. That it has only $10 in startup capital is irrelevant. It will find the rest of the money elsewhere, in order to match NVPC's funding, dollar for dollar.
2. I don't know if there was a secret agreement by MCYS and NVFP to oppress gay people. Certainly it's nice to think so, and even to speculate on the basis of insufficient information. I don't know if MCYS called off the news story because it supports NVFP, or whether it needed time to conduct investigations with NVFP on the Liberty League, or whether it needed time to spin an appropriate response. Certainly it's nice to think of the possibilities, and even to speculate on the basis of insufficient information. Or even to blog about it.
It would be prudent, if one wanted to do more than blog about it (like say, issue a press statement), to make inquiries about the status of the investigation by MCYS and NVFP. PLU did not do so, and instead chose to issue its statement. For all we know, MCYS and NVFP could be doing background checks on Liberty League; making Leslie Lung conform to the rules; finding a way to drop the Liberty League quietly; anything. In fact, there is insufficient evidence for myself or PLU to guess what is going on.
Yet PLU has chosen to interpret the removal of the press story as outright censorship, whereas it could be a media blackout. One would assume that as PLU had cooperated with the reporter to write her story, it would've contained all the errors I have pointed out, like the insistence that NVFP is a government body, or that in effect the Ministry has sanctioned Liberty League for schools as a semi-official sex ed course, for example.
3. It's very nice to preemptively tag the issue as a "scandal" and frame it as a scandal, even before the public gets to know about it and get all worked up over it. Along with the insinuations of a ministry pulling the strings of an NGO, and the claims of press censorship, this is a particularly nice and constructive way to engage the issue with the government, and to persuade the bureaucrats to listen to your lobby group in the future.
By pointing out these flaws in PLU's statements and operations, I have once again undermined the image of PLU, an image so precious to them, they're asking me - through their proxies - very nicely to keep quiet. I'm sure the very possibility that mistakes should be pointed out when they're made doesn't matter. Or perhaps we're witnessing the doctrine of PLU exceptionalism - it is free to criticise the government, but for the sake of 'unity', no one is allowed to criticise them in public.
PLU is too weak to stand up to public scrutiny! The Government has always been hostile to PLU! Don't give PLU any more trouble by criticising it! I fail to understand how by pointing out the flaws in PLU's very open actions, that I'm washing its dirty linen in public. Or that it's a very bad thing.
As a blogger and contributor to Singabloodypore I take this request to stop talking about PLU as an insult to myself and to the ideals of SBP. They suggest I voice out my dissention privately to their organisation in the future, instead of subjecting it to public scrutiny. Actually, I find their suggestion very humorous.
No. I hold that the more mollycoddled PLU is, the less its mistakes are pointed out as such, the more its defenders penalise it. I don't wish to see PLU as a monolithic party that is more interested in party unity than an open marketplace of ideas. I would hate to think of PLU as having a monoculture, and dominated by groupthink, where no one dares to tell its leaders that what they're doing might be not quite right.
See also:
More reasons why the gay rights movement in Singapore is infantile.
Yesterday evening, pleinelune, who speaks for gay lobby group PLU on Singabloodypore, emailed me, requesting that "for the sake of community image" and the image of PLU, I should not expose the public to further criticisms of PLU's modus operandi and public statements. Somehow, the image of PLU and the community is threatened every time I comment that I do not agree with their policies or actions. Newsflash: PLU does not have a mandate for sole representation of the community. Newsflash: Even in a one-party state, people are allowed to openly raise disagreements with party policy. Newsflash: Wong Kan Seng, Minilee, and Papalee have NOT said that criticisms by Singaporeans will lead to a diminishing of the public image of Singapore.
Most recently, Alex Au issued a statement that the NVPC is not a real NGO, because it gets funding from the government. His usual spokespersons on Singabloodypore also maintained that as the offices of NVPC are located in a ministry building, NVPC is not an independent organisation.
I have taken pains to point out this line of argument is untenable. Alex Au, with more than 10 years in activism and what his defenders call "constructive engagement" with the government, wouldn't know an NGO if it came up and slapped him with a trout. I pointed out several NGOs which receive substantial proportions of their budgets from governments:
1. A quarter of the US$162 million income in 1998 of the famine-relief organization Oxfam was donated by the British government and the EU. Applying Alex Au's logic, Oxfam is not independent!
2. The Christian relief and development organization World Vision US collected US$55 million worth of goods in 1998 from the American government. Therefore they are run by the government!
3. Médecins Sans Frontières gets 46% of its income from government sources. It's a stooge of the French government! It's NOT an NGO!
Gentle bloggers, these are facts that one can easily look up on the internets. Did Alex Au conduct due diligence before he accused NVPC of being non-independent due to government funding?
I have also commented that PLU's second press release "Behind the Liberty League Scandal", was a strategic failure. When the Ministry pulled a reporter's news story off the papers at the last minute, PLU went ballistic and accused the government of censorship, of poor governance of NVPC, and said "the hole is being dug deeper and deeper".
PLU's defenders then went on to say that MCYS and NVFP ganged up on the lobby group. Presumably, that's why the news article was pulled off. And presumably that's why PLU has issued a statement that preemptively cuts any lines of communication and goodwill it has with the bureaucracy.
1. NVPC is an NGO. It is not a "government body", as PLU's statement erroneously claims. Did PLU do any research before typing out its statement? The ministry provides the funds, but it is up to NVPC to spend it, as it wishes. There is no issue of governance here, merely an issue of poor judgement: NVPC foolishly funded a sex ed quack.
That Liberty League is a Pte Ltd is irrelevant. As long as it declares itself a non-profit to NVPC, it is obliged to provide full and regular accounts. That it has only $10 in startup capital is irrelevant. It will find the rest of the money elsewhere, in order to match NVPC's funding, dollar for dollar.
2. I don't know if there was a secret agreement by MCYS and NVFP to oppress gay people. Certainly it's nice to think so, and even to speculate on the basis of insufficient information. I don't know if MCYS called off the news story because it supports NVFP, or whether it needed time to conduct investigations with NVFP on the Liberty League, or whether it needed time to spin an appropriate response. Certainly it's nice to think of the possibilities, and even to speculate on the basis of insufficient information. Or even to blog about it.
It would be prudent, if one wanted to do more than blog about it (like say, issue a press statement), to make inquiries about the status of the investigation by MCYS and NVFP. PLU did not do so, and instead chose to issue its statement. For all we know, MCYS and NVFP could be doing background checks on Liberty League; making Leslie Lung conform to the rules; finding a way to drop the Liberty League quietly; anything. In fact, there is insufficient evidence for myself or PLU to guess what is going on.
Yet PLU has chosen to interpret the removal of the press story as outright censorship, whereas it could be a media blackout. One would assume that as PLU had cooperated with the reporter to write her story, it would've contained all the errors I have pointed out, like the insistence that NVFP is a government body, or that in effect the Ministry has sanctioned Liberty League for schools as a semi-official sex ed course, for example.
3. It's very nice to preemptively tag the issue as a "scandal" and frame it as a scandal, even before the public gets to know about it and get all worked up over it. Along with the insinuations of a ministry pulling the strings of an NGO, and the claims of press censorship, this is a particularly nice and constructive way to engage the issue with the government, and to persuade the bureaucrats to listen to your lobby group in the future.
By pointing out these flaws in PLU's statements and operations, I have once again undermined the image of PLU, an image so precious to them, they're asking me - through their proxies - very nicely to keep quiet. I'm sure the very possibility that mistakes should be pointed out when they're made doesn't matter. Or perhaps we're witnessing the doctrine of PLU exceptionalism - it is free to criticise the government, but for the sake of 'unity', no one is allowed to criticise them in public.
PLU is too weak to stand up to public scrutiny! The Government has always been hostile to PLU! Don't give PLU any more trouble by criticising it! I fail to understand how by pointing out the flaws in PLU's very open actions, that I'm washing its dirty linen in public. Or that it's a very bad thing.
As a blogger and contributor to Singabloodypore I take this request to stop talking about PLU as an insult to myself and to the ideals of SBP. They suggest I voice out my dissention privately to their organisation in the future, instead of subjecting it to public scrutiny. Actually, I find their suggestion very humorous.
I concede your point about PLU having to be open to criticism. Every organisation, every society has to be. However, the issue of washing our dirty linen in public comes into question. Yes, PLU has made mistakes, but it is ineffective to publicly denounce PLU in front of anti-gay people. We are only penalising ourselves.
No. I hold that the more mollycoddled PLU is, the less its mistakes are pointed out as such, the more its defenders penalise it. I don't wish to see PLU as a monolithic party that is more interested in party unity than an open marketplace of ideas. I would hate to think of PLU as having a monoculture, and dominated by groupthink, where no one dares to tell its leaders that what they're doing might be not quite right.
See also:
More reasons why the gay rights movement in Singapore is infantile.
21 January 2006
Design methodology
You may notice a longish period of absence from posting. I have developed carpal tunnel syndrome. Updates will be fleeting while I attempt to recover.
Meanwhile, here's a fun quiz for everyone who likes to bitch about badly designed quizzes.
Do it. I'm not going to put any spoilers here. And do discuss about it.
Meanwhile, here's a fun quiz for everyone who likes to bitch about badly designed quizzes.
Do it. I'm not going to put any spoilers here. And do discuss about it.
09 January 2006
The Artist's Pledge
The social ritual establishes a kind of truth; through each re-enactment, that truth is restated, reaffirmed as a timeless fact in itself. The speaker reads from an ancient score, his voice and part, an obliggato which drowns out the initial question, and reestablishes that primal state of innocence of his endeavor in the eternal silence of the natural, undisputed, commonsensical state of always-now.
Question: How do artists here operate, given the restrictions of the state?
Artist's ritual answer: There is freedom of speech, and we have to be very creative in putting certain politically-sensitive points across, and we occasionally have to exercise some self-censorship. So as an artist, I do not feel the heavy hand of the state.
So why is it the most important piece of art here in 2005 was created by a local businessman andPAP minion grassroots activist? I refer to the 1-day display of 8 white elephant cardboard sculptures at the unopened Buangkok train station last August, organised by Mr Leow, a grassroots activist of Punggol South and other leaders minions.
The white elephants installation epitomise the best of public art:
1. Site-specific art accessible to the public
2. Relevant to area residents
3. Strong, clear social and politicalcriticism commentary that speaks on a national level
4. Controversial, yet humourous and cheeky
5. Safe and almost legal
Question: How do the grassrootsminions leaders of Punggol South operate, given the state's testiness and control of public art and politics?
Surprisingly, their answer involves none of the 10-year series model artist's answer that we've heard far too often in arts forums. No, they did NOT have to tread carefully and censor themselves in order to put up the white elephant installation. No, they were not creative enough to avoid such a sensitive issue and an entanglement with the police and the incestuous transport authority-business complex. But they were bold enough to see a good idea and to see it through.
When will local artists make socially relevant public art instead of safe, state-sponsored, high concept, sterile public art?
Question: How do artists here operate, given the restrictions of the state?
Artist's ritual answer: There is freedom of speech, and we have to be very creative in putting certain politically-sensitive points across, and we occasionally have to exercise some self-censorship. So as an artist, I do not feel the heavy hand of the state.
So why is it the most important piece of art here in 2005 was created by a local businessman and
The white elephants installation epitomise the best of public art:
1. Site-specific art accessible to the public
2. Relevant to area residents
3. Strong, clear social and political
4. Controversial, yet humourous and cheeky
5. Safe and almost legal
Question: How do the grassroots
Surprisingly, their answer involves none of the 10-year series model artist's answer that we've heard far too often in arts forums. No, they did NOT have to tread carefully and censor themselves in order to put up the white elephant installation. No, they were not creative enough to avoid such a sensitive issue and an entanglement with the police and the incestuous transport authority-business complex. But they were bold enough to see a good idea and to see it through.
When will local artists make socially relevant public art instead of safe, state-sponsored, high concept, sterile public art?
02 January 2006
God Complex
In the unprecedented case of Job vs God, Job, having submitted his testimony in the form of the Oath of Innocence, and parried the cross-examinations of the defense team, now calls upon the defendant to the stand. Job demands to know why a decent man like him has been rewarded by failure in life despite his exemplary obedience.
From the tempest, like a whirlwind, God answers:
Who is this man who speaks darkly, without understanding?
Who is this man who has broken the unspoken rules as to how we survive, how we have prospered?
(Aside to ISD: Who is this man? Who was his lecturer? Who is he related to? I want answers)
Now put up your fists like a man; I will ask and you will answer.
If not, your head will be broken and your knuckles dusted.
Where were you when I founded Singapore from a tear in my eye?
Who decided how many people it should hold - sure, you must know -
or how many are selected as worthy elites?
On whose word is the law based, on whose existence does Singapore depend?
When the scribes at the Straits Times gather, whose name do they praise?
In all your life, did you command the nation?
Did you tell the stock market to rise?
Have you entered the Government Investment Corporation of Singapore,
and did you see the treasures of the Budget surplus?
These I have saved for a very rainy day,
and not to be raided by an opposition party or wild-eyed populists.
Can you ride a communist tiger, or lay the smackdown on gangsters and secret societies?
Can you imprison enemies of the state indefinitely, or bankrupt them to irrelevance?
Do your enemies speak softly to you, or offer apologies in newspapers and magazines?
Do you have to queue to get treatment in hospitals?
Then Job answered:
I know you can do everything and no purpose of yours can be frustrated.
You, whose designs and machinations are veiled in non-transparency,
I have heard your reply and my eyes have seen your face.
Therefore I despise my life, and I will be consoled on dust and ashes.
From the tempest, like a whirlwind, God answers:
Who is this man who speaks darkly, without understanding?
Who is this man who has broken the unspoken rules as to how we survive, how we have prospered?
(Aside to ISD: Who is this man? Who was his lecturer? Who is he related to? I want answers)
Now put up your fists like a man; I will ask and you will answer.
If not, your head will be broken and your knuckles dusted.
Where were you when I founded Singapore from a tear in my eye?
Who decided how many people it should hold - sure, you must know -
or how many are selected as worthy elites?
On whose word is the law based, on whose existence does Singapore depend?
When the scribes at the Straits Times gather, whose name do they praise?
In all your life, did you command the nation?
Did you tell the stock market to rise?
Have you entered the Government Investment Corporation of Singapore,
and did you see the treasures of the Budget surplus?
These I have saved for a very rainy day,
and not to be raided by an opposition party or wild-eyed populists.
Can you ride a communist tiger, or lay the smackdown on gangsters and secret societies?
Can you imprison enemies of the state indefinitely, or bankrupt them to irrelevance?
Do your enemies speak softly to you, or offer apologies in newspapers and magazines?
Do you have to queue to get treatment in hospitals?
Then Job answered:
I know you can do everything and no purpose of yours can be frustrated.
You, whose designs and machinations are veiled in non-transparency,
I have heard your reply and my eyes have seen your face.
Therefore I despise my life, and I will be consoled on dust and ashes.
26 December 2005
More improbable iPod fashion items
Are you happy to see me, or is that an iPod in your briefs?
(Okay, fine. Not the most improbable iPod fashion item, since there's a ladies' accessory involving iPods, batteries, and vibration...)
23 December 2005
NKF roundup
The auditors from KPMG have spoken, and their 442-page report is damning.
Agagooga compiles the juciest quotes from their report as a public service, in his "National Education Lessons we can learn from the NKF scandal" series, in 3 parts.
We suspect KPMG had a fun time writing the report. As rench00 also notes, the lessons and failures of NKF are far too close to what we know about the governance of Singapore.
Even Ong Soh Chin of the Straits Times compares the NKF to the Matrix. And for the past 5 or so years, the Matrix has been compared to Singapore...
Note the similarities:
Heavy reliance on lawsuits to silence critism.
Concentration of power in one person.
A system of checks and balances that actually act as a rubberstamp (NKF board. Parliament backbenchers.)
Failure of board to challenge decisions or even discuss them. Unanimous voting.
And so on.
Then, there was that live press conference yesterday, where Minister Khaw Boon Wan admitted that he now "looks silly", having stalwartly defended NKF for the past 3 years.
But no, he did not explain how the Ministry of Health renewed the IPC status for NKF (enabling donations as tax-deductable) less than a month after the National Council of Social Services withdrew the IPC status. Minister Khaw did not mention what the auditors from MOH found that actually proved the NCSS complaints wrong. He did not reveal what criteria the MOH used to give NKF a clean bill of health. There should be an official inquiry and investigation on MOH's actions in January 2001, since the Minister is not forthcoming with the details.
The media should also be taken to task. The Q&A session of the press conference was not telecast live and unabridged. This is not the time to protect the Minister from embarrassment - he should by rights resign from his post for this.
Agagooga compiles the juciest quotes from their report as a public service, in his "National Education Lessons we can learn from the NKF scandal" series, in 3 parts.
We suspect KPMG had a fun time writing the report. As rench00 also notes, the lessons and failures of NKF are far too close to what we know about the governance of Singapore.
Even Ong Soh Chin of the Straits Times compares the NKF to the Matrix. And for the past 5 or so years, the Matrix has been compared to Singapore...
Note the similarities:
Heavy reliance on lawsuits to silence critism.
Concentration of power in one person.
A system of checks and balances that actually act as a rubberstamp (NKF board. Parliament backbenchers.)
Failure of board to challenge decisions or even discuss them. Unanimous voting.
And so on.
Then, there was that live press conference yesterday, where Minister Khaw Boon Wan admitted that he now "looks silly", having stalwartly defended NKF for the past 3 years.
But no, he did not explain how the Ministry of Health renewed the IPC status for NKF (enabling donations as tax-deductable) less than a month after the National Council of Social Services withdrew the IPC status. Minister Khaw did not mention what the auditors from MOH found that actually proved the NCSS complaints wrong. He did not reveal what criteria the MOH used to give NKF a clean bill of health. There should be an official inquiry and investigation on MOH's actions in January 2001, since the Minister is not forthcoming with the details.
The media should also be taken to task. The Q&A session of the press conference was not telecast live and unabridged. This is not the time to protect the Minister from embarrassment - he should by rights resign from his post for this.
20 December 2005
The Great Singaporean Novel
In your opinion, what should the Great Singaporean Novel be about?
Some answers from offline people so far:
Protagonist(s) contemplating emigration
A taxi driver (perhaps contemplating emigration... to Perth?)
Compilation of Xiaxue's online posts
A researcher/scholar finding out some discrepancies between official history and actual history (Major whoopass and conspiracy follows??)
The rise and fall of civilization with 3 generations, a story of transition and transience.
What is your opinion? Consider this an open thread, or post the reply on your site, or ask other people you know!
Some answers from offline people so far:
Protagonist(s) contemplating emigration
A taxi driver (perhaps contemplating emigration... to Perth?)
Compilation of Xiaxue's online posts
A researcher/scholar finding out some discrepancies between official history and actual history (Major whoopass and conspiracy follows??)
The rise and fall of civilization with 3 generations, a story of transition and transience.
What is your opinion? Consider this an open thread, or post the reply on your site, or ask other people you know!
14 December 2005
Daughter of Papalee, Sister of Minilee
They say the fruit never falls far from the tree.
Recently a letter Dr Lee Wei Ling wrote to the Straightened Times forum titled "Prestigious school not always the wisest choice", shows that credulity towards crackpot theories is indeed hereditary.
Like her sire, who believes in the superior glands of the Chinese race as the contributing factor to their dominance in Singapore, Dr Lee writes that
NO IT'S NOT.
On the heritability of IQ, Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis (2002), The Inheritance of Inequality, report after a meta-analysis of existing IQ research:
It is NOT a fact that intelligence is "to a large extent genetically determined". It is irresponsible and possibly a breach of ethics for Dr Lee to mislead readers so, and worse yet, fail to provide figures to illustrate (or rather disprove) the extent of genetically determined IQ.
It is also sheer incompetence and disconnection from reality that Dr Lee cheerfully advises academically outstanding students not to worry if they don't get into elite schools. After all, it's not as though the Old Girls/Boys Network actually exist. In Singapore, people succeed due to sheer intellect, not their connections and social capital!
Recently a letter Dr Lee Wei Ling wrote to the Straightened Times forum titled "Prestigious school not always the wisest choice", shows that credulity towards crackpot theories is indeed hereditary.
Like her sire, who believes in the superior glands of the Chinese race as the contributing factor to their dominance in Singapore, Dr Lee writes that
Our meritocratic system, and the fact that academic intelligence (some would call it IQ) is to a large extent genetically determined, has already allowed the cream to float to the top.
NO IT'S NOT.
On the heritability of IQ, Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis (2002), The Inheritance of Inequality, report after a meta-analysis of existing IQ research:
A person’s IQ — meaning, a test score — is a phenotypic trait, while the genes influencing IQ are the person's genotypic IQ. Heritability is the relationship between the two. Suppose that, for a given environment, a standard deviation difference in genotype is associated with a fraction h of a standard deviation difference in IQ. Then h^2 is the heritability of IQ. Estimates of h^2 are based on the degree of similarity of IQ among twins, siblings, cousins and others with differing degrees of genetic relatedness. The value cannot be higher than 1, and most recent estimates are substantially lower, possibly more like a half or less.
It is NOT a fact that intelligence is "to a large extent genetically determined". It is irresponsible and possibly a breach of ethics for Dr Lee to mislead readers so, and worse yet, fail to provide figures to illustrate (or rather disprove) the extent of genetically determined IQ.
It is also sheer incompetence and disconnection from reality that Dr Lee cheerfully advises academically outstanding students not to worry if they don't get into elite schools. After all, it's not as though the Old Girls/Boys Network actually exist. In Singapore, people succeed due to sheer intellect, not their connections and social capital!
The posthumous pardon of Devan Nair
Chengara Veetil Devan Nair died in exile in Canada, aged 82.
Much has been made about Papalee's character assasination of President Nair, which continued years after the latter's forced resignation in 1985. Even more has been said about how Nair was to survive, for the next 20 years, in Canada, where he stepped up criticisms of the authoritarian rule of Papalee, his proscription of various opposition leaders, and his perversion of NTUC (whose independence was guaranteed in its founding constitution) into a branch of the Whiteshirt Party. Absent in the national propaganda press's coverage and state-coordinated posthumous pardon of Devan Nair is his outspoken support of the opposition movement in Singapore during his exile.
It amazes me that Malaysian blogs constitute the vast majority of online writing about the passing of Devan Nair, reporting with more objectivity and honesty than the Singaporean press.
Dear Reader, you can find them easily, and I shan't repeat their talking points and accurate historical narration. Instead, let's examine why the need for Papalee to invoke the vast machinery of the state to pass what is effectively a posthumous pardon for Singapore's 3rd President.
One might note that amongst Papalee's Old Guard, Devan Nair stands out as the most politically loyal (until his forced resignation). He was the only leftist member of the pre-schism Whiteshirt Party who did not cross over to Dr Lee Siew Choh's Barisan Socialis. He was the father of the national union movement that proved to be a shortcut for Papalee's control of the masses. And yet the stalwart soldier became the voice for a non-authoritarian polity, even deterring Papalee from one of his trademark suits against the Globe and Mail, a Canadian newspaper, in 2002.
Despite his forced and dishonourable resignation, despite the years of character assasination that followed, Devan Nair's credentials as former Lee loyalist, patriotic anticolonialist fighter, and father of the NTUC gives him and his later criticism of the Lee regime credibility. This makes Devan Nair more dangerous in death than in life.
If Papalee could not finish his character assasination properly, the sensible action would be to pardon the former President, let the NTUC hold a memorial service for the dead hero, just in case a genuine love by the natives for Devan Nair turns him into Singapore's Hu Yaobang.
Much has been made about Papalee's character assasination of President Nair, which continued years after the latter's forced resignation in 1985. Even more has been said about how Nair was to survive, for the next 20 years, in Canada, where he stepped up criticisms of the authoritarian rule of Papalee, his proscription of various opposition leaders, and his perversion of NTUC (whose independence was guaranteed in its founding constitution) into a branch of the Whiteshirt Party. Absent in the national propaganda press's coverage and state-coordinated posthumous pardon of Devan Nair is his outspoken support of the opposition movement in Singapore during his exile.
It amazes me that Malaysian blogs constitute the vast majority of online writing about the passing of Devan Nair, reporting with more objectivity and honesty than the Singaporean press.
Dear Reader, you can find them easily, and I shan't repeat their talking points and accurate historical narration. Instead, let's examine why the need for Papalee to invoke the vast machinery of the state to pass what is effectively a posthumous pardon for Singapore's 3rd President.
One might note that amongst Papalee's Old Guard, Devan Nair stands out as the most politically loyal (until his forced resignation). He was the only leftist member of the pre-schism Whiteshirt Party who did not cross over to Dr Lee Siew Choh's Barisan Socialis. He was the father of the national union movement that proved to be a shortcut for Papalee's control of the masses. And yet the stalwart soldier became the voice for a non-authoritarian polity, even deterring Papalee from one of his trademark suits against the Globe and Mail, a Canadian newspaper, in 2002.
Despite his forced and dishonourable resignation, despite the years of character assasination that followed, Devan Nair's credentials as former Lee loyalist, patriotic anticolonialist fighter, and father of the NTUC gives him and his later criticism of the Lee regime credibility. This makes Devan Nair more dangerous in death than in life.
If Papalee could not finish his character assasination properly, the sensible action would be to pardon the former President, let the NTUC hold a memorial service for the dead hero, just in case a genuine love by the natives for Devan Nair turns him into Singapore's Hu Yaobang.
12 December 2005
NTU Blogging survey: questions and answers
Abstract
Background
What is your blog about?
This blog is a practical application of cultural studies, rather than a springboard for cultural theory. Inasmuch as current issues (say, the economy or politics) are raised on Illusio, I am more interested in the cultural significance of these issues. Other topics claimed by Illusio: comparative literature and cross-cultural studies.
You may say Illusio is an academic cultural (practical) blog, in the sense that its posts ensure (in the words of Bourdieu) the social world loses its character as a natural phenomenon, that the question of the natural or conventional character of social facts can be raised. This blog combats orthodoxy, straight, or rather straightened opinion that aims at restoring the primal state of innocence of doxa (the natural, undiscussed, and undisputed), and instead become heretical, heterodox, to alert consciously to readers of the existence of competing possibles and the sum total of the alternatives not chosen that the established order implies.
Who do you want to read your blog?
There are 2 important questions: Who are my ideal audience, and who actually ends up reading my blog?
Let us examine Illusio. It does not operate in a vacuum, but exists in the wider field of blogs. Like any social field, there are positions to be taken, an investment of interest and reputation, by both participants and spectators who are invested, taken in and by the game. To be interested is to accord a given social game that what happens in it does matter, that its stakes are important and worth pursuing.
Identify the position my blog occupies in the field of blogging and you will have the profile of my 'ideal reader'.
Now, do a technorati search to see who links to Illusio. Those are players who have invested and positioned themselves through linking to me. Then do a survey on who I have linked on my blog. Do they match the profile of A) your analysis of the positioning of Illusio, and B) the associated profile of who you'd expect to read this blog?
Knowledge
Regarding the AcidFlask and racist bloggers incidents, were the actions taken against the bloggers in each incident appropriate? Why or why not?
My opinion on the racist bloggers have been expressed in an earlier post (see 3 down, 1 to go and no, it's really about the internets).
Illusio has not commented on AcidFlask previously. All I'd say is we'd better look at the historical records on the eccentricities of Chairman Yeo and how he wishes to control public discourse on his A★★ agency. You'll find in more than a few parliamentary debates in the Hansard record, of his demands that MPs and ministers send him drafts of any speeches mentioning his A★★ agency. Then imagine what would happen when an ex-scholar attempts to break the iron curtain of non-transparency of his agency...
Were the actions taken against AcidfFlask appropriate? It was an extrajudicial silencing. Chairman Yeo and AcidFlask need to answer this question, not I. Was the action expected? Definitely, with that consistent pattern of behaviour from The Chairman.
How have these two incidents affected your blogging activities?
Were the bloggers punished because of what they did, or were they punished because they were bloggers? Or were they punished because the internet must receive the extension of the legal authority/policing of the state and the extrajudicial authority of Chairman Yeo's A★★ agency? Or were they punished for things that they would've been punished for if they had committed their acts offline? Note that not all of these possible intepretations require Akikonomu's blogging activities to be affected.
However, it may be noted that Illusio has never shied away from commenting on Singapore's leaders, and instead you may find it has increased in such commentary, and even provides links and citations to the more outrageous or courageous assertions made in blog posts.
Control/Censorship
In your understanding, what makes an issue political?
A. The political is the realm of the disputed. Disputed positions, facts, membership, positioning make things political.
B. The political is whatever touches on issues, events, anything related to the polity.
How do you blog about political issues? If you don't, why not?
Let's assume you mean to imply that Singaporean bloggers who are political are conflicted because of a popular interpretation on a law banning political publications and broadcasts. Then you should be asking the original crafters of the law, or lawyers, or politicians, on whether the issues raised on selected blogs in your study are political.
Let me reiterate: I blog about cultural issues as a practical application of cultural studies (as opposed to blogging on cultural theory). Given the blog's purpose to denaturalise the social world and its undisputed, commonsensical facts, you can call it political (in the sense of politics as the realm of the disputed). Any more and I would be repeating what my blog is about.
What do you think of current levels of control on blogging?
There's the comments feature. There's the linking. There's the whole goldfish in a fish tank, voices in an echo chamber feature and the public lynching thing that's so charming about the blogosphere. Bloggers and their readers police their own pretty well. Do a study on BBSes, internet newsgroups, and see what sorts of control evolve on their own.
But that's not what you're asking, is it? Can the entire internets be controlled? What is the current extend of control Singapore government holds over the internets? Compare that to the current levels of control on blogging, and compare that to whether blogs can be controlled. There's that neat cross-national study on state control of blogging and internet access by the Electronic Freedom Frontier that you may wish to consult instead (it's linked by Singabloodypore somewhere).
Ideally, how much control should there be?
There's the comments feature. There's the linking. There's the whole goldfish in a fish tank, voices in an echo chamber feature and the public lynching thing that's so charming about the blogosphere. Bloggers and their readers police their own pretty well. But... that's not what you really wanted to ask, was it? Can the entire internets be controlled?
Do the current laws/regulations help you understand what can or cannot be said in blogs?
Certainly there shouldn't be defamation or incitement to crimes. I write on cultural issues, in a semi-academic style. The rules of my positioning as a certain type of blogger constrains and enables me to write on certain subjects in a certain manner, with a certain agenda. Cultural studies, with analyses that open up the field of interpretations on taken-for-granted "social facts". Those are the rules of the game that I am governed and am empowered by. I occupy the position of a cultural studies blogger, not a political blogger.
You wanted to ask "Do the current laws/regulations help you understand if something blogs are allowed to be political" or something along the lines. That didn't prevent Chairman Yeo from taking an extrajudicial, extralegal action against AcidFlask. That certainly didn't prevent the 4 bloggers to be found ex post facto guilty and punished under a law that has never been used for the purpose of punishing those crimes.
Indeed, as your abstract points out, there is this "vagueness of the laws" that pervades the whole issue. Let me tell you it is the vaguenss of the legal code in the Political Broadcasts Act, in the whole political-legal arena (re: Papalee sentencing proscription on Capt Ryan Goh for "breaking the rules of the game, the unspoken rules as to how we survive, how we have prospered".
Ex post facto criminalisation is the constant threat when a state operates with vague laws and unspoken rules. For a political blogger, that would be the gravest thing. For myself, it's merely a topic to blog about, to analyse its cultural significance and implications.
While blogs in Singapore are largely accounts of personal lives with the odd post on social and political issues, several prominent blogs have appeared that choose to focus on such issues, including at least three by opposition politicians. This paper will thus examine the effects the sedition incident and other recent incidents involving online speech have had on the local blogging community. Through interviews with 20 bloggers, the paper explores if a "chilling effect" is being produced among those who blog on political subjects, given the vagueness of the laws and code of practice that govern online discussion of political issues. Also, the paper looks at how bloggers who discuss such subjects negotiate the various legal pitfalls that surround online communication. By doing so, it is hoped that the paper provides an insight into the future of blogs as applied to social and civic discourse in Singapore and the potential effects that these non-traditional sources of information are capable of invoking.
Background
What is your blog about?
This blog is a practical application of cultural studies, rather than a springboard for cultural theory. Inasmuch as current issues (say, the economy or politics) are raised on Illusio, I am more interested in the cultural significance of these issues. Other topics claimed by Illusio: comparative literature and cross-cultural studies.
You may say Illusio is an academic cultural (practical) blog, in the sense that its posts ensure (in the words of Bourdieu) the social world loses its character as a natural phenomenon, that the question of the natural or conventional character of social facts can be raised. This blog combats orthodoxy, straight, or rather straightened opinion that aims at restoring the primal state of innocence of doxa (the natural, undiscussed, and undisputed), and instead become heretical, heterodox, to alert consciously to readers of the existence of competing possibles and the sum total of the alternatives not chosen that the established order implies.
Who do you want to read your blog?
There are 2 important questions: Who are my ideal audience, and who actually ends up reading my blog?
Let us examine Illusio. It does not operate in a vacuum, but exists in the wider field of blogs. Like any social field, there are positions to be taken, an investment of interest and reputation, by both participants and spectators who are invested, taken in and by the game. To be interested is to accord a given social game that what happens in it does matter, that its stakes are important and worth pursuing.
Identify the position my blog occupies in the field of blogging and you will have the profile of my 'ideal reader'.
Now, do a technorati search to see who links to Illusio. Those are players who have invested and positioned themselves through linking to me. Then do a survey on who I have linked on my blog. Do they match the profile of A) your analysis of the positioning of Illusio, and B) the associated profile of who you'd expect to read this blog?
Knowledge
Regarding the AcidFlask and racist bloggers incidents, were the actions taken against the bloggers in each incident appropriate? Why or why not?
My opinion on the racist bloggers have been expressed in an earlier post (see 3 down, 1 to go and no, it's really about the internets).
Illusio has not commented on AcidFlask previously. All I'd say is we'd better look at the historical records on the eccentricities of Chairman Yeo and how he wishes to control public discourse on his A★★ agency. You'll find in more than a few parliamentary debates in the Hansard record, of his demands that MPs and ministers send him drafts of any speeches mentioning his A★★ agency. Then imagine what would happen when an ex-scholar attempts to break the iron curtain of non-transparency of his agency...
Were the actions taken against AcidfFlask appropriate? It was an extrajudicial silencing. Chairman Yeo and AcidFlask need to answer this question, not I. Was the action expected? Definitely, with that consistent pattern of behaviour from The Chairman.
How have these two incidents affected your blogging activities?
Were the bloggers punished because of what they did, or were they punished because they were bloggers? Or were they punished because the internet must receive the extension of the legal authority/policing of the state and the extrajudicial authority of Chairman Yeo's A★★ agency? Or were they punished for things that they would've been punished for if they had committed their acts offline? Note that not all of these possible intepretations require Akikonomu's blogging activities to be affected.
However, it may be noted that Illusio has never shied away from commenting on Singapore's leaders, and instead you may find it has increased in such commentary, and even provides links and citations to the more outrageous or courageous assertions made in blog posts.
Control/Censorship
In your understanding, what makes an issue political?
A. The political is the realm of the disputed. Disputed positions, facts, membership, positioning make things political.
B. The political is whatever touches on issues, events, anything related to the polity.
How do you blog about political issues? If you don't, why not?
Let's assume you mean to imply that Singaporean bloggers who are political are conflicted because of a popular interpretation on a law banning political publications and broadcasts. Then you should be asking the original crafters of the law, or lawyers, or politicians, on whether the issues raised on selected blogs in your study are political.
Let me reiterate: I blog about cultural issues as a practical application of cultural studies (as opposed to blogging on cultural theory). Given the blog's purpose to denaturalise the social world and its undisputed, commonsensical facts, you can call it political (in the sense of politics as the realm of the disputed). Any more and I would be repeating what my blog is about.
What do you think of current levels of control on blogging?
There's the comments feature. There's the linking. There's the whole goldfish in a fish tank, voices in an echo chamber feature and the public lynching thing that's so charming about the blogosphere. Bloggers and their readers police their own pretty well. Do a study on BBSes, internet newsgroups, and see what sorts of control evolve on their own.
But that's not what you're asking, is it? Can the entire internets be controlled? What is the current extend of control Singapore government holds over the internets? Compare that to the current levels of control on blogging, and compare that to whether blogs can be controlled. There's that neat cross-national study on state control of blogging and internet access by the Electronic Freedom Frontier that you may wish to consult instead (it's linked by Singabloodypore somewhere).
Ideally, how much control should there be?
There's the comments feature. There's the linking. There's the whole goldfish in a fish tank, voices in an echo chamber feature and the public lynching thing that's so charming about the blogosphere. Bloggers and their readers police their own pretty well. But... that's not what you really wanted to ask, was it? Can the entire internets be controlled?
Do the current laws/regulations help you understand what can or cannot be said in blogs?
Certainly there shouldn't be defamation or incitement to crimes. I write on cultural issues, in a semi-academic style. The rules of my positioning as a certain type of blogger constrains and enables me to write on certain subjects in a certain manner, with a certain agenda. Cultural studies, with analyses that open up the field of interpretations on taken-for-granted "social facts". Those are the rules of the game that I am governed and am empowered by. I occupy the position of a cultural studies blogger, not a political blogger.
You wanted to ask "Do the current laws/regulations help you understand if something blogs are allowed to be political" or something along the lines. That didn't prevent Chairman Yeo from taking an extrajudicial, extralegal action against AcidFlask. That certainly didn't prevent the 4 bloggers to be found ex post facto guilty and punished under a law that has never been used for the purpose of punishing those crimes.
Indeed, as your abstract points out, there is this "vagueness of the laws" that pervades the whole issue. Let me tell you it is the vaguenss of the legal code in the Political Broadcasts Act, in the whole political-legal arena (re: Papalee sentencing proscription on Capt Ryan Goh for "breaking the rules of the game, the unspoken rules as to how we survive, how we have prospered".
Ex post facto criminalisation is the constant threat when a state operates with vague laws and unspoken rules. For a political blogger, that would be the gravest thing. For myself, it's merely a topic to blog about, to analyse its cultural significance and implications.
10 December 2005
Academic and critical writing
Newly graduated with a masters in economics, Wei ponders over a book he just borrowed from the National Library, Critical intellectuals on writing (Olsen G, Worsham L, eds; 2003). The anthology consists of interviews of leading scholars by the editors, on being intellectuals.
Interestingly, Wei notes their introduction attempts to delineate the difference between academic and intellectual writing:
I never noticed the distinction between academic writing and critical writing - or rather, that distinction was not adhered to when I wrote my honours thesis. Of course, most of my classmates were trying to game the system...
Then, my reading material consisted of Pierre Bourdieu, who had this to say in Outline of a Theory of Practice (1977):
It's a completely different view altogether: ideally, academic writing is critical writing.
Interestingly, Wei notes their introduction attempts to delineate the difference between academic and intellectual writing:
Simply stated, the distinction is this: academic work is inherently conservative inasmuch as it seeks, first to fulfill the relatively narrow and policed goals and interests of a given discipline or profession and second, to fulfill the increasingly corporatised mission of higher education; intellectual work, in contrast, is relentless critical, self-critical, and potentially revolutionary, for it aims to critique, change, and even destroy institutions, disciplines and professions that rationalise exploitation, inequality and injustice.
I never noticed the distinction between academic writing and critical writing - or rather, that distinction was not adhered to when I wrote my honours thesis. Of course, most of my classmates were trying to game the system...
Then, my reading material consisted of Pierre Bourdieu, who had this to say in Outline of a Theory of Practice (1977):
The social scientist has an obligation to see to it that the social world loses its character as a natural phenomenon, that the question of the natural or conventional character (phusei or nomo) of social facts can be raised. Academic discourse, in the universe of discourse or argument, must combat orthodoxy, straight, or rather straightened opinion that aims at restoring the primal state of innocence of doxa (the natural, undiscussed, and undisputed), and instead become heretical, heterodox, to alert consciously to readers of the existence of competing possibles and the sum total of the alternatives not chosen that the established order implies.
It's a completely different view altogether: ideally, academic writing is critical writing.
09 December 2005
Let all the poisons hatch out...
The latest revelations about the NKF hardly come as a surprise. We knew all along that NKF was poorly managed, that they had a creative approach to accounting, that without any transparency, Durai and his minions got away with their misdeeds for years.
Previous NKF coverage on this blog:
Get that Man a Peanut!
He who lives by the peanut
and The peanut that launched a thousand ships.
So far, all my accusations and analyses have proven true, and Matilda Chua is apparently the next in line for a Durai treatment.
I urge Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan to step down after investigations are over.
1. Minister Khaw knew about the massive reserves and defended them last year. Khaw now muses regretfully why NKF got away with it for so long. The fact is NKF's excesses had always been under public scrutiny for the best part of the past 5 years. The fact is Minister Khaw and his precedessors at the ministry had always risen to NKF's defense. The fact is, with the backing of the Minister of Health, who would dare go up against NKF?
2. Pricewaterhouse Coopers, the government taxman, and the commissioner for charities have all audited the NKF's books for years and found nothing objectionable or illegal. I urge all of them to step down from their posts as well. They're bloody incompetent since it didn't take too long for Gerard Ee and his gang of newcomers to pick apart NKF's game plan.
3. If Minister Khaw says NKF can't be run by an emperor like old China, why should Singapore be run by an emperor like old China?
Previous NKF coverage on this blog:
Get that Man a Peanut!
He who lives by the peanut
and The peanut that launched a thousand ships.
So far, all my accusations and analyses have proven true, and Matilda Chua is apparently the next in line for a Durai treatment.
I urge Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan to step down after investigations are over.
1. Minister Khaw knew about the massive reserves and defended them last year. Khaw now muses regretfully why NKF got away with it for so long. The fact is NKF's excesses had always been under public scrutiny for the best part of the past 5 years. The fact is Minister Khaw and his precedessors at the ministry had always risen to NKF's defense. The fact is, with the backing of the Minister of Health, who would dare go up against NKF?
2. Pricewaterhouse Coopers, the government taxman, and the commissioner for charities have all audited the NKF's books for years and found nothing objectionable or illegal. I urge all of them to step down from their posts as well. They're bloody incompetent since it didn't take too long for Gerard Ee and his gang of newcomers to pick apart NKF's game plan.
3. If Minister Khaw says NKF can't be run by an emperor like old China, why should Singapore be run by an emperor like old China?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)