1. Technological essentialism
The argument comes back in vogue every few decades: new inventions will fundamentally change human behaviour, reconfigure power structures, show us new ways to think and see the world.
Fireworks. The moveable type. Ocean-sailing ships. The telegraph. These are inventions that changed the world the second time round. Or perhaps you could say they intensified patterns of behaviour that were already there, like how the steam engine merely made global colonialism easier.
2. Relative autonomy
The illusion that the internet, the political blogosphere, seems to operate under different rules, with a different culture and mindset, ties in neatly with the technological essentialism argument. Yet technological essentialism provides no explantatory value when the political blogosphere goes the way of Sammyboy, soc.culture.singapore, singabloodypore...
That the blogosphere could, for a while, be seen to operate under unique internal rules, can be explained by sole virtue of the miniscule population of political bloggers and commentors on their blogs, hence its relative autonomy with regards to institutional politics, the market.
What destroyed the blogosphere's power to create an idealised platform to comment and collaborate on measured criticisms of the larger polity, was simply the loss of its relative autonomy. The elections of 2006 provided the onslaught of commentors, who had their own ideas of discourse (one liners, mudslinging, ranting), and the attention of the institutional political players (both parties supplying their own anonymouses, setting up groupblogs, helping party members to set up their own blogs, creating and coordinating their own stables of bloggers).
3. Exit and silence
The exit of various bloggers is a deliberate resignation, not forced, and certainly not all that dire. The proxies of various political parties may now find conquering the blogosphere far easier, as is swamping readers with more pliant bloggers who can always be counted to rouse the troops. They will find, in time, that the blogosphere's credibility and respectability a halo created by the practices and discursive rigour and ethics of the ex-bloggers, and that this credibility and respectability will never be in their hands, ever, by the black ops virtue of their operations.
A fair warning: yes, some of us may be disillusioned or weary. There will be some of us, who are like the Magician.
We have read deeply into the rules that govern our blogging enterprise, the changing relations that govern us in the current situation created by the entrance of the anonymouses and the functionaries of the Whiteshirts and Redshirts. And we see one, and only one true exit, only one path of action that is morally and spiritually satisfying.
And then, we leave.
And yet, our magic (the halo of credibility!) was never in the microchips, the fibre optics, the blogging software that lie on the internet. Some of us may be silent. Others will simply do what we've always done, and start talking and convincing people around us, in this flesh-and-blood world, of our arguments, to invite them into our analytical projects. While you play your game of turning the blogosphere into your echo chamber.
The magic lies with the Magician's ability to understand and read the game, it is an inalienable part of the Magician. The magician remains the magician, even without the staff.
01 May 2007
23 April 2007
Questions for a new century
The history of communications (discourse, the exchange of ideas) is the history of the domination of relatively small groups over the means of literary, ideological, and literary production. Within the proto-state, only two caste-like classes of people had the legitimate access to public discourse and the interest to shape the content and nature of public discourse - the religious priesthood and its secular offshoot, the historians. Even during the age of the pamphleteers, of writers who could rouse hundreds of thousands to decapitate monarchs and overthrow governments, the story has remained the same: a vanguard leading the masses to revolution; the few, organising discourse, filtering the message and letting it loose on select crowds.
Even as technologies of communication and writing improved with the invention of the printing press, the newspaper and the nation-state, the message, now nationalised for the publics to embrace as their totality, has remained in the hands of the newspaper barons, opinion-makers, talking heads and pundits on television.
But you say, the internet has changed everything... Technically yes, perhaps, but it is important to note when and how this came about. The revolution did not come with newsgroups, forums, webpages or chat channels; the technology that you credit for the revolution did not give birth to it, but merely provided a space for people with similar interests to engage with each other. It is the blog and the social internet that has given the masses a medium to participate, influence and set the direction of public discourse itself. This is an age where everyone now has the voice to speak to all and the ear to listen to everyone else, where public discourse is discursively formed by the public itself. It is also an age where the public exercise of this power, the public participation in public discourse, creates a situation where discourse is made impossible.
To wit: Yes, we have the technological conditions, but what are the social conditions, the habits of mind necessary to create a conducive environment where people want to share points and develop ideas with each other? It's not a silly question - I have pointed out the deterioration in the climate of discussions and annonymous comments on local blogs some time ago, as have other bloggers more recently (some of whom I understand have become ex-bloggers).
So yes. We are at an odd juncture of local blogosphere history. In one ring, we witness a power grab of the blogosphere by the whiteshirts and their keyboard commandoes, with dual central command posts at the P65 and ypap blogs, supported by mysterious anonymous posters who pop up seemingly everywhere. In the other ring, we witness a power grab of the blogosphere by the redshirts and their keyboard commandoes, with dual central command posts at a non-partisan blog fueled by reader contributions (the open secret is the editor meets up with his regular contributors every fortnight to discuss articles and editorial direction) and an unofficial redshirt supporters blog fueled by apparently the same editors and public contributors from the first blog, and of course supported by mysterious anonymous posters who pop up seemingly everywhere. A pox on both their houses! Or as someone else has put it, black sheep or white sheep, you are still sheep. And in yet another ring, a gang of wise men pontificate politely over whether the state has any obligation to subsidise healthcare for the aged poor...[1]
When you create an atmosphere of escalating incivility, turn polite discourse into a parody of itself by abdicating common sense and responsible analysis, offer commentary from an inauthentic "non-partisan" position, you poison the well of discourse. And through demonstration, prove that public participation in public discourse cannot be guaranteed by just technology alone.
And hence the slow evaporation of the political blogosphere, the gradual exit of bloggers, the sight of Gresham's Law running its course here - where the local blogosphere has been a venue for the exchange of ideas, bad blogging drives out good blogging. The warning signs have been here for at least a year, the alarms sounded at least half a year ago, and the rush to the exits beginning in earnest.
Don't call us when the dust settles, when you know which party has grabbed the blogosphere for what it's worth. Don't call us when you're done with the mass identical anonymous postings, the ratcheting of angry rhetoric and namecalling, the insincere and dishonest argumentation. Don't call us, because political bloggers aren't going to rebuild the credibility of this medium once you decide you need us once again.
To wit: Yes, we have the technological conditions, but what are the social conditions, the habits of mind necessary to create a conducive environment where people want to share points and develop ideas with each other? What will you gain if the only way to gain a foothold - and then some - in the blogosphere, will destroy its credibility outright, as well as its position as a safe haven for public discourse?
Footnotes
Even as technologies of communication and writing improved with the invention of the printing press, the newspaper and the nation-state, the message, now nationalised for the publics to embrace as their totality, has remained in the hands of the newspaper barons, opinion-makers, talking heads and pundits on television.
But you say, the internet has changed everything... Technically yes, perhaps, but it is important to note when and how this came about. The revolution did not come with newsgroups, forums, webpages or chat channels; the technology that you credit for the revolution did not give birth to it, but merely provided a space for people with similar interests to engage with each other. It is the blog and the social internet that has given the masses a medium to participate, influence and set the direction of public discourse itself. This is an age where everyone now has the voice to speak to all and the ear to listen to everyone else, where public discourse is discursively formed by the public itself. It is also an age where the public exercise of this power, the public participation in public discourse, creates a situation where discourse is made impossible.
To wit: Yes, we have the technological conditions, but what are the social conditions, the habits of mind necessary to create a conducive environment where people want to share points and develop ideas with each other? It's not a silly question - I have pointed out the deterioration in the climate of discussions and annonymous comments on local blogs some time ago, as have other bloggers more recently (some of whom I understand have become ex-bloggers).
So yes. We are at an odd juncture of local blogosphere history. In one ring, we witness a power grab of the blogosphere by the whiteshirts and their keyboard commandoes, with dual central command posts at the P65 and ypap blogs, supported by mysterious anonymous posters who pop up seemingly everywhere. In the other ring, we witness a power grab of the blogosphere by the redshirts and their keyboard commandoes, with dual central command posts at a non-partisan blog fueled by reader contributions (the open secret is the editor meets up with his regular contributors every fortnight to discuss articles and editorial direction) and an unofficial redshirt supporters blog fueled by apparently the same editors and public contributors from the first blog, and of course supported by mysterious anonymous posters who pop up seemingly everywhere. A pox on both their houses! Or as someone else has put it, black sheep or white sheep, you are still sheep. And in yet another ring, a gang of wise men pontificate politely over whether the state has any obligation to subsidise healthcare for the aged poor...[1]
When you create an atmosphere of escalating incivility, turn polite discourse into a parody of itself by abdicating common sense and responsible analysis, offer commentary from an inauthentic "non-partisan" position, you poison the well of discourse. And through demonstration, prove that public participation in public discourse cannot be guaranteed by just technology alone.
And hence the slow evaporation of the political blogosphere, the gradual exit of bloggers, the sight of Gresham's Law running its course here - where the local blogosphere has been a venue for the exchange of ideas, bad blogging drives out good blogging. The warning signs have been here for at least a year, the alarms sounded at least half a year ago, and the rush to the exits beginning in earnest.
Don't call us when the dust settles, when you know which party has grabbed the blogosphere for what it's worth. Don't call us when you're done with the mass identical anonymous postings, the ratcheting of angry rhetoric and namecalling, the insincere and dishonest argumentation. Don't call us, because political bloggers aren't going to rebuild the credibility of this medium once you decide you need us once again.
To wit: Yes, we have the technological conditions, but what are the social conditions, the habits of mind necessary to create a conducive environment where people want to share points and develop ideas with each other? What will you gain if the only way to gain a foothold - and then some - in the blogosphere, will destroy its credibility outright, as well as its position as a safe haven for public discourse?
- [1]
- Surprisingly, the post questioning the public policy of state subsidised healthcare had no numbers - no breakdown of average healthcare costs for the aged, no breakdown of incomes. No shit, Sherlock! Isn't it obvious that healthcare has to be subsidised because most medical emergencies at that age cannot be afforded, even if the costs are shared by the family of the aged sick?! The farcial nature of the discussion was only added by the continuing commentary by the gang of wise commentors, who studiously ignored the big gaping flaw in front of their noses...
11 February 2007
Talking pictures: General Motors robot ad
Going back through 2 years' worth of writing (have been adding tags to the old posts, a new feature of Blogger v2!), I've realised how this blog has shifted from cultural theory to critical theory and policy criticism. Sometimes, though, it's easier to comment on the world through allegory, to take things unseriously, or to make serious what is for entertainment. Today, instead of direct political or economic commentary, I present a new (old) way of doing things, of finding the truth through examining fiction, of tackling the base through the superstructure.
Talking pictures 1: General Motors
A robot at a General Motors car assembly plant drops a screw, a mistake that results in its firing. It subsequently sinks into a series of more humiliating and underemployed forms of manual labour, and ends up jumping off a bridge, depressed and suicidal. It is a cute ad, made to sell GM's commitment to quality control (its 100,000 mile warranty).
Its cuteness is its downfall, for the cuteness invests the metallic machine with human characteristics, to evoke the "awwwww, poor thing!" reaction from viewers. Yet the anthropomorphic strategy is a convenient fiction that masks the opposite truth: in the world outside the ad, human labour is mechanised (a calculative process) into nothing more than productive automatons. White collar or blue collar, labour is infinitely expendable, flexi-timed, subject to contractual hiring, minimal benefits, and no-cause firing.
In an age where corporate profits soar while labour wages remain stagnant, all labour undergo a series of automatising. We worry about hitting key performance indicators, whether we will receive a favourable review by our peers, whether the next mistake we make will be our last. In an age where our qualifications become obsolete a month upon graduation, we worry like the robot about getting underemployed. Will we be reduced to the call centre, the roadshow, or any odd job that has absolutely nothing to do with what we were trained for? And will we end up depressed and suicidal, jumping into the path of a train?
And then we remember Karel Čapek and his play RUR (Rossum's Universal Robots). This is the first recorded usage of the word, because the writer and his brother invented it themselves. But really, what they intended robot to mean is merely "work". And from the original Czech roots, robota=drudgery and robotnik=peasant, serf.
Hence, a robot: a person who works, or slaves. A person who toils away, who lives in order to work. By understanding the genealogy of the word, we now understand the true meaning of the General Motors ad: it simply describes - not the humorous and fictional plight of anthropomorphised machinery at a factory, but the real plight of dehumanised people at their workplaces.
Links: A full translation of the play
Talking pictures 1: General Motors
A robot at a General Motors car assembly plant drops a screw, a mistake that results in its firing. It subsequently sinks into a series of more humiliating and underemployed forms of manual labour, and ends up jumping off a bridge, depressed and suicidal. It is a cute ad, made to sell GM's commitment to quality control (its 100,000 mile warranty).
Its cuteness is its downfall, for the cuteness invests the metallic machine with human characteristics, to evoke the "awwwww, poor thing!" reaction from viewers. Yet the anthropomorphic strategy is a convenient fiction that masks the opposite truth: in the world outside the ad, human labour is mechanised (a calculative process) into nothing more than productive automatons. White collar or blue collar, labour is infinitely expendable, flexi-timed, subject to contractual hiring, minimal benefits, and no-cause firing.
In an age where corporate profits soar while labour wages remain stagnant, all labour undergo a series of automatising. We worry about hitting key performance indicators, whether we will receive a favourable review by our peers, whether the next mistake we make will be our last. In an age where our qualifications become obsolete a month upon graduation, we worry like the robot about getting underemployed. Will we be reduced to the call centre, the roadshow, or any odd job that has absolutely nothing to do with what we were trained for? And will we end up depressed and suicidal, jumping into the path of a train?
And then we remember Karel Čapek and his play RUR (Rossum's Universal Robots). This is the first recorded usage of the word, because the writer and his brother invented it themselves. But really, what they intended robot to mean is merely "work". And from the original Czech roots, robota=drudgery and robotnik=peasant, serf.
Hence, a robot: a person who works, or slaves. A person who toils away, who lives in order to work. By understanding the genealogy of the word, we now understand the true meaning of the General Motors ad: it simply describes - not the humorous and fictional plight of anthropomorphised machinery at a factory, but the real plight of dehumanised people at their workplaces.
Links: A full translation of the play
04 February 2007
Minilee's keyboard kommandos
A few months after last year's General Elections, I had a private conversation with a few friends about the state of the local blogosphere. Despite its vaunted, almost mythical and most certainly mythologised role in provoking interest in politics and the elections, it was really in a vulnerable state. Without the election-fueled controversies, the blogosphere had no strong common focus. With comments on blog posts written increasingly by anonymouses interested in one-liners and non sequiturs, the blogosphere's power to serve as a clearing house for ideas and a broker for honest, sustained and serious discussion was diminished. (This would be partly why I stopped blogging for a time)
We concurred that it was high time for a power grab, with both major political parties establishing easy beachheads in the blogosphere. It's not that there's anything wrong with cabinet ministers and opposition members blogging, but we expected both parties to operate through proxies instead this time round. Perhaps they would set up a groupblog or an online magazine, then solicit members or guest contributors to nurture talents - without announcing in public about who is behind the blog/magazine. Actually it's an open secret amongst members of the Young Republic that a certain opposition party has done exactly that. Comparing it to the public efforts of the P65 blog, we thought the PAP had the cleaner hands...
Until now.
Li Xueying puts it this way in today's Straits Times:
PAP moves to counter criticism of party, Govt in cyberspace
We're flabbergasted. Surely they don't mean to say that all bloggers are insurgents?
Insurgent, according to the Webster
1. Person who rebels against civil authority or established government
2. One who acts contrary to policies and decisions of their own political party.
Onelook has it even better:
3. a member of an irregular armed force that fights a stronger force by sabotage and harassment
But there's only one meaning of insurgent that is implied when you use "counter-insurgent", really. The member of an irregular armed force one... And how one takes action against insurgents (i.e. guerillas) is simple: you dispense with all rules of war and adopt a black ops manual. Adopting unconventional warfare is a must. Against the Vietcong, napalm their forests. Execute them. Against local bloggers, take on anonymous identities and destroy the blogosphere through disinformation and ghostwritten propaganda.
Black Ops
There is thus no less suitable phrase to describe the PAP counter-insurgency campaign. Party operatives posting anonymously in forums to advance the views of their party is every bit as covert and ethically questionable as a black op.
Elsewhere in the world, the revelation of party operatives infiltrating forums and blogs would be cause for the expulsion of several party leaders. One remembers the fury that was barely averted when Atrios disclosed his connection to the Democratic Party's campaign in 2005. One remembers the furore that resulted in the expulsion of one Jeff Gannon from the White House press room when it was revealed the journalist was hired by Republican Party operatives to ask easy questions for the administration. Closer to home, one remembers that a certain NKF trial alleges a whole slew of major ethical problems at the charity - including the practice of getting NKF staff to rebut anti-NKF views through ghostwritten letters in newspaper forum pages.
We wonder if Ng Eng Hen is so unaware of world affairs and the biggest trial to occur in Singapore that he happily authorises a campaign that essentially has PAP's party operatives masquerade as the ordinary blogging public, in order to propagate their party's views. Of course, that IS the intent of the counter-insurgency campaign, no?
We concurred that it was high time for a power grab, with both major political parties establishing easy beachheads in the blogosphere. It's not that there's anything wrong with cabinet ministers and opposition members blogging, but we expected both parties to operate through proxies instead this time round. Perhaps they would set up a groupblog or an online magazine, then solicit members or guest contributors to nurture talents - without announcing in public about who is behind the blog/magazine. Actually it's an open secret amongst members of the Young Republic that a certain opposition party has done exactly that. Comparing it to the public efforts of the P65 blog, we thought the PAP had the cleaner hands...
Until now.
Li Xueying puts it this way in today's Straits Times:
PAP moves to counter criticism of party, Govt in cyberspace
The People's Action Party (PAP) is mounting a quiet counter-insurgency against its online critics. It has members going into Internet forums and blogs to rebut anti-establishment views and putting up postings anonymously.Insurgents
Sources told The Straits Times the initiative is driven by two sub-committees of the PAP's "new media" committee chaired by Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen. One sub-committee, co-headed by Minister of State (Education) Lui Tuck Yew and Hong Kah GRC MP Zaqu Mohamad, strategises the campaign. The other is led by Tanjong Pagar GRC MP Baey Yam Keng and Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC MP Josephine Teo. Called the "new media capabilities group", it executes the campaign.
Both were set up after last year's General Election. Aside from politicians, some 20 IT-savvy party activists are also involved
We're flabbergasted. Surely they don't mean to say that all bloggers are insurgents?
Insurgent, according to the Webster
1. Person who rebels against civil authority or established government
2. One who acts contrary to policies and decisions of their own political party.
Onelook has it even better:
3. a member of an irregular armed force that fights a stronger force by sabotage and harassment
But there's only one meaning of insurgent that is implied when you use "counter-insurgent", really. The member of an irregular armed force one... And how one takes action against insurgents (i.e. guerillas) is simple: you dispense with all rules of war and adopt a black ops manual. Adopting unconventional warfare is a must. Against the Vietcong, napalm their forests. Execute them. Against local bloggers, take on anonymous identities and destroy the blogosphere through disinformation and ghostwritten propaganda.
Black Ops
There is thus no less suitable phrase to describe the PAP counter-insurgency campaign. Party operatives posting anonymously in forums to advance the views of their party is every bit as covert and ethically questionable as a black op.
Elsewhere in the world, the revelation of party operatives infiltrating forums and blogs would be cause for the expulsion of several party leaders. One remembers the fury that was barely averted when Atrios disclosed his connection to the Democratic Party's campaign in 2005. One remembers the furore that resulted in the expulsion of one Jeff Gannon from the White House press room when it was revealed the journalist was hired by Republican Party operatives to ask easy questions for the administration. Closer to home, one remembers that a certain NKF trial alleges a whole slew of major ethical problems at the charity - including the practice of getting NKF staff to rebut anti-NKF views through ghostwritten letters in newspaper forum pages.
We wonder if Ng Eng Hen is so unaware of world affairs and the biggest trial to occur in Singapore that he happily authorises a campaign that essentially has PAP's party operatives masquerade as the ordinary blogging public, in order to propagate their party's views. Of course, that IS the intent of the counter-insurgency campaign, no?
One activist who is involved said that when posting comments on online forums and the feedback boxes of blogs, he does not identify himself as a PAP member.We call upon Ng Eng Hen to come clean with this dishonest campaign; to identify all MPs, Ministers, and PAP party operatives involved. We want to know if they were paid by the State to masquerade as ordinary people to post anonymous comments on blogs during working hours. For their role in this fraudulent campaign, impeach Ng Eng Hen, Lui Tuck Yew, Zaqy Mohamad, Baey Yam Keng, and Josephine Teo! Impeach them now!
17 January 2007
Minilee's war on GST
Back in early November, during our hiatus, Minilee announced the next GST hike. Given that the new financial year always begins in April, and that the government traditionally reveals some of its Budget plans in February, several thoughts went through my head, like:
"It's too premature to spring this on Singaporeans. Ideally you want to spring this as late as possible so people won't have time to internalise this policy, mull over it obsessively, and begin to think of all sorts of objections to it."
Tactically, this early announcement is a mistake, and we did witness several rebuttals, with the blogosphere exclaiming... "Why such high taxes if we don't even have social welfare schemes to fund?", and Today's forum contributors pointing out what a regressive tax the GST is, and how much MORE it'll hurt the lower classes that the GST increase was supposed to help.
We predicted the early announcement would lead to more questions, which would lead to more bad justifications and reasonings, and come 2007, Minilee would have to beat a hasty retreat from his plans. I mean, even Tommy Lee's IPS seminar last week had several academics pointing out - presumably through hard statistics - that Singapore's middle classes have had stagnant wages during the previous 5 years, and that its lower income groups had actually experienced declining real wages. Yet all these academics at a state-sponsored think tank couldn't stop Minilee from proclaiming his resolve to stay the course with the GST hike.
Now, this kind of thing is troubling since the emperor's advisors are supposed to find a way to tell their sovereign to change courses, however subtly they need to do it. Although the IPS seminar divulged almost nothing new that average Singaporeans already know, their public revelations were noteworthy because IPS isn't known for being rabidly critical...
Yet one could also insist that the IPS seminar did not result in Minilee overturning the GST hike, because that single issue was never explicitly linked, never explicitly rebutted through the findings the academics released last week... Were the speakers perhaps constrained by fear of what might happen if they made too direct a challenge to Minilee's GST policy? Were they too subtle? Or did they just put up a very token resistance, appearing radical by pointing out the obvious, but refusing to link it to the not so obvious?
What's really wrong about the GST
(with thanks to the various individuals who helped in the making of this minor manifesto last November - you know who you are)
1. The GST is a regressive tax. Increasing it to help the poor - what Minilee claimed is the purpose of the hike - is like amputating somone's foot in order to give him a bionic leg, without anaesthesia
Rather straightforward. Most people caught it within a week, leading to more clarifications by Minilee and more nebulous promises of a vastly increased Workfare
2. Increasing the GST and decreasing the corporate tax means the burden of social welfare is shifted from the rich and the corporations to the poor. A very clear signal, if you will, to businesses on their responsibilities as corporate citizens.
No one caught that either.
2a. The shift of the burden of social welfare to the poor is exacerbated by the stagnant wages of the middle class and the falling real wages of the poor. Again, a very clear signal that the state of Singapore is enacting its its very own tax cuts for the rich and the corporations.
No one caught that.
2b. A deeper political question is raised in all this: who should pay for government programs? The rich? Corporations that have benefitted from the "economic recovery" far more in terms of profit than Labour, whose private wages, salary income, and labour compensation has been at record lows in this particular recovery?
(Again, refer to this graphic)
When you are given a graph like that, and asked "Who is in the best position to pay for government programmes", who would you choose? When Minilee's answer to this question is a GST hike and corporate tax cut - what sort of signal does it send to employers?
No one caught that either.
3. Existing programmes like workfare don't really reach all the people it should, or help the people in ways they really need. They have been in some form of existence for the past 5 years, and still the wage gap increases. The whole "tax increases for more social programmes" sounds like an admission of government wastage, and should be painted as an admission of government wastage and inefficiency of its existing programmes. Why should the people pay even more money for more workfare, if workfare doesn't even function properly?
No one caught that. Maybe Minilee did, though. On 16 Nov (or 15 Nov), the headlines went: Pensions not the way to go
Are we trying hard enough to derail the GST hike? Are our academics at IPS doing hard enough to derail the GST hike?
"It's too premature to spring this on Singaporeans. Ideally you want to spring this as late as possible so people won't have time to internalise this policy, mull over it obsessively, and begin to think of all sorts of objections to it."
Tactically, this early announcement is a mistake, and we did witness several rebuttals, with the blogosphere exclaiming... "Why such high taxes if we don't even have social welfare schemes to fund?", and Today's forum contributors pointing out what a regressive tax the GST is, and how much MORE it'll hurt the lower classes that the GST increase was supposed to help.
We predicted the early announcement would lead to more questions, which would lead to more bad justifications and reasonings, and come 2007, Minilee would have to beat a hasty retreat from his plans. I mean, even Tommy Lee's IPS seminar last week had several academics pointing out - presumably through hard statistics - that Singapore's middle classes have had stagnant wages during the previous 5 years, and that its lower income groups had actually experienced declining real wages. Yet all these academics at a state-sponsored think tank couldn't stop Minilee from proclaiming his resolve to stay the course with the GST hike.
Now, this kind of thing is troubling since the emperor's advisors are supposed to find a way to tell their sovereign to change courses, however subtly they need to do it. Although the IPS seminar divulged almost nothing new that average Singaporeans already know, their public revelations were noteworthy because IPS isn't known for being rabidly critical...
Yet one could also insist that the IPS seminar did not result in Minilee overturning the GST hike, because that single issue was never explicitly linked, never explicitly rebutted through the findings the academics released last week... Were the speakers perhaps constrained by fear of what might happen if they made too direct a challenge to Minilee's GST policy? Were they too subtle? Or did they just put up a very token resistance, appearing radical by pointing out the obvious, but refusing to link it to the not so obvious?
What's really wrong about the GST
(with thanks to the various individuals who helped in the making of this minor manifesto last November - you know who you are)
1. The GST is a regressive tax. Increasing it to help the poor - what Minilee claimed is the purpose of the hike - is like amputating somone's foot in order to give him a bionic leg, without anaesthesia
Rather straightforward. Most people caught it within a week, leading to more clarifications by Minilee and more nebulous promises of a vastly increased Workfare
2. Increasing the GST and decreasing the corporate tax means the burden of social welfare is shifted from the rich and the corporations to the poor. A very clear signal, if you will, to businesses on their responsibilities as corporate citizens.
No one caught that either.
2a. The shift of the burden of social welfare to the poor is exacerbated by the stagnant wages of the middle class and the falling real wages of the poor. Again, a very clear signal that the state of Singapore is enacting its its very own tax cuts for the rich and the corporations.
No one caught that.
2b. A deeper political question is raised in all this: who should pay for government programs? The rich? Corporations that have benefitted from the "economic recovery" far more in terms of profit than Labour, whose private wages, salary income, and labour compensation has been at record lows in this particular recovery?
(Again, refer to this graphic)
When you are given a graph like that, and asked "Who is in the best position to pay for government programmes", who would you choose? When Minilee's answer to this question is a GST hike and corporate tax cut - what sort of signal does it send to employers?
No one caught that either.
3. Existing programmes like workfare don't really reach all the people it should, or help the people in ways they really need. They have been in some form of existence for the past 5 years, and still the wage gap increases. The whole "tax increases for more social programmes" sounds like an admission of government wastage, and should be painted as an admission of government wastage and inefficiency of its existing programmes. Why should the people pay even more money for more workfare, if workfare doesn't even function properly?
No one caught that. Maybe Minilee did, though. On 16 Nov (or 15 Nov), the headlines went: Pensions not the way to go
An old age pension system is not the way to go as it will impose a very heavy burden on the next generation, cautioned PM Lee. A better solution was or each person to save for his own future needs. Hence there is the CPF savings and the home ownership scheme, which gives one an asset whose value can be unlocked in one's later years.Indeed, Minilee can be very charming if he wants to: He has this belief that despite Singaporeans living on $6.06 a day when they retire, the current CPF and home ownership systems are more than sufficient to see everyone through. Indeed, he's totally forgotten that the best solution is for each person to just sue the pants off their offspring, whose value can be unlocked for their own future needs. I mean, why bother with all those complicated pension schemes, welfare, and progressive taxes, when you can just ask the poor to rob their young, via the Maintenance of Parents Bill?
Are we trying hard enough to derail the GST hike? Are our academics at IPS doing hard enough to derail the GST hike?
02 January 2007
Saddam Hussein is dead
Yet for all purposes, this momentous occasion cannot be commemorated with the appropriate satisfaction of justice being done, or that through his death, Iraq's many sectarian divides have been healed. In short, no justice, no truth, and no reconciliation came out of the meaningless exercise of state terror on the morning of 30 December 2006.
Make no mistake: his execution was barbaric and degrading - mass murderers are afforded far more dignity in their final moments than this. Why were his executioners wearing SKI MASKS?? And why were they chanting a Shia prayer when he was clearly a Sunni Muslim? Charles I, Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette were allowed to finish their final prayers before their heads rolled - Saddam's gallows were dropped when he was in mid-sentence of the Muslim final prayer, much like how Alexandra Fyodronvna was shot before she could complete the sign of the cross in the basement of Ipatiev House. You could say that no one deserves to die like this.
IraqSlogger points out the symbolic significance of why the execution was carried out on this very day - it seems to be a direct insult to the Sunnis by the Shia government. It's quite a valid point, but I fear that's missing the point - the circumstances of Saddam's death has many uncomfortable parallels to those of a major historical and religious figure.
1. He was executed on the eve of a most important religious holiday
Most people in the capital would have retired to their home villages for celebrations and religious observances. The closure of the capital and the slow confirmation of the news (civil servants of course on holiday) would have prevented mass protests and uprisings.
2. He was degraded by his guards prior to his execution
3. After his initial capture, the burning question was who should be charged with putting him on trial?
Various authorities were mooted - the US civilian court, a US army court martial, an International Criminal Tribunal in the Hague, or by an Iraqi court.
4. He was eventually handed over to the jurisdiction of a petty administrator installed by the occupying superpower
5. During his appearance at the trial, he bore the marks of being beaten in custody
Judging from the remarks on BBC's phone in programme last night, it also appears that most Shia muslims from Iraq were blase enough to effectively say "If you think this is unjust, so be it! Let the blood be on our hands!"
Now, if it turns out that Saddam's grave turns out to be empty in the coming days, we would have literally killed the Messiah AGAIN.
In more serious news, Juan Cole points out that Saddam Hussein received much assistance from the CIA and the US government from his beginnings as a CIA operative to even after Operation Desert Storm and the liberation of Kuwait.
Make no mistake: his execution was barbaric and degrading - mass murderers are afforded far more dignity in their final moments than this. Why were his executioners wearing SKI MASKS?? And why were they chanting a Shia prayer when he was clearly a Sunni Muslim? Charles I, Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette were allowed to finish their final prayers before their heads rolled - Saddam's gallows were dropped when he was in mid-sentence of the Muslim final prayer, much like how Alexandra Fyodronvna was shot before she could complete the sign of the cross in the basement of Ipatiev House. You could say that no one deserves to die like this.
IraqSlogger points out the symbolic significance of why the execution was carried out on this very day - it seems to be a direct insult to the Sunnis by the Shia government. It's quite a valid point, but I fear that's missing the point - the circumstances of Saddam's death has many uncomfortable parallels to those of a major historical and religious figure.
1. He was executed on the eve of a most important religious holiday
Most people in the capital would have retired to their home villages for celebrations and religious observances. The closure of the capital and the slow confirmation of the news (civil servants of course on holiday) would have prevented mass protests and uprisings.
2. He was degraded by his guards prior to his execution
3. After his initial capture, the burning question was who should be charged with putting him on trial?
Various authorities were mooted - the US civilian court, a US army court martial, an International Criminal Tribunal in the Hague, or by an Iraqi court.
4. He was eventually handed over to the jurisdiction of a petty administrator installed by the occupying superpower
5. During his appearance at the trial, he bore the marks of being beaten in custody
Judging from the remarks on BBC's phone in programme last night, it also appears that most Shia muslims from Iraq were blase enough to effectively say "If you think this is unjust, so be it! Let the blood be on our hands!"
Now, if it turns out that Saddam's grave turns out to be empty in the coming days, we would have literally killed the Messiah AGAIN.
In more serious news, Juan Cole points out that Saddam Hussein received much assistance from the CIA and the US government from his beginnings as a CIA operative to even after Operation Desert Storm and the liberation of Kuwait.
25 December 2006
Christmas telethon
Christmas is pretty much the only major Western (Judeo-Christian) holiday that Chinese people can identify with. No kidding - you'll have to travel miles to meet with your extended kin, spend an entire weekend consuming too much food, and as luck will have it, at your grandparents', there won't be much in the way of entertainment - unless your gramps are hardcore gamers .If you live in the kinless big city, it's an entire weekend of hosting or attending parties, hopefully with company you can live with.
Oh, who are we kidding... That's the reason why people end up sitting in front of the telly or secretly watching it from the corner of their eye as they make an effort to talk to someone else. Obviously in this corrupt and degenerate age we live in, there's nothing festive on telly. No. We have dreg like The Mask of Zorro, Jumanji, and the Powerpuff Girls Christmas special. And then you realise you took a few days of annual leave to rest at home as well.
It's time to stand up for your own Christmas entertainment. At parties, gatherings, or at home, insist on your own festive selection! It helps to bring along a few DVDs, of course. Here's my perfect Christmas selection, tastefully chosen to suit all stripes of Christmas celebrants.
For a Heartwarming Christmas
It's a Wonderful Life (1946)
Because you know that this is the most mushy, sentimental flick about how an angel makes one ordinary, do-gooding Joe's life better on Christmas, when he's at his lowest point. When I get slightly depressed, watching this helps.
Going My Way (1944)
Bing Crosby is a singing priest newly transferred to a depressed parish. Not only does he win over their hearts, he saves the impoverished church from closing down/getting sold, and makes everyone's life better. By singing, of course.
Christmas Carols
Scrooge (1951)
The best film version of A Christmas Carol, IMO. Also manages to humanise the miser by giving him a touching backstory. Born poor, mother died in childbirth, was an honorable and hungry (in the sense of ambitious/hardworking) guy until he got mentored by a crooked capitalist who helped hone his business sense. Makes his interactions with Tiny Tim and the Cratchitts, and his transformation all the more touching later on.
The Muppet Christmas Carol (1992)
Very faithful adaptation of the Dickens story, even more faithful to Dickens than the previous film. It just has Muppets instead of human characters in the rest of the cast, and Michael Caine as Scrooge. That's TWO reasons to watch this.
Blackadder's Christmas Carol (1988)
You don't expect me of all people to wallow in feel-good holiday movies, right? By the end of the 15th Christmas movie, you'd want to see something that skewers A Christmas Carol, just for the heck of it. Scrooge is a very nice man, an honest and philanthropic businessman whose company is just about to fall apart and die. Until a visit from some Ghosts of Christmas...
Because it's about the birth of Jesus
Hail Mary (1985)
Jean-Luc Goddard made a very reverential transposition of the Nativity Story to a modern day setting. Most of the "controversy" raised by ignorant Christians are due to their own inability to realise how scandalous a virgin birth would have been viewed in 6 A.D., and how well Goddard evokes that sense of scandal in his movie.
The Gospel according to St Matthew (1964)
Pier Paolo Pasolini may have been a socialist, but this film - all dialogue from the Gospel, with nothing added or fabricated - was endorsed by the Vatican. Made with non-actors and real-life peasants, this looks like a very artistic documentary at times. Pasolini knows his Jesus well: he's the guy in old and dirty clothes siding with the poor, the trodden, the weak, and the criminals that are routinely condemned, ignored, or exploited by the rich, the morally superior, the hyper-religious leaders in church. Pastor Kong should watch this movie the next time he makes a stupid speech about God wanting people to be rich, hallelujah!
Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979)
Brian's not a messiah, he's just a very naughty boy! Who, for the entirety of his life, is mistaken for The Messiah...
Cartoons
A Charlie Brown Christmas (1965)
>
It's like the animated version of It's a Wonderful Life. Everything seems to be going wrong for Charlie Brown as he helps put up the school Christmas play. Charlie Brown's almost existential search for the meaning of Christmas is embarked while the entire Peanuts gang seem to be occupied with other stuff and ignoring him. But all goes well when Linus tells him the true meaning of Christmas in a speech that gets you all warm and mushy inside.
The Nightmare Before Christmas
Personally, my favourite Christmas cartoon ever. And now, in 3D!
Just Christmas Movies
Perhaps the best part about doing your own Christmas programming is the offbeat choices you can make that will throw people off, yet impress them when they realise that these films ARE really set during Christmas, and perhaps do say something about how we celebrate it nowadays.
Brazil (1985)
Yes, it's a dystopian scifi comedy/satire. But it's also about Christmas. In fact, if you pay attention, there are lots of Christmas jokes in Brazil - every day seems to be Christmas in the movie, everyone seems to be giving the same gifts, and for the win, we have Capitalists for Christ marching on the streets...
Jingle all the Way (1996)
What Christmas without last minute shopping? Mugging people in stores? Fighting over the last item in the store? Jingle All the Way is a culturally important film that depicts all these. Watching Arnold as a wimp of a dad who endures all and then blows his top makes you realise that he paved the way for the Adam Sandler brand of comedy.
Die Hard (1988)
Your Christmas action movie! It's Bruce Willis foiling a plot involving a plane, lots of explosives, and Alan Rickman as a master terrorist!
Gremlins (1984)
Now I bet you didn't realise Gremlins was set during Christmas. Go shock the hell out of everyone with this factoid =D
Oh, who are we kidding... That's the reason why people end up sitting in front of the telly or secretly watching it from the corner of their eye as they make an effort to talk to someone else. Obviously in this corrupt and degenerate age we live in, there's nothing festive on telly. No. We have dreg like The Mask of Zorro, Jumanji, and the Powerpuff Girls Christmas special. And then you realise you took a few days of annual leave to rest at home as well.
It's time to stand up for your own Christmas entertainment. At parties, gatherings, or at home, insist on your own festive selection! It helps to bring along a few DVDs, of course. Here's my perfect Christmas selection, tastefully chosen to suit all stripes of Christmas celebrants.
For a Heartwarming Christmas
It's a Wonderful Life (1946)
Because you know that this is the most mushy, sentimental flick about how an angel makes one ordinary, do-gooding Joe's life better on Christmas, when he's at his lowest point. When I get slightly depressed, watching this helps.
Going My Way (1944)
Bing Crosby is a singing priest newly transferred to a depressed parish. Not only does he win over their hearts, he saves the impoverished church from closing down/getting sold, and makes everyone's life better. By singing, of course.
Christmas Carols
Scrooge (1951)
The best film version of A Christmas Carol, IMO. Also manages to humanise the miser by giving him a touching backstory. Born poor, mother died in childbirth, was an honorable and hungry (in the sense of ambitious/hardworking) guy until he got mentored by a crooked capitalist who helped hone his business sense. Makes his interactions with Tiny Tim and the Cratchitts, and his transformation all the more touching later on.
The Muppet Christmas Carol (1992)
Very faithful adaptation of the Dickens story, even more faithful to Dickens than the previous film. It just has Muppets instead of human characters in the rest of the cast, and Michael Caine as Scrooge. That's TWO reasons to watch this.
Blackadder's Christmas Carol (1988)
You don't expect me of all people to wallow in feel-good holiday movies, right? By the end of the 15th Christmas movie, you'd want to see something that skewers A Christmas Carol, just for the heck of it. Scrooge is a very nice man, an honest and philanthropic businessman whose company is just about to fall apart and die. Until a visit from some Ghosts of Christmas...
Because it's about the birth of Jesus
Hail Mary (1985)
Jean-Luc Goddard made a very reverential transposition of the Nativity Story to a modern day setting. Most of the "controversy" raised by ignorant Christians are due to their own inability to realise how scandalous a virgin birth would have been viewed in 6 A.D., and how well Goddard evokes that sense of scandal in his movie.
The Gospel according to St Matthew (1964)
Pier Paolo Pasolini may have been a socialist, but this film - all dialogue from the Gospel, with nothing added or fabricated - was endorsed by the Vatican. Made with non-actors and real-life peasants, this looks like a very artistic documentary at times. Pasolini knows his Jesus well: he's the guy in old and dirty clothes siding with the poor, the trodden, the weak, and the criminals that are routinely condemned, ignored, or exploited by the rich, the morally superior, the hyper-religious leaders in church. Pastor Kong should watch this movie the next time he makes a stupid speech about God wanting people to be rich, hallelujah!
Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979)
Brian's not a messiah, he's just a very naughty boy! Who, for the entirety of his life, is mistaken for The Messiah...
Cartoons
A Charlie Brown Christmas (1965)
>It's like the animated version of It's a Wonderful Life. Everything seems to be going wrong for Charlie Brown as he helps put up the school Christmas play. Charlie Brown's almost existential search for the meaning of Christmas is embarked while the entire Peanuts gang seem to be occupied with other stuff and ignoring him. But all goes well when Linus tells him the true meaning of Christmas in a speech that gets you all warm and mushy inside.
The Nightmare Before Christmas
Personally, my favourite Christmas cartoon ever. And now, in 3D!
Just Christmas Movies
Perhaps the best part about doing your own Christmas programming is the offbeat choices you can make that will throw people off, yet impress them when they realise that these films ARE really set during Christmas, and perhaps do say something about how we celebrate it nowadays.
Brazil (1985)
Yes, it's a dystopian scifi comedy/satire. But it's also about Christmas. In fact, if you pay attention, there are lots of Christmas jokes in Brazil - every day seems to be Christmas in the movie, everyone seems to be giving the same gifts, and for the win, we have Capitalists for Christ marching on the streets...
Jingle all the Way (1996)
What Christmas without last minute shopping? Mugging people in stores? Fighting over the last item in the store? Jingle All the Way is a culturally important film that depicts all these. Watching Arnold as a wimp of a dad who endures all and then blows his top makes you realise that he paved the way for the Adam Sandler brand of comedy.
Die Hard (1988)
Your Christmas action movie! It's Bruce Willis foiling a plot involving a plane, lots of explosives, and Alan Rickman as a master terrorist!
Gremlins (1984)
Now I bet you didn't realise Gremlins was set during Christmas. Go shock the hell out of everyone with this factoid =D
13 December 2006
Playstation3 economics explained
Being on leave today, I went down to Sim Lim to take a look at the PS3s. And yes, they do cost about $1,600. Normally this post would be the domain of a singapore economist, but since he's on hiatus and I thought I'd do the honours. While the Straits Times article was more interested in playing the "parallel imports are almost illegal, unsafe, and overpriced" angle, there's a perfectly logical reason why they'd cost that much, and we don't even have to invoke price speculation in the explanation.
We need to understand the economics of importing items into Singapore.
1. Take into account the US exchange rate fluctuates between 1 USD to 1.6 to 1.8 SGD (currently 1 USD = 1.55 SGD).
2. Take into account the price of freight.
These factors give us
3. Rule of thumb for sole importers is to set the pricing at double the US price in Singapore dollars. If an item costs X USD, its selling price in Singapore would be 2X SGD, in other words.
(This, by the way, explains why Borders tends to price certain books over the sky. Of course, with competition, the "double the USD price" method of calculation doesn't work anymore, leading people to just walk over to Kinokuniya to get the same book for cheaper prices.)
But you'd say "Look, the PS3 retails at about 510USD in Japan and 600USD in America. S$1,600 is far more than double those amounts!" But we're looking at the wrong figures - what the Singaporean PS3 importers are looking at is the Australian retail price: about 800USD. If we assume that Sony's suggested retail prices are essentially base price + freight/shipping, then Singapore's retail price might end up around there as well, being approximately the same distance as Australia from Japan or the US (or whereever they manufacture and assemble the PS3).
And what do you know, 1600 = 2(800).
I do foresee the price to drop, but only on a few conditions:
1. Sony announces a launch date and retail price for the PS3 in Singapore. Imported sets will fall to double the USD value of this announced retail price.
2. Sony clarifies the DVD region of the PS3 sets sold in Singapore. Yes, all PS3 games are region-free, and for once, Singapore is in the same Bluray region as the US and Europe, but one wouldn't want to be stuck with a PS3 that plays all new games, but refuses to load any US-region PS2 games, would we?
We need to understand the economics of importing items into Singapore.
1. Take into account the US exchange rate fluctuates between 1 USD to 1.6 to 1.8 SGD (currently 1 USD = 1.55 SGD).
2. Take into account the price of freight.
These factors give us
3. Rule of thumb for sole importers is to set the pricing at double the US price in Singapore dollars. If an item costs X USD, its selling price in Singapore would be 2X SGD, in other words.
(This, by the way, explains why Borders tends to price certain books over the sky. Of course, with competition, the "double the USD price" method of calculation doesn't work anymore, leading people to just walk over to Kinokuniya to get the same book for cheaper prices.)
But you'd say "Look, the PS3 retails at about 510USD in Japan and 600USD in America. S$1,600 is far more than double those amounts!" But we're looking at the wrong figures - what the Singaporean PS3 importers are looking at is the Australian retail price: about 800USD. If we assume that Sony's suggested retail prices are essentially base price + freight/shipping, then Singapore's retail price might end up around there as well, being approximately the same distance as Australia from Japan or the US (or whereever they manufacture and assemble the PS3).
And what do you know, 1600 = 2(800).
I do foresee the price to drop, but only on a few conditions:
1. Sony announces a launch date and retail price for the PS3 in Singapore. Imported sets will fall to double the USD value of this announced retail price.
2. Sony clarifies the DVD region of the PS3 sets sold in Singapore. Yes, all PS3 games are region-free, and for once, Singapore is in the same Bluray region as the US and Europe, but one wouldn't want to be stuck with a PS3 that plays all new games, but refuses to load any US-region PS2 games, would we?
05 December 2006
Seah Chiang Nee: Blogosphere moves from infantile to shrill
Dear Readers, feeling somewhat discouraged about the state of the blogosphere and bearing the disappointments of a blog project gone wrong, I had decided to take a break. In the 3 months that followed, I realised that perhaps Singabloodypore has now been superceded by more credible groupblogs and aggregators (kudos to singaporeangle and the intelligent Singaporean!), but also that the streak of invective commentary I detested in SBP had in fact spread far and wide - witness the tenor of the rhetoric and sophistication of the criticism of the Wee father-daughter duo.
So you'd expect me to be somewhat sympathetic and in agreement with Seah Chiang Nee's recent proclamation that not only is the local blogosphere infantile, but shrill and out of touch with reality and not credible at all. I beg to differ, really - with almost every assertion he writes.
IN the real world, the economy is humming strongly, more jobs are being created than at anytime in the last 10 years
In the real world, Singapore has just had an entire decade's worth of recessions and meltdowns. Understandably, more jobs will obviously be created this year than anytime in the last rotten 10 years.
the stock market is near record high
Stock markets historically double every 7 years, a factoid quoted by Brad Delong, economic advisor to the Clinton administration - but that doesn't mean that the economy doubles every 7 years at all. In fact, there is no one-to-one correlation between the heights of the stock market and the health of the economy.
and so are high-end properties.
High-end properties are at record highs, but Seah neglects to say that public housing and even mid-end private property prices are still languishing at historic lows. Perhaps it has something to do with a record creation of millionaires here last year?
The Singapore dollar has strengthened to around S$1.55 to the US dollar on speculation that economic growth would quicken, thus encouraging investors to put more funds in the city-state.
The US dollar has fallen against every major currency - including the SGD - because of the record trade deficits, massive government and private debt, and the embarrassing conduct of GW Bush in Iraq. In the unreal world, the SGD has actually depreciated very slightly against the basket of currencies that it is pegged to, not counting the US dollar.
The sanguine mood is reflected on the streets. With the school holidays on, the crowds are out in force. At night, it is virtually impossible to get a cab in the city centre without prior booking.
Ah, yes. And all the time in these past decade, everyone in Singapore was wondering why the cabs suddenly disappeared an hour before the midnight surcharge. And in the past 2 years, everyone in Singapore was complaining about the single red line along all of Orchard Rd, making it illegal for cabs to pick up passengers on the street. Hurray for Seah, who finally solves the mystery with his impeccable logic!
Restaurants and shopping malls are full, and people are spending ahead of a hike in Goods and Services Tax from 5% to 7% next April.
A little premature. Not even the Straits Times has reported or even hinted at a really-existing spending spree. Obviously the ST is out of touch with Seah's reality.
Year-end festivals are a month away but a fairyland of lights already covers the kilometres stretching from Orchard Road and Bras Basah Road to Marina Bay.
Dude, every year in Singapore the Christmas and Chinese New Year lightings go up by November. Where do you live, in Malaysia?
While the mood is upbeat, the Internet world, however, is painting a very different picture. Here, the talk is of continued weakness, rising unemployment and people committing suicide.
Hasn't Seah heard of jobless recoveries? Hasn't he even read the reports from the Economic Policy Institute, or seen this graphic?
Seah is a former editor in various news agencies. Clearly he hasn't picked up any shred of economics 101 despite his years in the job.
Forums are still full of tales of retrenched managers driving taxis, and 70-year-old “uncles” cleaning tables when they should be enjoying their sunset years.
They also feature pictures of homeless families sleeping in housing estate lobbies.
In the mind of Seah Chiang Ngee, it is impossible to have an economic recovery and continued unemployment occur at the same time. It is also impossible - in his world - for companies to be enriched and ordinary workers left behind in an economic recovery. It would blow his mind even to contemplate that even in an economic recovery, the poor could get poorer while the rich get richer.
Hence, OUB bank is shrill and out of touch with reality when it prints posters like this:
The brochure explains: On the 4th of april 2006, the Straits Times reported that "among all active CPF members, the median amoiunt saved is s$66,400." Assuming that you retire at 54 and live up to the age of 85, this means you would spend 30 years in retirement.
Note: this is probably why there really are 70-year-old uncles cleaning tables when they should be enjoying their sunset years.
But wow... this means that not only is the UOB shrill and unbalanced, unduly pessimistic and out of touch with reality... so is the Straits Times! And obviously the Department of Statistics in the Singapore government! The web of shrillness and unbalanced, gibbering entities widens!
Ironically, this is happening as the city is flourishing with growth expected to reach 7.5% to 8% this year and new jobs created – 132,000 in the first nine months – being at a 10-year high.
You know, if you start with a very low base (i.e. 10 sucky years), a half-baked recovery would register a similarly high percentage growth. Again, the new jobs created aren't quite enough to cover the new graduates coming out of NUS and NTU in about a month's time. And not to mention, the millions of unemployed new PRC grads who will flock to Singapore because our government gives them a 1 year Social visit pass, no strings attached, specifically to find a job here...
So who is right? Are we in a time of boom or doldrums? Why is there such a large disparity between the real world and the blogosphere?
Yes, Grasshopper, it is possible to have what is known as a jobless recovery. Also, refer again to the graphic from the EPI.
A Citigroup analysis recently asked if it is sustainable or heading for a bust like that in the 1990s when the economy fell into a recession. By keeping labour plentiful and wages low, it said Singapore should continue to perform strongly. Other reports predicted a 6% annual growth for the next 10 years. There is a caveat, though: the wage gap between rich and poor will continue to widen. The Internet community, which considers itself an alternative information source, carried few, if any, of the good news.
1. Citibank's analyst says Singapore can continue to grow, only if it artificially depresses wages.
2. Other analysts - as well as our political leaders - admit that the growth will continue, but at the expense of a growing income gap. Which coincidentally, should explain why it's possible for bloggers to report on the plight of the poor even in this sparkling year.
I shudder to think what Seah Chiang Ngee would consider as bad news.
So why is there a credibility gap? There are several reasons. Firstly, the growing influence of a liberal-minded Internet, which often paints the sufferings of a minority as a city-wide phenomenon.
High-end property prices at record highs, stock market at record highs. Yup. That's the bounties that a majority of the people have experienced and benefitted from, a real city-wide phenomenon.
Which brings me to a serious point: if the youths are so active and the Net is anti-government (a government backbencher said she was shocked to find they made up 80% of postings) it is a worrying trend.
A rising number of youngsters have stopped reading the traditional media, or what the government says, and have cocooned themselves into a sub-culture group that just talks to each other.
No. Seriously. How on earth can the liberal blogosphere criticise and make fun of ministerial policies and speeches, if they stop reading the traditional media and stop listening to the government? Where does the liberal blogosphere get its talking points of penniless uncles and MRT suicides - if not from the Straits Times itself?
Hurray for Seah Chiang Nee, keyboard kommando, social commentor and economic theorist par excellence! May he smite the ever-increasing hordes of shrill, unbalanced, out of touch and non-credible bloggers, who have managed to take over the Dept of Statistics, the Straits Times, and even the UOB!
So you'd expect me to be somewhat sympathetic and in agreement with Seah Chiang Nee's recent proclamation that not only is the local blogosphere infantile, but shrill and out of touch with reality and not credible at all. I beg to differ, really - with almost every assertion he writes.
IN the real world, the economy is humming strongly, more jobs are being created than at anytime in the last 10 years
In the real world, Singapore has just had an entire decade's worth of recessions and meltdowns. Understandably, more jobs will obviously be created this year than anytime in the last rotten 10 years.
the stock market is near record high
Stock markets historically double every 7 years, a factoid quoted by Brad Delong, economic advisor to the Clinton administration - but that doesn't mean that the economy doubles every 7 years at all. In fact, there is no one-to-one correlation between the heights of the stock market and the health of the economy.
and so are high-end properties.
High-end properties are at record highs, but Seah neglects to say that public housing and even mid-end private property prices are still languishing at historic lows. Perhaps it has something to do with a record creation of millionaires here last year?
The Singapore dollar has strengthened to around S$1.55 to the US dollar on speculation that economic growth would quicken, thus encouraging investors to put more funds in the city-state.
The US dollar has fallen against every major currency - including the SGD - because of the record trade deficits, massive government and private debt, and the embarrassing conduct of GW Bush in Iraq. In the unreal world, the SGD has actually depreciated very slightly against the basket of currencies that it is pegged to, not counting the US dollar.
The sanguine mood is reflected on the streets. With the school holidays on, the crowds are out in force. At night, it is virtually impossible to get a cab in the city centre without prior booking.
Ah, yes. And all the time in these past decade, everyone in Singapore was wondering why the cabs suddenly disappeared an hour before the midnight surcharge. And in the past 2 years, everyone in Singapore was complaining about the single red line along all of Orchard Rd, making it illegal for cabs to pick up passengers on the street. Hurray for Seah, who finally solves the mystery with his impeccable logic!
Restaurants and shopping malls are full, and people are spending ahead of a hike in Goods and Services Tax from 5% to 7% next April.
A little premature. Not even the Straits Times has reported or even hinted at a really-existing spending spree. Obviously the ST is out of touch with Seah's reality.
Year-end festivals are a month away but a fairyland of lights already covers the kilometres stretching from Orchard Road and Bras Basah Road to Marina Bay.
Dude, every year in Singapore the Christmas and Chinese New Year lightings go up by November. Where do you live, in Malaysia?
While the mood is upbeat, the Internet world, however, is painting a very different picture. Here, the talk is of continued weakness, rising unemployment and people committing suicide.
Hasn't Seah heard of jobless recoveries? Hasn't he even read the reports from the Economic Policy Institute, or seen this graphic?
Seah is a former editor in various news agencies. Clearly he hasn't picked up any shred of economics 101 despite his years in the job.
Forums are still full of tales of retrenched managers driving taxis, and 70-year-old “uncles” cleaning tables when they should be enjoying their sunset years.
They also feature pictures of homeless families sleeping in housing estate lobbies.
In the mind of Seah Chiang Ngee, it is impossible to have an economic recovery and continued unemployment occur at the same time. It is also impossible - in his world - for companies to be enriched and ordinary workers left behind in an economic recovery. It would blow his mind even to contemplate that even in an economic recovery, the poor could get poorer while the rich get richer.
Hence, OUB bank is shrill and out of touch with reality when it prints posters like this:
The brochure explains: On the 4th of april 2006, the Straits Times reported that "among all active CPF members, the median amoiunt saved is s$66,400." Assuming that you retire at 54 and live up to the age of 85, this means you would spend 30 years in retirement.
Note: this is probably why there really are 70-year-old uncles cleaning tables when they should be enjoying their sunset years.
But wow... this means that not only is the UOB shrill and unbalanced, unduly pessimistic and out of touch with reality... so is the Straits Times! And obviously the Department of Statistics in the Singapore government! The web of shrillness and unbalanced, gibbering entities widens!
Ironically, this is happening as the city is flourishing with growth expected to reach 7.5% to 8% this year and new jobs created – 132,000 in the first nine months – being at a 10-year high.
You know, if you start with a very low base (i.e. 10 sucky years), a half-baked recovery would register a similarly high percentage growth. Again, the new jobs created aren't quite enough to cover the new graduates coming out of NUS and NTU in about a month's time. And not to mention, the millions of unemployed new PRC grads who will flock to Singapore because our government gives them a 1 year Social visit pass, no strings attached, specifically to find a job here...
So who is right? Are we in a time of boom or doldrums? Why is there such a large disparity between the real world and the blogosphere?
Yes, Grasshopper, it is possible to have what is known as a jobless recovery. Also, refer again to the graphic from the EPI.
A Citigroup analysis recently asked if it is sustainable or heading for a bust like that in the 1990s when the economy fell into a recession. By keeping labour plentiful and wages low, it said Singapore should continue to perform strongly. Other reports predicted a 6% annual growth for the next 10 years. There is a caveat, though: the wage gap between rich and poor will continue to widen. The Internet community, which considers itself an alternative information source, carried few, if any, of the good news.
1. Citibank's analyst says Singapore can continue to grow, only if it artificially depresses wages.
2. Other analysts - as well as our political leaders - admit that the growth will continue, but at the expense of a growing income gap. Which coincidentally, should explain why it's possible for bloggers to report on the plight of the poor even in this sparkling year.
I shudder to think what Seah Chiang Ngee would consider as bad news.
So why is there a credibility gap? There are several reasons. Firstly, the growing influence of a liberal-minded Internet, which often paints the sufferings of a minority as a city-wide phenomenon.
High-end property prices at record highs, stock market at record highs. Yup. That's the bounties that a majority of the people have experienced and benefitted from, a real city-wide phenomenon.
Which brings me to a serious point: if the youths are so active and the Net is anti-government (a government backbencher said she was shocked to find they made up 80% of postings) it is a worrying trend.
A rising number of youngsters have stopped reading the traditional media, or what the government says, and have cocooned themselves into a sub-culture group that just talks to each other.
No. Seriously. How on earth can the liberal blogosphere criticise and make fun of ministerial policies and speeches, if they stop reading the traditional media and stop listening to the government? Where does the liberal blogosphere get its talking points of penniless uncles and MRT suicides - if not from the Straits Times itself?
Hurray for Seah Chiang Nee, keyboard kommando, social commentor and economic theorist par excellence! May he smite the ever-increasing hordes of shrill, unbalanced, out of touch and non-credible bloggers, who have managed to take over the Dept of Statistics, the Straits Times, and even the UOB!
09 October 2006
Straits Times School Pocket Money Fund 2006
Don't you think Syahid deserves your support, the advertisement asks. Err... no. I'd rather support those who clearly need it - students who are poor and weak in their studies.
In fact, ST hopes to raise 2.7 million dollars to 9000 students who, like Syahid, "excel despite the odds". I struggle to comprehend why they would STILL need any kind of monetary help, and I really struggle to comprehend why the Straits Times feels it should fund poor top students and not poor, weak students.
I may not be a singapore economist (I sometimes wish I were), but let's see if the ST school fund makes any economic sense, and what kind of economic sense if it does.
From the looks of it, the ST pocket money fund is a Meritocratic Charity. The advertisement (you can click on it for a full-size image) says the money is especially for needy top students. Why needy average or needy struggling students won't receive your money is made through a silent appeal to the word *DESERVE* in the ad headline.
But really:
1. Decreasing marginal returns.
It is far easier to pull up a straight-Cs student to a straight-B performance than to pull up a straight A student like Syahid to straight A pluses. You'll need less resources to benefit the more numerous weaker students than to benefit the elite (but poor).
2. Deserving to needing.
Social statistics available online (for other countries) could be used to predict a student's salary on their first job from their grades in school. Syahid's straight As are an indicator of his probable rich bastard or high-flying senior civil servant status 15 to 20 years down the road. This is like tax cuts for the rich, even before they become rich.
He doesn't need the money. The weak students who will be stuck with lesser education and MacJobs in the future do. Syahid has the means to break out of the circle of poverty. They don't. His current poverty will be outweighed over time with the riches he'll be earning in the future. For society to give him money now is to tip the balance even further. For society to privilege him over poor and weaker students is to simultaneously create a legion of the "undeserving poor", the poor that you should spit upon and despise because they fully are responsible for their poverty.
I believe society has a duty to alleviate its poor out of the poverty trap, and that takes precedence over... setting up a meritocratic charity.
3. (mis)Allocation of resources?
From the description, Syahid is doing tremendously well for a poor kid. Poverty has not impeded him from getting straight As, having a healthy ambition, and ample extracurricular activities. Like most other star students, Syahid will be streamed to a class taught by the best teachers in his school, following the next round of streaming. He has access to an entire pool of resources that poor, weak students can never touch.
Tell me, if he's such a star student, doesn't he already qualify for some scholarship? I can imagine half a dozen school and community centre bursaries. If he's dirt poor and brilliant, there are plenty of avenues for him to get the money, even if I feel he doesn't need and shouldn't need the help.
Evidently state and quasi-state welfare schemes are insufficient means to help poor students, and the question is... what's wrong with the way they are allocated, why not enough of it is going automatically to the kids who need it, and how this famine of support can occur despite our national reserves.
20 years from now, as Syahid leads a department, will his underlings admire him because he was brilliant but poor, and succeeded to the top due to his own efforts, or because he was brilliant and taxpayers eliminated his poverty?
I prefer a little truth in advertising here: ST should just rename this fund to "Tax Cuts for the Future Rich", "The Straits Times Meritocratic Charity", or simply the "Straits Times Bursary/Scholarship". Don't go on about pocket money, because that's not the real issue or motivation for the fund.
27 September 2006
How can we trust Tan Tarn How?
Granted, the man may now be a researcher at the Institute of Policy Studies, and he may have retooled himself as an analyst and an advocate, according to his blog>, but doubts remain.
Why is he one of the very few researchers at the venerable IPS without even a postgraduate degree? Just how did he manage to be a "senior research fellow", given that other senior research fellows in the IPS have not just postgraduate degrees, but teaching qualifications to boot?
And why was he even chosen as a key speaker in the Singapore Theatre Festival 2006 (otherwise known as the Singapore Political Theatre Festial) "Art and Life Sessions" forum, alongside other pro-democracy dissidents like Gayle Goh, Martyn See, and Sylvia Lim?
Does anyone remember this hatchet job of a piece, written by the same Tan Tarn How on 29 Oct 2001? Does anyone remember how Tan Tarn How was the hatchet man at the Straits Times, or how he single-handedly demolished the credibility of the Worker's Party 2 election cycles ago, by whispering... either WP is honest but incompetent or they are dishonest and putting a joke on us?
Bungle and break-up may help WP, Poll Watch, Tan Tarn How
Disqualified from Aljunied GRC, it can focus its resources on two wards, while JBJ's exit may strengthen Low's hand.
The joke going round after the disqualification debacle by the Workers' Party (WP) is that it is junking its "Power to the People" slogan for a new one: "No More Forms".
Whether that would go down better with the electorate, no one will ever know.
Meanwhile, being barred from contesting in the Aljunied Group Representation Constituency after the pathetic slip-up with the statutory declaration forms leaves Mr Low Thia Khiang's party with fights in only two single wards, Hougang and Nee Soon East.
Add to that the acrimonious break-up with former party boss JB Jeyaratnam and his supporters, and some are saying the WP now looks a little like the walking wounded, shot in the foot both by itself and its former commander-in-chief.
This, after the recent hype that Mr Low is likely to lead the party and the opposition into a new future.
But things may not be what they seem on the surface.
While Mr Jeyaratnam's joining forces with Singapore Democratic Party chief Chee Soon Juan and the slur on his erstwhile protege for the bungling at Aljunied will, no doubt, draw some of Mr Low's blood, it may make the incumbent MP in Hougang and his party stronger for the future.
The reason: Mr Low's rebuilding of the WP is perceived to be strapped not just by Mr Jeyaratnam's legacy but by his continuing membership of the party.
Thus, Mr Jeyaratnam's quitting legitimises Mr Low's succession by sparring him the difficult task of removing the old warrior, which would have tarnished Mr Low for betraying a former patron.
As for the disqualification, it leaves the WP with only two contestants and this is four short of the six needed to get free air time for political broadcast on television. It has denied itself the straight to the living room search given the PAP, the Singapore Democratic Alliance (13 candidates) and the Singapore Democratic Party (14 candidates).
If the WP has ended as a "small player" this time round, so be it, Mr Low said.
The new WP faces among the rejected Aljunied hopefuls, Mr James Gomez and Mr Yaw Shin Leong, would also not be able to earn their bustings spurs, valuable since in the last 20 years, no opposition candidate had made it to Parliament on his first try.
But the pros of the disqualification may overweigh (sic) the cons.
Fighting fewer battles will help the WP by concentrating its forces.
Mr Low's Hougang bid thus gets a lift; but more crucially for the party, Dr Poh Soh Guan's closely-watched one-on-one skirmish with PAP candidate Ho Peng Kee in Nee Soon East will get a boost from the extra hands - and handshakes - in a widely anticipated close contest.
And the Aljunied red card lets Mr Low plug the party fine and accuse the PAP of not giving the people a choice.
The PAP's stand that it was the Election Department which made the decision and that the PAP would not have objected about the technicality is unlikely to work with Mr Low's supporters.
All in all, the WP may now stand a better chance of wrestling a second seat from the PAP - and if the SDA and SDP fizzle out, Mr Low will then be the de facto leader of the opposition, ahead of Mr Chiam.
It is not how many seats you contest but the number you win that counts.
In the end, the most beguiling theory about the Aljunied fiasco is that it was an elaborate piece of wayang put up by Mr Low.
How else can one explain that he did not spot the basic error?
Mr Low, the theory goes, intentionally did not fill in the name of the GRC in the candidate's statutory declarations for all the above considerations.
There is only one hitch: Mr Low seemed visibly and genuinely frantic on the mobile phone when he heard of the trouble with the forms on Nomination Day.
He didn't seem like acting, so there goes that line of speculation.
Unless, of course, he is a better actor than anyone can imagine.
And the joke wasn't on him, but on all of us.
Why is he one of the very few researchers at the venerable IPS without even a postgraduate degree? Just how did he manage to be a "senior research fellow", given that other senior research fellows in the IPS have not just postgraduate degrees, but teaching qualifications to boot?
And why was he even chosen as a key speaker in the Singapore Theatre Festival 2006 (otherwise known as the Singapore Political Theatre Festial) "Art and Life Sessions" forum, alongside other pro-democracy dissidents like Gayle Goh, Martyn See, and Sylvia Lim?
Does anyone remember this hatchet job of a piece, written by the same Tan Tarn How on 29 Oct 2001? Does anyone remember how Tan Tarn How was the hatchet man at the Straits Times, or how he single-handedly demolished the credibility of the Worker's Party 2 election cycles ago, by whispering... either WP is honest but incompetent or they are dishonest and putting a joke on us?
Bungle and break-up may help WP, Poll Watch, Tan Tarn How
Disqualified from Aljunied GRC, it can focus its resources on two wards, while JBJ's exit may strengthen Low's hand.
The joke going round after the disqualification debacle by the Workers' Party (WP) is that it is junking its "Power to the People" slogan for a new one: "No More Forms".
Whether that would go down better with the electorate, no one will ever know.
Meanwhile, being barred from contesting in the Aljunied Group Representation Constituency after the pathetic slip-up with the statutory declaration forms leaves Mr Low Thia Khiang's party with fights in only two single wards, Hougang and Nee Soon East.
Add to that the acrimonious break-up with former party boss JB Jeyaratnam and his supporters, and some are saying the WP now looks a little like the walking wounded, shot in the foot both by itself and its former commander-in-chief.
This, after the recent hype that Mr Low is likely to lead the party and the opposition into a new future.
But things may not be what they seem on the surface.
While Mr Jeyaratnam's joining forces with Singapore Democratic Party chief Chee Soon Juan and the slur on his erstwhile protege for the bungling at Aljunied will, no doubt, draw some of Mr Low's blood, it may make the incumbent MP in Hougang and his party stronger for the future.
The reason: Mr Low's rebuilding of the WP is perceived to be strapped not just by Mr Jeyaratnam's legacy but by his continuing membership of the party.
Thus, Mr Jeyaratnam's quitting legitimises Mr Low's succession by sparring him the difficult task of removing the old warrior, which would have tarnished Mr Low for betraying a former patron.
As for the disqualification, it leaves the WP with only two contestants and this is four short of the six needed to get free air time for political broadcast on television. It has denied itself the straight to the living room search given the PAP, the Singapore Democratic Alliance (13 candidates) and the Singapore Democratic Party (14 candidates).
If the WP has ended as a "small player" this time round, so be it, Mr Low said.
The new WP faces among the rejected Aljunied hopefuls, Mr James Gomez and Mr Yaw Shin Leong, would also not be able to earn their bustings spurs, valuable since in the last 20 years, no opposition candidate had made it to Parliament on his first try.
But the pros of the disqualification may overweigh (sic) the cons.
Fighting fewer battles will help the WP by concentrating its forces.
Mr Low's Hougang bid thus gets a lift; but more crucially for the party, Dr Poh Soh Guan's closely-watched one-on-one skirmish with PAP candidate Ho Peng Kee in Nee Soon East will get a boost from the extra hands - and handshakes - in a widely anticipated close contest.
And the Aljunied red card lets Mr Low plug the party fine and accuse the PAP of not giving the people a choice.
The PAP's stand that it was the Election Department which made the decision and that the PAP would not have objected about the technicality is unlikely to work with Mr Low's supporters.
All in all, the WP may now stand a better chance of wrestling a second seat from the PAP - and if the SDA and SDP fizzle out, Mr Low will then be the de facto leader of the opposition, ahead of Mr Chiam.
It is not how many seats you contest but the number you win that counts.
In the end, the most beguiling theory about the Aljunied fiasco is that it was an elaborate piece of wayang put up by Mr Low.
How else can one explain that he did not spot the basic error?
Mr Low, the theory goes, intentionally did not fill in the name of the GRC in the candidate's statutory declarations for all the above considerations.
There is only one hitch: Mr Low seemed visibly and genuinely frantic on the mobile phone when he heard of the trouble with the forms on Nomination Day.
He didn't seem like acting, so there goes that line of speculation.
Unless, of course, he is a better actor than anyone can imagine.
And the joke wasn't on him, but on all of us.
22 August 2006
NDRS focus!
Analyses of NDRS 2006 should be filing in soon in every corner of the Singapore political blogosphere.
Okay, so maybe Gayle Goh is the only one to attempt an in-depth post on the NDRS. It just has the trademark hindsight of her youthful years, with gems like "There was no mention of new policies, which is a change from last year's National Day Rally Speech". Girl, every year NDRS got new policy announcments. Mr Wang is taking the NDRS apart, piece by piece. It's certainly a far better read. The bloggers at Singaporeangle have made predictions on this year's NDRS, but haven't come back with a post-mortem of the speeh.
However, an interesting exercise is to observe how the media is spinning the speech and deciding how the reader-citizen should react to it. I imagine the Straits Times spin will be covered by other writers very soon, so I'll just stick to Channelnewsasia.
PM Lee's rally speech inspiring and assuring, say Singaporeans
I suspect you wouldn't read this article if it were titled: MPs and other invitees full of praise for NDRS - yet this is what the article is really about. The article talks about the reactions of Singaporeans but neglect to mention they were all invited to the speech and are the type of people whom you can count to applaud vigorously at any Baby Bonus announcements regardless of the soundness of the policy, or laugh heartily at any lame joke Minilee would make. Yet according to CNA, they are not members of the establishment who attended the rally, but merely "many of those who heard Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's speech".
Channelnewsasia is just as bad as The Straits Times. Wong Siew Ying, Noor Mohd Aziz, and S Ramesh are hacks who have less integrity and honesty than bloggers.
Singaporeans say PM Lee's rally speech resonates with them
CNA spoke to Singaporeans among the lunchtime crowd at Raffles Place, one day after PM Lee Hsien Loong's speech on Sunday. But does this even count as a news article?
"Many felt it touched their lives"
"They said they liked what they heard"
"It was a speech that resonated with them"
"Blah blah blah," said a Singaporean.
"Yakkity yak," said another.
And for those who have just arrived on our shores, they said that Singapore is a most welcoming home away from home.
"Blah blah blah," said one immigrant turned citizen.
"Yadda yadda," said another immigrant.
"So on and so forth," said a third.
... and a fourth.
Whatever their views, Singaporeans took Mr Lee's message to heart.
Dominique Loh certainly fails as a reporter, with his torrent of unnamed, anonymous, unverifiable sources. Is it that difficult to get those people to stand up for what they said? That's troubling, actually.
Who are these people who said Minilee's speech is good?
What are their names?
How many people did you interview?
And no, I am not channelling the spirit of Papalee here.
But this is how the media is attempting to pre-shape the reactions of really existing Singaporeans to this year's NDRS, and creating an orthodoxy of opinion, an acceptable range of responses for them to choose from.
Okay, so maybe Gayle Goh is the only one to attempt an in-depth post on the NDRS. It just has the trademark hindsight of her youthful years, with gems like "There was no mention of new policies, which is a change from last year's National Day Rally Speech". Girl, every year NDRS got new policy announcments. Mr Wang is taking the NDRS apart, piece by piece. It's certainly a far better read. The bloggers at Singaporeangle have made predictions on this year's NDRS, but haven't come back with a post-mortem of the speeh.
However, an interesting exercise is to observe how the media is spinning the speech and deciding how the reader-citizen should react to it. I imagine the Straits Times spin will be covered by other writers very soon, so I'll just stick to Channelnewsasia.
PM Lee's rally speech inspiring and assuring, say Singaporeans
I suspect you wouldn't read this article if it were titled: MPs and other invitees full of praise for NDRS - yet this is what the article is really about. The article talks about the reactions of Singaporeans but neglect to mention they were all invited to the speech and are the type of people whom you can count to applaud vigorously at any Baby Bonus announcements regardless of the soundness of the policy, or laugh heartily at any lame joke Minilee would make. Yet according to CNA, they are not members of the establishment who attended the rally, but merely "many of those who heard Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's speech".
Channelnewsasia is just as bad as The Straits Times. Wong Siew Ying, Noor Mohd Aziz, and S Ramesh are hacks who have less integrity and honesty than bloggers.
Singaporeans say PM Lee's rally speech resonates with them
CNA spoke to Singaporeans among the lunchtime crowd at Raffles Place, one day after PM Lee Hsien Loong's speech on Sunday. But does this even count as a news article?
"Many felt it touched their lives"
"They said they liked what they heard"
"It was a speech that resonated with them"
"Blah blah blah," said a Singaporean.
"Yakkity yak," said another.
And for those who have just arrived on our shores, they said that Singapore is a most welcoming home away from home.
"Blah blah blah," said one immigrant turned citizen.
"Yadda yadda," said another immigrant.
"So on and so forth," said a third.
... and a fourth.
Whatever their views, Singaporeans took Mr Lee's message to heart.
Dominique Loh certainly fails as a reporter, with his torrent of unnamed, anonymous, unverifiable sources. Is it that difficult to get those people to stand up for what they said? That's troubling, actually.
Who are these people who said Minilee's speech is good?
What are their names?
How many people did you interview?
And no, I am not channelling the spirit of Papalee here.
But this is how the media is attempting to pre-shape the reactions of really existing Singaporeans to this year's NDRS, and creating an orthodoxy of opinion, an acceptable range of responses for them to choose from.
15 August 2006
08 August 2006
EOL for win98, winME
Readings from the Book of Leaves
WinME died. It was some time ago, but still I don't know. There was the unfortunate case of my week-long fever, the nastiness of the pneumonia, the drug induced haze that was the recovery.
I never had a relationship with WinME, and now I never will. When we met, she was with a friend of mine, the one who dated all the OS-tans. It was a brief and cordial encounter, and I did not see in her all the faults that circulated in current gossip.
Today, WinME is dead. So is Win98, whom I was seeing on a daily basis until 2002. We decided to call it quits when she didn't get along with my broadband modem. It was a long time ago, and with the passage of time, it feels like a very silly reason to split.
All I know is today, and the day after, and all the days after that, there will be this empty space in my heart. And I know this space is reserved for them.
WinME died. It was some time ago, but still I don't know. There was the unfortunate case of my week-long fever, the nastiness of the pneumonia, the drug induced haze that was the recovery.
I never had a relationship with WinME, and now I never will. When we met, she was with a friend of mine, the one who dated all the OS-tans. It was a brief and cordial encounter, and I did not see in her all the faults that circulated in current gossip.
Today, WinME is dead. So is Win98, whom I was seeing on a daily basis until 2002. We decided to call it quits when she didn't get along with my broadband modem. It was a long time ago, and with the passage of time, it feels like a very silly reason to split.
All I know is today, and the day after, and all the days after that, there will be this empty space in my heart. And I know this space is reserved for them.
25 July 2006
Infantilism in the blogosphere
Soci, the founder of Singabloodypore, loves to go on about how infantile the local blogosphere is. That was last April, I believe. Half a year later, there was a solicitation for co-contributors for SBP. What had me sold was this vision of a non-infantile blogosphere:
This was my statement of intent, as well as a sort of acceptance email to his call for co-contributors:
With every 50-line article SBP contributors cut and paste, a little bit of our collective credibility dies. And we do this, 5 articles a day on average. What SBP has become is indeed a blog with more emphasis on posting, than on developing ideas and discussions. Indiscriminate and voluminous cut-pasting sends out a signal to all readers that the contributors don't respect the blog they run.
And so, SBP gets the readership that it deserves: hordes of anonymouses posting one liners, mostly non sequiturs. Some are spammers, like the commentor who cut/pastes entire falunggong news articles to comment on any blog post, regardless of relevance. Or ranters who just feel great posting their angry denunciations of the gahmen. All done as one-liners, of course. SBP has become a platform for anonymouses to rant and post non sequitors.
You know, once upon a time I thought the sammyboymod forums were pretty wild. Discussions there would start off fine and brilliant, but always degenerate into shouting matches by the third page. Once upon an even longer time, I thought soc.culture.singapore was the gutter of political commentary and discussion in cyberspace. Today, I am forced to change my opinion. Singabloodypore is the new gutter of online political discussion.
Indiscriminate cut/pasting encourages rants and indiscriminate commenting. Neighbourhoods with broken windows, and all that. The failure of SBP members to moderate comments, to guide discussions to a higher ground of analysis and insightful commentary, the wilful policy of benign neglect - all this encourage even more indiscriminate commenting. I have noticed, as have other contributors, the precipitous decline in the tone and quality of comments, coupled with a marked rise in anonymous commentors.
Today, Singabloodypore looks like a slum. The main column is cluttered with miles of cut-and-pasted content that go on and on. We could excerpt just one or two paragraphs, and then use either article truncation or just provide links, if we just want to cut and paste. The side bar is cluttered with too many links. Singabloodypore has not just become a site that I would not personally want to read, it has not just become a site that I do not want to be associated with, it has become the most infantile political site in Singapore's blogosphere. In fact, far more infantile than the sites Soci made fun of last April.
I have often contemplated the idea of running a 'socio-political blog' about Singapore that allows contributions from the public, other than just comments and has a group of editors monitoring the content.It was all it took, really, and I began writing for SBP in October. You'll have to understand it was a time of opportunities. By 2004, SBP had become a news aggregator site where Soci would cut and paste entire news articles without comment or analysis. His call for contributors and fellow editors, could that be a start of a new blog? At that time, anything was possible. Or perhaps at that time, I believed anything was possible.
This was my statement of intent, as well as a sort of acceptance email to his call for co-contributors:
If the blog is run along the lines of crookedtimber.org, obsidianwings.blogs.com, savageminds.org, or long-sunday.net - ie. with group contributors who run/edit the site and with serious and sustained comments by contributors and members of the public, I'm all game for it.Yet almost a year later, I am still waiting for my fellow contributors - Soci included - to actually write their own articles instead of cut and pasting articles written by other people. Was there a policy message I missed somewhere down the line? Or did I not get the memo that said "Given the precarious legal position of bloggers, contributors of SBP are advised to write as little of their own opinion or analysis as possible, to protect themselves"?
If, on the other hand, you envision a super singaporean sociopolitical news aggregator blog along the lines of boingboing or tomorrow, where the emphasis is more on posting rather than developing a good idea from an original post through replies in the comments section, the site will have my support but I will NOT join in the running of the endeavor.
With every 50-line article SBP contributors cut and paste, a little bit of our collective credibility dies. And we do this, 5 articles a day on average. What SBP has become is indeed a blog with more emphasis on posting, than on developing ideas and discussions. Indiscriminate and voluminous cut-pasting sends out a signal to all readers that the contributors don't respect the blog they run.
And so, SBP gets the readership that it deserves: hordes of anonymouses posting one liners, mostly non sequiturs. Some are spammers, like the commentor who cut/pastes entire falunggong news articles to comment on any blog post, regardless of relevance. Or ranters who just feel great posting their angry denunciations of the gahmen. All done as one-liners, of course. SBP has become a platform for anonymouses to rant and post non sequitors.
You know, once upon a time I thought the sammyboymod forums were pretty wild. Discussions there would start off fine and brilliant, but always degenerate into shouting matches by the third page. Once upon an even longer time, I thought soc.culture.singapore was the gutter of political commentary and discussion in cyberspace. Today, I am forced to change my opinion. Singabloodypore is the new gutter of online political discussion.
Indiscriminate cut/pasting encourages rants and indiscriminate commenting. Neighbourhoods with broken windows, and all that. The failure of SBP members to moderate comments, to guide discussions to a higher ground of analysis and insightful commentary, the wilful policy of benign neglect - all this encourage even more indiscriminate commenting. I have noticed, as have other contributors, the precipitous decline in the tone and quality of comments, coupled with a marked rise in anonymous commentors.
Today, Singabloodypore looks like a slum. The main column is cluttered with miles of cut-and-pasted content that go on and on. We could excerpt just one or two paragraphs, and then use either article truncation or just provide links, if we just want to cut and paste. The side bar is cluttered with too many links. Singabloodypore has not just become a site that I would not personally want to read, it has not just become a site that I do not want to be associated with, it has become the most infantile political site in Singapore's blogosphere. In fact, far more infantile than the sites Soci made fun of last April.
23 July 2006
Imperial Overreach, redux
Being my sole comment on the entire Mr Brown affair. And I assure you, despite the lateness of my foray, that still no one - not even the brightest of our political bloggers - no one can think like I do, and write as I do.
Imperial Overreach
Occurs when organisational forces attempt to push the limits of their power from a stable configuration.
Typically through an extreme move or a hardline statement, going above and beyond established and accepted principles.
While achieving momentary shock, the move or statement are inconsistent with existing principles, hence untenable, unsustainable, and plain illogical.
Overreach occurs when the population is insufficiently shocked to accept the new proposed standards, or when the organisation is unprepared to back up its new stance and backpedals to the old status quo.
The government this, the government that
Most reactions in the blogosphere make the key assumption that Bhavani's vehement outburst was
1. Officially sanctioned by the Cabinet and the PM
2. Made in her official capacity as a spokesperson for MICA/MITA
leading to the conclusion that
3. Bhavani's smackdown is just the latest manifestation of the age-old plan of our Evil Overlords to curtail freedom of expression.
Bloggers below the age of 25 who made this argument may be forgiven for their ignorance; bloggers like Tan Tarn Howe and Cherian George who made this argument should be viewed with suspicion by any reader - they of all people should know better.
Applying imperial overreach to Bhavani, MITA, and Brown
Nothing profitable comes out of viewing history as a continuous procession of "always has beens". Only when we cast our vision on the continuous erruptions, discontinuities, and zero points of history and discourse can we understand when something profoundly new has taken place, or whether something is truly the same old, same old, or whether imperial overreach has occured.
Just for fun:
1. State MITA's public stance on journalists, their role on political discourse, and the function of the press. State how MITA coordinates its doctrine with the media.
MITA's preferred model of the media can be summed up in the phrase "Nation-building press". It goes back to George Yeo's long reign in the ministry, and every 5 years or so, the Chief Editor of ST would remind everyone in his annual ST anniversary Op-ed that the Straits Times does not wish to adhere to the Western notion of a Fourth Estate imposing curbs and exercising oversight on the national leadership. The press in Singapore is a Fourth Estate that is responsible to frame and present issues to occasion the happy reception of national policy to its citizen-readers, and promote the affections of the public for their leaders.
The Straits Times takes the side, advocates for the Whiteshirt government, and says so brazenly in every other anniversary Op-ed. This policy and stance has been worked out with MITA oversight and approval, and Bhavani is a batshit loony or very, very ignorant of long-standing MITA press policy when she says "It is not the role of journalists or newspapers in Singapore to champion issues, or campaign for or against the Government", or "If a columnist presents himself as a non-political observer...". Highly amusing, somewhat.
2. Name a single occasion when MITA spoke out against journalists in public.
Gee, I certainly can't think of any previous occasions! Cherian and Tan, please take your potshots at me now.
3. State the preferred means and method of rapping journalists' knuckles.
That's because MITA *never* castigates, bodyslams, or gives journalists the smackdown. What is the standard procedure, the historically informed method then? Cherian can answer this, right? The PermSec of either the Minister or the Prime Minister, or the PM himself will do the bodyslamming. Always with a humorous touch, just to show that "even if we believe Mr George got a few facts wrong, he is most certainly welcome to air them, since we will set the facts right. Of course, he is most certainly welcome to air his views, since Singapore got press freedom mah ; )"
Mr George, isn't that essentially how lighthearted your rapping by the PM's PermSec was? Mdm Bhavani, as a PR lecturer, don't you agree your letter to the Today forum page is a classic example of a big character poster (大字报), and far more shrill and poisonous than a Malaysian poison pen letter? Were you hoping that Mr Brown would start walking around the streets with a self-criticism saying "I, Lee Kin Mun, hereby confess to the crime of being a dirty counterrevolutionary, a rightist, and a collaborator. I hereby volunteer myself to 30 years of re-education and hard labour in the countryside"?
As we may notice, Bhavani is not the PermSec to Lee Boon Yang, Balakrishnan, or Balaji. Bhavani is not the PermSec to Minilee, Papalee, or Peanut Goh. Bhavani is a peanut of a mid-level bureaucrat who has embarrassed MICA, the Cabinet, and her political masters by violating protocol, precedence, and contradicting the ministry's long-standing doctrines.
We may have also noticed the off-the-cuff statements by Balakrishnan and his superior, Lee Boon Yang, on the Brown affair.
4. When multiple Whiteshirt ministers speak on the same issue, they will take care to reinforce the rhetoric of the original speaker, and not to contradict any claims made by that speaker. Y/N
Balakrishnan and LBY have commented on the issue. They are bound not to overturn Bhavani's claims, but they made a conscious refusal to adopt or repeat her rhetoric: "distort the truth", "polemic", "encourage cynicism and despondancy", et al. Instead of repeating the Bhavani doctrine that "it is not the role of journalists or newspapers in Singapore to champion issues, or campaign for or against the Government", LBY again reiterated the nation-building role of the press.
Imperial overreach: Balakrishnan and LBY are unprepared to back up Bhavani, and backpedal to the old status quo.
If we had a real press instead of the clown show at Today, The New Paper and The Straits Times, we would have reporters continually asking the 3 ministers at MICA:
Where oh where are you, Balaji? Enquiring minds want to know why you're silent on the Brown affair!
Will the Ministers confirm who approved and cleared Mdm Bhavani to write her letter condemning Brown?
Mdm Bhavani, as a lecturer in a PR college for civil servants, do you feel your letter was a model of what not to write as a civil servant?
Will the Ministers explain why they have not referred to Mdm Bhavani's letter, or to the terms she used to castigate Mr Lee Kin Mun, nor her comments on the role of journalists?
My predictions:
Bhavani to be thrown to the lions.
Lee Boon Yang to be kicked upstairs to the Prime Minister's Office as a Minister without Portfolio by year's end.
Imperial Overreach
Occurs when organisational forces attempt to push the limits of their power from a stable configuration.
Typically through an extreme move or a hardline statement, going above and beyond established and accepted principles.
While achieving momentary shock, the move or statement are inconsistent with existing principles, hence untenable, unsustainable, and plain illogical.
Overreach occurs when the population is insufficiently shocked to accept the new proposed standards, or when the organisation is unprepared to back up its new stance and backpedals to the old status quo.
The government this, the government that
Most reactions in the blogosphere make the key assumption that Bhavani's vehement outburst was
1. Officially sanctioned by the Cabinet and the PM
2. Made in her official capacity as a spokesperson for MICA/MITA
leading to the conclusion that
3. Bhavani's smackdown is just the latest manifestation of the age-old plan of our Evil Overlords to curtail freedom of expression.
Bloggers below the age of 25 who made this argument may be forgiven for their ignorance; bloggers like Tan Tarn Howe and Cherian George who made this argument should be viewed with suspicion by any reader - they of all people should know better.
Applying imperial overreach to Bhavani, MITA, and Brown
Nothing profitable comes out of viewing history as a continuous procession of "always has beens". Only when we cast our vision on the continuous erruptions, discontinuities, and zero points of history and discourse can we understand when something profoundly new has taken place, or whether something is truly the same old, same old, or whether imperial overreach has occured.
Just for fun:
1. State MITA's public stance on journalists, their role on political discourse, and the function of the press. State how MITA coordinates its doctrine with the media.
MITA's preferred model of the media can be summed up in the phrase "Nation-building press". It goes back to George Yeo's long reign in the ministry, and every 5 years or so, the Chief Editor of ST would remind everyone in his annual ST anniversary Op-ed that the Straits Times does not wish to adhere to the Western notion of a Fourth Estate imposing curbs and exercising oversight on the national leadership. The press in Singapore is a Fourth Estate that is responsible to frame and present issues to occasion the happy reception of national policy to its citizen-readers, and promote the affections of the public for their leaders.
The Straits Times takes the side, advocates for the Whiteshirt government, and says so brazenly in every other anniversary Op-ed. This policy and stance has been worked out with MITA oversight and approval, and Bhavani is a batshit loony or very, very ignorant of long-standing MITA press policy when she says "It is not the role of journalists or newspapers in Singapore to champion issues, or campaign for or against the Government", or "If a columnist presents himself as a non-political observer...". Highly amusing, somewhat.
2. Name a single occasion when MITA spoke out against journalists in public.
Gee, I certainly can't think of any previous occasions! Cherian and Tan, please take your potshots at me now.
3. State the preferred means and method of rapping journalists' knuckles.
That's because MITA *never* castigates, bodyslams, or gives journalists the smackdown. What is the standard procedure, the historically informed method then? Cherian can answer this, right? The PermSec of either the Minister or the Prime Minister, or the PM himself will do the bodyslamming. Always with a humorous touch, just to show that "even if we believe Mr George got a few facts wrong, he is most certainly welcome to air them, since we will set the facts right. Of course, he is most certainly welcome to air his views, since Singapore got press freedom mah ; )"
Mr George, isn't that essentially how lighthearted your rapping by the PM's PermSec was? Mdm Bhavani, as a PR lecturer, don't you agree your letter to the Today forum page is a classic example of a big character poster (大字报), and far more shrill and poisonous than a Malaysian poison pen letter? Were you hoping that Mr Brown would start walking around the streets with a self-criticism saying "I, Lee Kin Mun, hereby confess to the crime of being a dirty counterrevolutionary, a rightist, and a collaborator. I hereby volunteer myself to 30 years of re-education and hard labour in the countryside"?
As we may notice, Bhavani is not the PermSec to Lee Boon Yang, Balakrishnan, or Balaji. Bhavani is not the PermSec to Minilee, Papalee, or Peanut Goh. Bhavani is a peanut of a mid-level bureaucrat who has embarrassed MICA, the Cabinet, and her political masters by violating protocol, precedence, and contradicting the ministry's long-standing doctrines.
We may have also noticed the off-the-cuff statements by Balakrishnan and his superior, Lee Boon Yang, on the Brown affair.
4. When multiple Whiteshirt ministers speak on the same issue, they will take care to reinforce the rhetoric of the original speaker, and not to contradict any claims made by that speaker. Y/N
Balakrishnan and LBY have commented on the issue. They are bound not to overturn Bhavani's claims, but they made a conscious refusal to adopt or repeat her rhetoric: "distort the truth", "polemic", "encourage cynicism and despondancy", et al. Instead of repeating the Bhavani doctrine that "it is not the role of journalists or newspapers in Singapore to champion issues, or campaign for or against the Government", LBY again reiterated the nation-building role of the press.
Imperial overreach: Balakrishnan and LBY are unprepared to back up Bhavani, and backpedal to the old status quo.
If we had a real press instead of the clown show at Today, The New Paper and The Straits Times, we would have reporters continually asking the 3 ministers at MICA:
Where oh where are you, Balaji? Enquiring minds want to know why you're silent on the Brown affair!
Will the Ministers confirm who approved and cleared Mdm Bhavani to write her letter condemning Brown?
Mdm Bhavani, as a lecturer in a PR college for civil servants, do you feel your letter was a model of what not to write as a civil servant?
Will the Ministers explain why they have not referred to Mdm Bhavani's letter, or to the terms she used to castigate Mr Lee Kin Mun, nor her comments on the role of journalists?
My predictions:
Bhavani to be thrown to the lions.
Lee Boon Yang to be kicked upstairs to the Prime Minister's Office as a Minister without Portfolio by year's end.
16 July 2006
On film censorship in Singapore
There's an interesting thread going on in Singabloodypore, sparked off by my fellow contributor Clyde posting a clip from Youtube, of Royston Tan's Cut, a diatribe and musical condemning the Film Censorship Board's historic and boundless butchering of films.
You'll have to understand it was made in 2004, shortly after the Film Censorship Board made an incredible 37 cuts to his arthouse homoerotic gangster film 15. You'll have to understand that in Q4 2005, the Media Development Authority of Singapore (MDA) announced a broad restructuring of the censorship system, such that
You'll have to understand that the changes made to the Film Classification Board puts Singapore's film censorship procedures in line with that of the US MPAA film classification process.
You'll also have to understand that the claims made by various anonymouses about the cosmetic changes to Singapore's film censorship system can be easily verified or disproved. Surely any of you can click on this link to the Film Classification Database with me, and look at the films of 2006.
1. Controversial films with sexual content
Basic Instinct 2. R21. Passed with cuts. Of course, audiences need to be protected from sex scenes starring a 47 year old Sharon Stone.
Brokeback Mountain. R21. Passed Clean.
C.R.A.Z.Y. M18. Passed Clean.
Combien tu M'aimes (How much do you love me?). R21. Passed Clean.
Capote. NC16. Passed Clean.
Ask the Dust. R21. Passed Clean. Salma Hayek's rocks rock!
4:30. NC16. Passed Clean. Disturbing images of a 13 year old snipping of sleeping adult's pubic hair didn't get the chief censor incensed. Royston Tan complaineth too much.
Zombie Dogs. R21. Passed Clean.
Kinky Boots. PG. Passed Clean. Sympathetic account of drag queens.
The Hours. M18 DVD. Passed Clean. Lesbian kiss survives.
Chicago. M18 DVD/VCD. Passed Clean.
2. Simply controversial films believed to be blasphemous by fundie Christians
The Da Vinci Code. NC16. Passed Clean. Take that, NCCS!
3. Horror films. Presumbly the biggest beef in "Cut" was the rampant censoring out of all gore in horror films. In 2006, has anything changed?
The Devil's Rejects. M18. Passed Clean.
Boo. NC 16. Passed Clean.
House of the Dead. R21. Passed Clean.
Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003 remake). RA. Passed CLEAN on second submission even though distributor didn't do any censorship or cutting on their own.
Frostbiten. NC16. Passed Clean.
Saw II. Distributor submitted one uncut version for M18 and one self-edited version for NC16. Both PASSED Clean without tampering from the censors.
Mortuary. NC 16. Passed Clean
All gore in horror films are intact in 2006.
Verdict: Anonymouses should just do some research before shooting off your mouths and indulging in masturbatory spiels, conspiracy theories, and rants on how the film censorship board is oppressing you.
Verdict: Since the liberalisation of film censorship and the reformation of the Film Censorship Board into a proper Film Classification Board, much less censorship has been exercised, with horror/controversial/sex-themed movies moving into NC16, M18 and R21 categories, where they tend to be overwhelming Passed Clean, i.e. passed without cuts.
You'll have to understand it was made in 2004, shortly after the Film Censorship Board made an incredible 37 cuts to his arthouse homoerotic gangster film 15. You'll have to understand that in Q4 2005, the Media Development Authority of Singapore (MDA) announced a broad restructuring of the censorship system, such that
Distributors indicate preferred ratings upon submission. The Board of Film Censors (BFC) assesses if the film is suitable for the requested rating. If not, the BFC will suggest an alternative rating. Distributors may either accept the BFC's recommendation or edit the film to meet the guidelines for their preferred rating.Anonymous posters in SBP charge that this is a purely cosmetic change, that "though MDA censorship board no longer cuts films, they can tell "distributors to edit the film" till MDA approves - which is just as good as cutting films.
You'll have to understand that the changes made to the Film Classification Board puts Singapore's film censorship procedures in line with that of the US MPAA film classification process.
You'll also have to understand that the claims made by various anonymouses about the cosmetic changes to Singapore's film censorship system can be easily verified or disproved. Surely any of you can click on this link to the Film Classification Database with me, and look at the films of 2006.
1. Controversial films with sexual content
Basic Instinct 2. R21. Passed with cuts. Of course, audiences need to be protected from sex scenes starring a 47 year old Sharon Stone.
Brokeback Mountain. R21. Passed Clean.
C.R.A.Z.Y. M18. Passed Clean.
Combien tu M'aimes (How much do you love me?). R21. Passed Clean.
Capote. NC16. Passed Clean.
Ask the Dust. R21. Passed Clean. Salma Hayek's rocks rock!
4:30. NC16. Passed Clean. Disturbing images of a 13 year old snipping of sleeping adult's pubic hair didn't get the chief censor incensed. Royston Tan complaineth too much.
Zombie Dogs. R21. Passed Clean.
Kinky Boots. PG. Passed Clean. Sympathetic account of drag queens.
The Hours. M18 DVD. Passed Clean. Lesbian kiss survives.
Chicago. M18 DVD/VCD. Passed Clean.
2. Simply controversial films believed to be blasphemous by fundie Christians
The Da Vinci Code. NC16. Passed Clean. Take that, NCCS!
3. Horror films. Presumbly the biggest beef in "Cut" was the rampant censoring out of all gore in horror films. In 2006, has anything changed?
The Devil's Rejects. M18. Passed Clean.
Boo. NC 16. Passed Clean.
House of the Dead. R21. Passed Clean.
Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003 remake). RA. Passed CLEAN on second submission even though distributor didn't do any censorship or cutting on their own.
Frostbiten. NC16. Passed Clean.
Saw II. Distributor submitted one uncut version for M18 and one self-edited version for NC16. Both PASSED Clean without tampering from the censors.
Mortuary. NC 16. Passed Clean
All gore in horror films are intact in 2006.
Verdict: Anonymouses should just do some research before shooting off your mouths and indulging in masturbatory spiels, conspiracy theories, and rants on how the film censorship board is oppressing you.
Verdict: Since the liberalisation of film censorship and the reformation of the Film Censorship Board into a proper Film Classification Board, much less censorship has been exercised, with horror/controversial/sex-themed movies moving into NC16, M18 and R21 categories, where they tend to be overwhelming Passed Clean, i.e. passed without cuts.
13 July 2006
Imperial Overreach
Being the last in the triptych of comments on Char, Wong Kan Seng, and the NCCS
Imperial Overreach
Occurs when organisational forces attempt to push the limits of their power from a stable configuration.
Typically through an extreme move or a hardline statement, going above and beyond established and accepted principles.
While achieving momentary shock, the move or statement are inconsistent with existing principles, hence untenable, unsustainable, and plain illogical.
Overreach occurs when the population is insufficiently shocked to accept the new proposed standards, or when the organisation is unprepared to back up its new stance and backpedals to the old status quo.
I write this in the light of the police dropping the investigation against Char.
The acquital without formal charges proves overreach - not just by Wong Kan Seng and the police, but by the NCCS and the fringe fundamentalists in Singapore. We witness the breaching of several commonsensical rules:
7. The police should never be used as a tool of frivolous investigation. DPM Wong's asinine announcement that the police will investigate all and any complaints against anti-religious bloggers breaches this rule.
8. There must either be clear guidelines over what on earth is truly offensive to Christians, or investigations should never be held unless there arise pictures that actually incite a supermajority of Christians into possible violence.
8a. Will the NCCS have the guts to seize upon the momentum it has built over the past 5 years, and mutate into the National Circle-jerk of Christian Muftis? Will any Protestant really allow such a body to make essentially pronouncements on church doctrine?
8b. Liberal Christians who have either quit the established churches in light of the recent shift to fundamentalism in the churches during the past 10 years, or have remained silent but not exactly happy campers, will never allow the fundamentalists to make a grab in defining religious doctrine and matters of "sedition" and "blasphemy". Disengaged as they are from formal church politics, the possibility of a backlash by liberal Christians has prevented the mufti-wannabes of the NCCS from speaking out on the Char issue.
8c. Objectively speaking, there was never any majority of Christians wildly offended by Char's pictures. Speaking as a Christian, I find those pictures rather funny, somewhat infantile, but never that insulting. And some of them had nothing to do with Christianity at all.
9. The NCCS should remember what the censorship board and the MDA said when the mufti-wannabes tried to send a secret letter to the ministry to ban the Da Vinci Code movie. The reply, if I recall, was "Fuck off". Grown adults, including Christians, are able to differentiate between fact and fiction. Why a secret letter? I do suppose there was a sizeable fraction of Christians who would not have been comfortable with the idea of the NCCS trying to ban a movie in their names.
9a. What has always been allowed cannot be disallowed. It's bad precedent, for example, to ban any and all depictions of Jesus Christ now, because we HAVE allowed the Da Vinci Code to be screened.
We have allowed Bruce Almighty to be screened.
There was no police investigation or sedition charges thrown at any Singaporean who has made "Father, Son and Holy Goh" jokes since 1992.
Al Franken's Lies: And the lying liars who tell them continues to be sold openly in Singapore's bookshops despite its depiction of a certain Supply-side Jesus.
T-shirts saying "God, save me from your followers!" are still widely available at any good pasar malam or streetwear store.
10. Note to the ever-opportunistic National Circle-jerk of Christian (i.e. Protestant, with self-appointed representatives from Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians, and Rev Kong Hee's church) Muftis: My Jesus forgives your Jesus.
Imperial Overreach
Occurs when organisational forces attempt to push the limits of their power from a stable configuration.
Typically through an extreme move or a hardline statement, going above and beyond established and accepted principles.
While achieving momentary shock, the move or statement are inconsistent with existing principles, hence untenable, unsustainable, and plain illogical.
Overreach occurs when the population is insufficiently shocked to accept the new proposed standards, or when the organisation is unprepared to back up its new stance and backpedals to the old status quo.
I write this in the light of the police dropping the investigation against Char.
The acquital without formal charges proves overreach - not just by Wong Kan Seng and the police, but by the NCCS and the fringe fundamentalists in Singapore. We witness the breaching of several commonsensical rules:
7. The police should never be used as a tool of frivolous investigation. DPM Wong's asinine announcement that the police will investigate all and any complaints against anti-religious bloggers breaches this rule.
8. There must either be clear guidelines over what on earth is truly offensive to Christians, or investigations should never be held unless there arise pictures that actually incite a supermajority of Christians into possible violence.
8a. Will the NCCS have the guts to seize upon the momentum it has built over the past 5 years, and mutate into the National Circle-jerk of Christian Muftis? Will any Protestant really allow such a body to make essentially pronouncements on church doctrine?
8b. Liberal Christians who have either quit the established churches in light of the recent shift to fundamentalism in the churches during the past 10 years, or have remained silent but not exactly happy campers, will never allow the fundamentalists to make a grab in defining religious doctrine and matters of "sedition" and "blasphemy". Disengaged as they are from formal church politics, the possibility of a backlash by liberal Christians has prevented the mufti-wannabes of the NCCS from speaking out on the Char issue.
8c. Objectively speaking, there was never any majority of Christians wildly offended by Char's pictures. Speaking as a Christian, I find those pictures rather funny, somewhat infantile, but never that insulting. And some of them had nothing to do with Christianity at all.
9. The NCCS should remember what the censorship board and the MDA said when the mufti-wannabes tried to send a secret letter to the ministry to ban the Da Vinci Code movie. The reply, if I recall, was "Fuck off". Grown adults, including Christians, are able to differentiate between fact and fiction. Why a secret letter? I do suppose there was a sizeable fraction of Christians who would not have been comfortable with the idea of the NCCS trying to ban a movie in their names.
9a. What has always been allowed cannot be disallowed. It's bad precedent, for example, to ban any and all depictions of Jesus Christ now, because we HAVE allowed the Da Vinci Code to be screened.
We have allowed Bruce Almighty to be screened.
There was no police investigation or sedition charges thrown at any Singaporean who has made "Father, Son and Holy Goh" jokes since 1992.
Al Franken's Lies: And the lying liars who tell them continues to be sold openly in Singapore's bookshops despite its depiction of a certain Supply-side Jesus.
T-shirts saying "God, save me from your followers!" are still widely available at any good pasar malam or streetwear store.
10. Note to the ever-opportunistic National Circle-jerk of Christian (i.e. Protestant, with self-appointed representatives from Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians, and Rev Kong Hee's church) Muftis: My Jesus forgives your Jesus.
10 July 2006
Flash Mob for Mr Brown
Excerpts from the AFP:
Unfortunately for the news wire agency, the real news wasn't that 30 people in Singapore bothered to take part in a flash mob for a proscribed blogger-columnist. I could think of several more newsworthy stories on the top of my head, such as:
How did a secret SMS-only invite leak out to the press, which turned up in battle positions and recording equipment shoved up the noses of participants, even before the flash mob was scheduled to begin?
Or how's this for a more newsworthy story:
Plainclothes police accost flash mob participants at end of event
At least 2 participants were approached Citylink mall by 4 plainclothes police operatives after the flash mob event concluded. The operatives presented themselves to the duo, requesting a "short and private discussion at a more private place".
The operatives, marshalled in a line formation, herded the two to a remote corner of the underground mall, where they proceeded to ask the following questions:
Who organised this protest?
How did you know about this protest?
What are the names of the people who informed you of this protest? What are the names of the people you informed, in turn?
And the winner: Look, we know all about this protest. You better cooperate with us and tell us the truth.
Thankfully one of the cornered persons did read up on his rights, as well as the extent of cooperation citizens are bound to give to plainclothes operatives presenting themselves without a warrant or charges, and gave them his name, his lawyer's contacts, and told them to fuck off.
Several, even more newsworthy issues present themselves in the aftermath:
1. Flash mob sparks police actions by government
2. Seeing the flash mob as a bona fide protest, Wong Kan Seng, the Minister for Home Affairs, does not send in the riot police.
3. Instead, the clown show is mobilised.
Apparently there is no formal investigation, no indication that said flash mob is an illegal and destablising event, so what the MHA and Wong can do is send in the clown squad and hope that the idea of plainclothes operatives asking questions and claiming to know everything about the event... will actually scare off the participants, make them piss in their pants, and scar them for life. Remember, kids: for real protests and destabilising events, the riot police is used. When the authorities want to stage a political comedy, they send in plainclothes operatives!
But really, this flash mob was rather lame. People showed up and stood around. No silly waving, cheers, synchronised actions or what have you. No immediate and sudden dispersal. And the best part? People who didn't get the message won't get the message at all. So much for a flash mob for Mr Brown.
Don't get me started on the organiser's horrendously unironic satorical decision wear brown shirts to support a columnist who was unfairly axed. This is what you get when Singapore's artistes pose as political activists.
Ladies and gentlemen, the continuing clown show from Wong Kan Seng. As if the dropping of the police investigation against Char isn't embarrassing enough, they send in a clown show against a not-very-successful or well-planned and conceptualised flash mob.
Supporters of a Singaporean blogger have gathered at a busy subway station for a silent protest at the suspension of his weekly newspaper column after the government criticised his latest satirical piece about high living costs.
At least 30 supporters turned up at City Hall station at 2:00 pm dressed in brown attire in support of the blogger, who goes by the moniker Mr Brown.
Unfortunately for the news wire agency, the real news wasn't that 30 people in Singapore bothered to take part in a flash mob for a proscribed blogger-columnist. I could think of several more newsworthy stories on the top of my head, such as:
How did a secret SMS-only invite leak out to the press, which turned up in battle positions and recording equipment shoved up the noses of participants, even before the flash mob was scheduled to begin?
Or how's this for a more newsworthy story:
Plainclothes police accost flash mob participants at end of event
At least 2 participants were approached Citylink mall by 4 plainclothes police operatives after the flash mob event concluded. The operatives presented themselves to the duo, requesting a "short and private discussion at a more private place".
The operatives, marshalled in a line formation, herded the two to a remote corner of the underground mall, where they proceeded to ask the following questions:
Who organised this protest?
How did you know about this protest?
What are the names of the people who informed you of this protest? What are the names of the people you informed, in turn?
And the winner: Look, we know all about this protest. You better cooperate with us and tell us the truth.
Thankfully one of the cornered persons did read up on his rights, as well as the extent of cooperation citizens are bound to give to plainclothes operatives presenting themselves without a warrant or charges, and gave them his name, his lawyer's contacts, and told them to fuck off.
Several, even more newsworthy issues present themselves in the aftermath:
1. Flash mob sparks police actions by government
2. Seeing the flash mob as a bona fide protest, Wong Kan Seng, the Minister for Home Affairs, does not send in the riot police.
3. Instead, the clown show is mobilised.
Apparently there is no formal investigation, no indication that said flash mob is an illegal and destablising event, so what the MHA and Wong can do is send in the clown squad and hope that the idea of plainclothes operatives asking questions and claiming to know everything about the event... will actually scare off the participants, make them piss in their pants, and scar them for life. Remember, kids: for real protests and destabilising events, the riot police is used. When the authorities want to stage a political comedy, they send in plainclothes operatives!
But really, this flash mob was rather lame. People showed up and stood around. No silly waving, cheers, synchronised actions or what have you. No immediate and sudden dispersal. And the best part? People who didn't get the message won't get the message at all. So much for a flash mob for Mr Brown.
Don't get me started on the organiser's horrendously unironic satorical decision wear brown shirts to support a columnist who was unfairly axed. This is what you get when Singapore's artistes pose as political activists.
Ladies and gentlemen, the continuing clown show from Wong Kan Seng. As if the dropping of the police investigation against Char isn't embarrassing enough, they send in a clown show against a not-very-successful or well-planned and conceptualised flash mob.
06 July 2006
Down with the NCCS!
The high fever stretched over the weekend, made a detour into a lung infection, finally diagnosed by SGH. With new medication, I can look forward to a fever-free week, with scattered wooziness and weird-tasting saliva as the only side effect. That, and reduced breathing capacity until some therapist gets my lungs working at 100% again.
To recap from the last instalment, one apparently Christian person complained to the police that pictures depicting Jesus on Char's site were presumably offensive to Christians.
Question: Does this warrant an investigation? Does this warrant the investigating officer to recommend to Char not just to take down the pictures, but shut down his blog?
Although the police and Wong Kan Seng have decided to investigate this case as if it were already a potentially seditious case, they have been expecting an official stand from the NCCS to cover their overreaction. When that was not forthcoming, the clown show over at the Straits Times did an article on Saturday 19 June trying to put the question to Religious Experts.
Why do the police, Wong and the Straits Times think a National Council of Churches is the appropriate body to answer the question: were the pictures really seditious?
Noting first that the clown show at the Straits Times apparently did not bother to show the interviewees the actual photos, nor were the interviewees interested to find out before issuing their replies to the clown show, of interest to us are two statements in that article:
4. From the chairman of Centre for Contemporary Islamic Studies, Ridzuan Wu: "images char posted were unlikely to cause a strong reaction... because Muslim societies have a stronger tradition of condemning blasphemy through legal action."
What is blasphemy in Muslim societies? Presumably any visual depiction of the prophets, humorous or not. We hope Ridzuan Wu is clear that this does not mean any visual depiction of Christ is therefore automatically blasphemous in a Christian context, but what he says is indeed true: these images, whatever they may be, are unlikely to cause any kind of strong reaction, any kind of mass reaction amongst Christians, even in Singapore.
5. To understand why, we must first take a look at the giant turd laid by Anglican Bishop John Chew, the vice president of the National Council of Churches: "We cannot say that just because the west has allowed these pictures to be freely available, we should accept them."
Setting aside for the moment the fact that this does not constitute an official statement from the NCCS, or the fact that the clown show at the Straits Times didn't bother to get clear in what capacity John Chew was speaking in, Bishop John Chew is clearly talking out of his arse when he cannot accept that... just because the west has allowed these pictures to be freely available, we should should accept them.
Historically, rival Christians have been making caricatures of their opponent's beliefs. That's part of a long Greek rhetorical tradition. Historically, under the signs of the printing press and the Protestant Reformation, rival Christians have drawn very seditious pictures, for example, of popes being advised by devils, with 'idolatry' and 'superstition' on papal vestments. Christ himself has been caricatured in cartoons by Voltaire, Sade and others - who didn't get stoned by Christians or accused of sedition by the police, whose pictures sparked off no riots amongst Christians. That is Protestantism for you, and a history lesson for the shockingly ignorant Bishop John Chew.
Let us note therefore, that caricatures of Jesus Christ rivalling or (given that Voltaire drew some of them) even exceeding the cheekiness of the Char pics, do exist from post-Reformation periods onwards. Somewhere on the internets is an archive of them. Somewhere in real life is an exhibit of them. Nowhere in this reality - one that John Chew apparently does not partake of - are there riots or even morally, religiously insulted Christians. It is almost a Christian tradition already lah.
6. The National Council of Churches Singapore is...
Contrary to expectations, NCCS is not a religious high council of Protestant Churches in Singapore. Despite its posturing, the NCCS does not dictate ecclesiastical decisions on its member churches. Despite its official sounding name, NCCS does not function as a National Council of Christian Muftis. Despite its aura of officialness and representativeness, NCCS statements are non-binding on member churches, local pastors are not legally or religiously bound to agree with any of its statements.
What then is the NCCS? The body was set up in 1948. Since then, the organisation, far from representing all Protestants in Singapore, has suffered ups and downs, and has experienced a surge only in recent years. To put it bluntly, the NCCS has a temporarily high profile today thanks to its opportunism. These actions have catapulted it to the public eye, above and beyond its natural capacity -
Signing the declaration of religious harmony
Issuing a statement on homosexuality
Issuing a statement on the casino issue
Issuing a statement to back the banning of the Mohammed cartoons
Issuing a private and secret letter to the MDA on The Da Vinci Code
What is apparent: the National Council of Churches dares not do unpopular things. Its only activity is discursive and declamatory.
1. Any Protestant worth their salt will point out the absurdity of a Protestant organisation condemning caricatures of Christ.
2. There are a significant amount of liberal Christians and church leaders who are in opposition to the NCCS on the condemnation of Char's actions.
3. This significant, if minority opposition, is what keeps the NCCS from issuing any official statement on this matter.
4. Liberal Christians who were already annoyed at how the NCCS took it upon themselves to negotiate with MDA on a movie they didn't think amounted to much, will be even more annoyed and possibly outraged if the NCCS proceeds to condemn Char.
Charting the recent history of the NCCS through its statements, several propositions can be made:
1. An upward and accelerating sense of importance
2. An attempt - intentional or expected by the state by now - to serve as a National Council of Christian Muftis.
3. The impossibility of 2 points towards an eventual jumping of the shark by the organisation. Their letter to the MDA might just be that.
The NCCS should just give up and die.
To recap from the last instalment, one apparently Christian person complained to the police that pictures depicting Jesus on Char's site were presumably offensive to Christians.
Question: Does this warrant an investigation? Does this warrant the investigating officer to recommend to Char not just to take down the pictures, but shut down his blog?
Although the police and Wong Kan Seng have decided to investigate this case as if it were already a potentially seditious case, they have been expecting an official stand from the NCCS to cover their overreaction. When that was not forthcoming, the clown show over at the Straits Times did an article on Saturday 19 June trying to put the question to Religious Experts.
Why do the police, Wong and the Straits Times think a National Council of Churches is the appropriate body to answer the question: were the pictures really seditious?
Noting first that the clown show at the Straits Times apparently did not bother to show the interviewees the actual photos, nor were the interviewees interested to find out before issuing their replies to the clown show, of interest to us are two statements in that article:
4. From the chairman of Centre for Contemporary Islamic Studies, Ridzuan Wu: "images char posted were unlikely to cause a strong reaction... because Muslim societies have a stronger tradition of condemning blasphemy through legal action."
What is blasphemy in Muslim societies? Presumably any visual depiction of the prophets, humorous or not. We hope Ridzuan Wu is clear that this does not mean any visual depiction of Christ is therefore automatically blasphemous in a Christian context, but what he says is indeed true: these images, whatever they may be, are unlikely to cause any kind of strong reaction, any kind of mass reaction amongst Christians, even in Singapore.
5. To understand why, we must first take a look at the giant turd laid by Anglican Bishop John Chew, the vice president of the National Council of Churches: "We cannot say that just because the west has allowed these pictures to be freely available, we should accept them."
Setting aside for the moment the fact that this does not constitute an official statement from the NCCS, or the fact that the clown show at the Straits Times didn't bother to get clear in what capacity John Chew was speaking in, Bishop John Chew is clearly talking out of his arse when he cannot accept that... just because the west has allowed these pictures to be freely available, we should should accept them.
Historically, rival Christians have been making caricatures of their opponent's beliefs. That's part of a long Greek rhetorical tradition. Historically, under the signs of the printing press and the Protestant Reformation, rival Christians have drawn very seditious pictures, for example, of popes being advised by devils, with 'idolatry' and 'superstition' on papal vestments. Christ himself has been caricatured in cartoons by Voltaire, Sade and others - who didn't get stoned by Christians or accused of sedition by the police, whose pictures sparked off no riots amongst Christians. That is Protestantism for you, and a history lesson for the shockingly ignorant Bishop John Chew.
Let us note therefore, that caricatures of Jesus Christ rivalling or (given that Voltaire drew some of them) even exceeding the cheekiness of the Char pics, do exist from post-Reformation periods onwards. Somewhere on the internets is an archive of them. Somewhere in real life is an exhibit of them. Nowhere in this reality - one that John Chew apparently does not partake of - are there riots or even morally, religiously insulted Christians. It is almost a Christian tradition already lah.
6. The National Council of Churches Singapore is...
Contrary to expectations, NCCS is not a religious high council of Protestant Churches in Singapore. Despite its posturing, the NCCS does not dictate ecclesiastical decisions on its member churches. Despite its official sounding name, NCCS does not function as a National Council of Christian Muftis. Despite its aura of officialness and representativeness, NCCS statements are non-binding on member churches, local pastors are not legally or religiously bound to agree with any of its statements.
What then is the NCCS? The body was set up in 1948. Since then, the organisation, far from representing all Protestants in Singapore, has suffered ups and downs, and has experienced a surge only in recent years. To put it bluntly, the NCCS has a temporarily high profile today thanks to its opportunism. These actions have catapulted it to the public eye, above and beyond its natural capacity -
Signing the declaration of religious harmony
Issuing a statement on homosexuality
Issuing a statement on the casino issue
Issuing a statement to back the banning of the Mohammed cartoons
Issuing a private and secret letter to the MDA on The Da Vinci Code
What is apparent: the National Council of Churches dares not do unpopular things. Its only activity is discursive and declamatory.
1. Any Protestant worth their salt will point out the absurdity of a Protestant organisation condemning caricatures of Christ.
2. There are a significant amount of liberal Christians and church leaders who are in opposition to the NCCS on the condemnation of Char's actions.
3. This significant, if minority opposition, is what keeps the NCCS from issuing any official statement on this matter.
4. Liberal Christians who were already annoyed at how the NCCS took it upon themselves to negotiate with MDA on a movie they didn't think amounted to much, will be even more annoyed and possibly outraged if the NCCS proceeds to condemn Char.
Charting the recent history of the NCCS through its statements, several propositions can be made:
1. An upward and accelerating sense of importance
2. An attempt - intentional or expected by the state by now - to serve as a National Council of Christian Muftis.
3. The impossibility of 2 points towards an eventual jumping of the shark by the organisation. Their letter to the MDA might just be that.
The NCCS should just give up and die.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)