Civil society in a secular society

1. Lessons from Aware

Like a pebble thrown into a stagnant pond, the takeover of Aware continues to create ripples in Singapore society. If Aware's previous leaders were caught off-guard, Singaporeans too were caught flat-footed and intellectually unprepared to grasp the real issues at hand.

This has been a learning journey for all of us. If anything, we're learning the value of civil society. By examining our personal moral outrage provoked by the negative example of Feminist Mentor's takeover, we are all rediscovering the unspoken behaviour and fundamentals that nurture civil society and make for a healthy polity.

We are encouraged by the near-unanimous agreement between the blogosphere and the senior editors of the Straits Times on the value of civil society, and how the takeover offends every sensibility we hold about civil society to the point of threatening its very concept, if not its existence.

2. Anger and its solutions

The seething anger on the ground is fed by the realisation that despite breaking every tenet of civil society, Feminist Mentor and her G9 may walk away with the organisation scot-free, unaccountable to its stakeholders, avoiding all sanctions from any legal, state, or even clerical jurisdiction.

Operation Leper prefers to approach the issue this way: As this group of people refuse to play by the rules of civil society, they shouldn't be invited to play the game at all. Operation Leper urges you instead to work towards preventing their appointment to future leadership roles in politics, voluntary/social welfare groups, and NGOs.

Operation Leper does not support efforts to remove these people from their day jobs, intimidate them, or to send threats to them.

If you are angry, do write to them civilly to express your disappointment with their stealth takeover, their unilateral purges during the communications lockdown of Aware, or their short circuiting of civil discussion. Please do not send mail to their personal addresses. Please communicate with them directly, and not with their employers.

Operation Leper has to date issued a total of one boycott call, that of Lois Ng's Studio You Pte Ltd. Sam Ho rightly grasps our intentions: Studio You Pte Ltd is a company owned by Lois Ng. We object on moral grounds to the participation of this entrepreneur's participation in the takeover of Aware, and therefore call for the boycott of this entrepreneur's company and products.

3. That religious issue

Here at Illusio, a decision was taken not to allow discussions about the religious aspect of the takeover; recent developments and revelations have confirmed some of the theories and speculation floating around the rumour vines. The ban is now lifted.

One thing we note with unease is a growing discourse on the blogosphere arguing that religion has no place in pluralistic secular/civil society.

Let's look at what civil society entails again: it is the conglomeration of free, uncoerced human association and its set of relational networks. In a theocratic state, faith-based affiliation would not be an uncoerced human association, and hence not be part of civil society - whereas it will be, in a multi-faith secular society. Similarly in a modern state, the forces of capital are so totalising that they would not be considered part of civil society - whereas the various guilds and free trading cities of the Hanseatic League would be during their day.

Like it or not, religion is part of Singapore's multi-confessional secular society. People have the right to voice their opinions and beliefs, even if these are rooted in religious conviction. Civil and honest public discussion must be encouraged, even if certain speakers in the polity's discussions make their stand through a prism of their personal conviction.

The takeover of Aware and ensuing allegations of churches engaging in an Aware mass recruitment effort may suggest that certain religious considerations and affiliations are on the verge of becoming a totalising force, one that undermines the uncoerced associations and networks of civil society.

Currently, Singapore is a multi-confessional secular state. Its secularism should not be confused with the laïcité system practised in France or Turkey. A trend of the totalisation of religion may push the state to impose laïcité in the polity, to preserve its secular nature. And let me warn secularists and atheists that the experience of laïcité in France and Turkey has not been a happy one at all.

Aware EGM change of venue

Post updated 30 April 2009

Official announcement here.

Aside from the change to Suntec Exhibition Hall 402 Singapore Expo Hall 2, there are other things to note:

"Admission and registration would (sic) be from 12.00 noon to 2.00 p.m. on Saturday, 2nd May 2009"

This means people will be admitted into the expo hall beginning Saturday noon. If the hall should overfill by the time you arrive, good luck.

Because the Aware Constitution states that "At least one quarter of the total membership of the society or 25 members, whichever is the lesser, present at a general meeting shall form a quorum."

Be there at 12 noon or be prepared to face the possibility of being locked out because the hall is deemed full and the quorum has been reached.

"It is mandatory to show your NRIC for admission and registration."

And don't forget to bring your membership card, or a printout of your Aware registration and payment forms, please.

"Messrs Rajah & Tann have been appointed to act as AWARE's legal advisors to attend the EGM to be convened on 2nd May 2009 to address legal queries relating to, and raised during, the EGM including the matters intended to be transacted, AWARE's constitution and meeting law and procedure."

Aware's June 2006 constitution does not provide any guidelines concerning how the meeting should be conducted. Who decides which speakers are allowed to speak during the EGM? Who decides how much time is given to speakers? Who sets the rules for how the EGM will be conducted?

If there is a filibuster, will it be allowed?
If there is a no questions, no discussion, just vote meeting, will it be allowed?

Lawyers will be useful. Do you have one on your side?

A message from Josie Lau

The silence is broken

Go to the link for her full letter. I'm just going to quote parts here.

Dear Valued Members

Since my election as President on 14th April 2009, I have received intense media attention. A group of AWARE members has gone public with various allegations and have called for an EGM for the specific purpose of removing me and my team. We have only been in office for less than 20 days.

You have been in office for less than 20 days, 20 days during which no one knew your agenda or programmes. 20 days during which sub-committee heads were summarily dismissed without explanation. 20 days of a communications lockdown following a bizarre AGM where you were elected by a coordinated vote of more than 100 new members, without explaining your agenda, programmes, or even where you came from ("Hi! Feminist Mentor sent me to take over your organisation!")

I am a woman seeking to serve other women in Singapore. Like you, I have struggles. I do not have all easy answers to the many hard questions that life throws up. No one does.

Your easy answer, if I recall during the press conference, was Blame the gays! Scary lesbians are taking over Aware! They're promoting sapphic depravities to our children in school, and encouraging them to explore their bodies!

However, we should not be passive where we can band together to work for positive change. There are many things worth protecting and fighting for.

Given your ferocity during the press conference as well as how much time you devoted to the evil lesbionic issue, we know what you are fighting for, Josie =D

We want to make a positive difference to your lives and to our society. A good place to start is to help the many distressed women affected by the current economic crisis.

Whatever happened to Project Wind Beneath My Wings, Josie? Did someone tell you it was out of step with the concerns of actually-existing women affected by the actually-existing economic crisis? That it sounded at best, a vanity project for FM and her G9? Why aren't you selling the virtues of Wind Beneath My Wings now?

We are dedicated towards continuing our role as an NGO to ensure the effective implementation of CEDAW standards. We want to see abstract standards translated into meaningful policies which directly affect our lives and well-being. We will constructively engage with all interested governmental and non-governmental agencies, to progressively bring this goal to pass.

Still no idea why Braema was summarily dismissed as CEDAW subcommittee head without reason. Given that FM's G9 had taken over AWARE for less than a week before the termination, and that you've never had any discussion or even meeting with Braema before terminating her, one has to wonder about your competence as a group.

I hope to see you at the upcoming EGM where we will present preliminary details of our programme and projects.

Wow. Just wow. Saying this now just begs the question: how exactly did you and your friends get elected/appointed to an exco without presenting any preliminary details of your agenda and projects? Why wait more than 20 days AFTER your election before anyone knows what your agenda and projects for Aware are? Why shouldn't we know this DURING your election?

AWARE belongs to you.

You, your fellow churchmates from COOS, and Feminist Mentor's network of concerned parents!

The law of eternal return

1. I am proud to be Feminist Mentor's feminist mentor

As my readers know - and the random AnonyMouse trolls ignore - I was against the boycott of DBS during the FOTF Singapore affair.

Considering that there was no logical reason to sanction DBS for supporting FOTF Singapore in its honourable project to build a school for disabled children and its moderation into a progressive civil society actor, it was clear that there was no just cause for the boycott action.

Certain words uttered back then are now even more relevant than ever now, during this Aware saga:

The boycott campaign by the gay activists only serves to make such change and moderation impossible. Moreover, their actions can only encourage their opponents to stage reprisals in the same vein: namely, scuttling any positive social projects (HIV awareness, testing, drug subsidies, anyone?) by objecting to the mere presence of the gay activists and gay organisations involved in these projects.

According to the rulebook of Alex Au and his facebook minions, the proper response for anyone opposed to PLU activism is to scuttle any community service project *just because* of the involvement of the gay activists - despite whatever merits that community service project has, and despite its non-relation to gay activism.

This is the lesson that Alex Au and his facebook padres want to teach FOTF Singapore. This is the lesson that will undo the very concept of civil society.

And my warning and prediction has come to pass with the takeover of Aware and Dr Thio's rationale for her operation. In a strange way, I am proud to be Feminist Mentor's feminist mentor.

But just as I called for the seppuku of Alex Au and his gay activist allies, and their exile from activism of ANY KIND, I call for the seppuku of Dr. Thio and her group of 9, and their voluntary withdrawal from AWARE. If they do not heed this advice, Operation Leper will continue to monitor and block their appointment to future leadership posts in politics, voluntary/social welfare groups, and NGOs.

2. All this has happened before; all this will happen again

It is very charming how Feminist Mentor and her Group of 9 continue to conflate the ideas of democracy and due process with pro forma legal observances, fairness with legalness.

It's even more charming that Feminist Mentor and her Group of 9 insist the media and commentators not use the word "takeover" to describe their operation. What delicacy!

Any observer with a smidgeon of knowledge of recent history would realise that all this has happened before; all this will happen again. This knowledge, if widespread, would have been as much a source of embarrassment of FM's G9 as the republication of the addresses of their workplaces.

I speak of the venerable tradition of takeovers of churches and NGOs by other churches. Starting in the 1970s in America, it is practised by (1) ambitious para/megachurches, (2) political-church conglomerations, and even (3) the tiny parish next door that doesn't like the OTHER tiny parish next door.

Non-denomination and Episcopalian parishes as well as NGOs in the United States, UK, and Australia have been taken over in a predictable pattern that tends to include the following:

A sudden jump of membership prior to elections (3)
Surprise turnout overwhelmingly votes into office unknown candidates (3)
The first rationale of taking over: Previous leaders were incompetent, look at the declining membership over the years (1, 2; see Institute on Religion and Democracy)
Second rationale of taking over: Outrageous claims that previous leaders had a homosexual agenda (2; IRD)
After taking over: Purge all administrators, leaders of sub-committees (1, 3)
When questions continue to arise: Change the locks, call in more forces (3)

Of course, it's interesting to note that none of these actions constitute "Christian governance" as we understand it.

All this has happened before; all this will happen again. The least we could do is be intellectually honest and call a takeover a takeover.

What does religion have to do with anything?

It was never about religion

Gentle readers: from the blogs you've been reading about the Aware takeover, how many of them make religion the issue? How many of them invent religious epithets for the group of 9? As with Sam, we note the prevalence of hate speech against a certain religion in the dominant discourse, and express our disconcert and disapproval of the vituperative language. We note the use of a certain epithet used by a certain Mr Yawning Bread. We will not repeat or link it here, out of decency and taste.

The religious affiliation of the group of 9 are no concern ours. Do not mistake Illusio for any of the websites or newspapers attempting to make hay out of the religious issue.

All comments attempting to rake up anti-religious sentiment or discuss the religious persuasion of the group of 9 have been and will continue to be deleted.

At Illusio, the moral outrage comes from the manner of the takeover, the behaviour of the group of 9 at the AGM and after the AGM. The issue for Illusio is the non-transparency of the group of 9, its subversion of the democratic process, the undisguised hostility of its takeover, the purge it has conducted since assuming power, and its blatant disregard for the open rules of civil society.

To paraphrase someone: I know of no religion that will condone this!

What do you do with people like this? Some suggest Operation Leper sounds like a thousand angry sharks jumping over the blogosphere, that it is too vicious...

But what would you do to a group of 9 who has done all this?

They won fair and square, right? Right?

We note with concern the political illiteracy prevailing in the discourse of Aware, where it pertains to the oft-repeated claim that the takeover was 'democratic' or 'legitimate'.

We identify this as illiteracy due to the fundamental inability of these commentators to distinguish between a victory achieved by pro forma adherence to Aware's constitution and a victory achieved through a fair and transparent election.

A takeover of any NGO, society, church, or listed company must - out of pragmatic and strategic concerns - be pro forma legal. Yet a takeover where membership rolls have been stacked and leaders pushed through without any honest and open discussion (thanks to the numbers) can only be seen as morally illegitimate. Immoral, even. Or in civil society terms, very much unhelpful to the maintenance of its values of openness, fairness, and transparency.

The charge of political illiteracy is made also on the grounds that similar hostile takeovers of NGOs and church have been occurring for the past 2 decades in other countries, with the appropriate uproar and condemnation - and yet our commentators are content, even adamant on not seeing evil where it clearly lies.

Yes they won according to the rules. Corporate raiders also make sure they win according to the rules. NGO and church raiders also make sure they win according tot the rules. But clearly, there's a difference between following the rules, and resorting to every trick and subterfuge in the book while following the rules. The difference is how your victory smells.

AWARE: a civil society primer

1. Where PN Balji doesn't get it, once again

A paid hack for the whiteshirts veteran journalist, P N Balji is now a political appointee the director of the Asia Hack Academy Asia Journalism Fellowship, a quango set up for aggrandisement of the gahment and its hacks joint initiative by the Temasek Foundation and the Nanyang Technological University.

As a journalist, Balji is clearly cognisant of the wider civil society in which AWARE operates. He comments on the recent stealth takeover during its AGM by a group whose motives, agenda, and rationale for launching the takeover have not been revealed to the media, ordinary members of AWARE, and least of all to attendees at the AGM. Claiming that "the ladies at AWARE do not seem to get it", Balji does a David Carradine, reminding everyone that it's all about clash of ideas!

The silly old guard who got outfoxxed and outgunned should not be "furious" "sore losers" - if they want to take back their organisation, they should engage in a clash of ideas! If the old guard are upset at the sneaky nature of the takeover, they must take them on and show why they are no good for the future of AWARE.

Silly, silly old PN Balji obviously doesn't get it, despite shaking his avuncular finger at the "old", "sore", "upset" "losers" (btw, NICE JOB slamming the old guard and casting them as emotional whacko females, MR BALJI!!!!1111 I luvs how subtle you can get!).

One wonders why he's preaching the good old civil society value, the clash of ideas, to the old guard. If I'm reading the esteemed Mr Balji right, the onus is on the old guard to commit itself to a clash of ideas and show AWARE members that it deserves to get the organisation back.

As opposed to having the onus on the new guard to commit itself to a clash of ideas at the AGM itself - instead of stacking the meeting with their minions and getting themselves elected without a candid discussion of what they stood for, how they differed from who they sought to replace, and why they were no good for the future of AWARE.

But just so you know, PN Balji has more issues with the old losers than the new interlopers.

2. Clash of ideas - once more into the fray

But bless the pox-ridden heart of PN Balji! Deep down in his black soul, the man realises the sanctity of civil society and its core values.

Let's review: civil society is the conglomeration of free, uncoerced human association and its set of relational networks, formed for family, faith, interest, ideology. These networks would include interest groups, various clubs, labour unions, social movements, citizen advocacy groups and others.

The health of civil society depends on its constituents to freely and civilly engage in the clash of ideas that PN Balji so cherishes. It doesn't matter who you disagree or agree with, out of whichever ideology or faith - what matters is the freedom to engage, disengage, to foster patterns of civility in the polity, to create a sphere of social action independent of any totalising force.

Let us apply to the case of the AWARE takeover, the concept of civil society and its basic requirement for an open, honest, protected clash of ideas.

Much of the online wanking tossers - gays, conservatives, pseudo shock jocks, or fashionistas simply trying to grab recognition as serious political commentators - have come up with praises for the takeover - it worked, things like that happen in condo committee AGMs, this shows they're organised and effective (AND READY ON DAY ONE!)

I would not have believed that there are people who could be more blind than the esteemed PN Balji. But what we have here, is a failure to understand the concept of civil society and its underlying fundamentals. Civil society cannot exist if people stop talking to one another. Civil society cannot exist if people resort to violence. Civil society cannot exist if people are more interested in secretive, numerical-based power struggles instead of the clash of ideas.

The new AWARE exco did not behave as if AWARE was a civil society group. They behaved as if it were some condo committee. The new AWARE exco were the opposite of open, refusing to explain themselves in the AGM, or to offer what they saw was wrong with the old gang, or right with themselves. The new AWARE exco gave perfunctory speeches about their belief in the tenets of feminism, so perfunctory no one believed it was their real agenda. The new AWARE exco shot first, then promised to talk later. We're still waiting for them to give a clear account of who they are, what they believe in, and what they intend to do with AWARE.

On a side note, I would like to express my profound regret about Charlotte Wong Hock Soon and Peggy Leong Pek Kay. Wong was a former sociology and anthropology lecturer at NUS, while Leong was a sociology graduate. It is extremely embarrassing for the Sociology Department of NUS, as for its graduates, that these two persons hail from the same department. One would expect, from the wealth of wisdom and teaching from sociology and anthropology, that this sort of hostile takeover is just not done, and runs counter to the spirit of everything we have been taught about urban society and the civic space. Shame on the both of you!

A parable and lesson for the whiteshirts

Duly noted: taxi uncles setting MPs on fire, foreign non-talent workers deprived of wages (not even their fair wages), a full third of Singaporeans expecting to be retrenched, raised tempers at the shambolic job fairs ill-matching jobs to about-to-be retrenched white collar workers, and the unsurprising revelation that Shatec's casino school in China will most probably end up training the (obviously foreign) managers and heads who will boss around the (obviously local) low level flunkies who studied in Shatec's casino school in Singapore.

Aki's non-shrill anthropologist lecturer in university made a cryptic remark in class years ago:

Despite modern man's penchant for self-congratulation, urbanisation was never a recent invention. Look at history - more precisely, look at the dustbin of prehistory - and you'll find the great cities of Mezo and South America, the Indus valley, the floodplains of Mesopotamia, the plains of China and the jungles of Indochina: all rising in wealth, power and population until, for some unknown reason, these cities are suddenly abandoned, often without violence, and almost always without a trace of their former occupants.

And then: silence, for a few hundred years. Until the next brilliant mind invents the city again. We observe from written history that cities necessarily mean the accumulation of wealth, the specialisation of labour, the creation of class and caste, and hence social and economic inequality and stratification. And we merely speculate that urbanisation and what it entails can sometimes be too unbearable, the compromises too cutting and unliveable, and upon realising it, the people just simply walk away. Or pull down the stones, then walk away.



Der Mittler zwischen Hirn und Händen muss das Herz sein!

The liberal case for: rejecting the campaign to boycott DBS

Because I'm an equal opportunity insulter of stupid ideas, whether they originate from the left or right.

It was easy to heckle at FOTF Singapore's delicate dance with its chapterhouse in the US. If you thought the doubleminded doubletalk from FOTF Singapore was bad enough, the gay activists are treading an equally fine line on the issue of casus belli. Self-serving is the only word that is appropriate to describe their current actions.

Consider: What on earth did FOTF Singapore do to enrage the activists into a boycott of DBS?

As far as we know, DBS has set aside a percentage of its Christmas promotion to send money to FOTF Singapore. That may have been sufficient for gay overlord Alex Au and his group of Young Turks on facebook, but for any liberal, this cuts no ice.

Consider what would be an iron-clad justification for a boycott. Perhaps FOTF Singapore has waged open war on homosexuals, liberals, and women seeking abortion for as long as it existed?

But then, the open, eternal war was that of the chapterhouse in America. The last time FOTF Singapore made public statement on homosexuality was in 2003. Its stupidity justifiably attracted criticism, derision, and jokes. As a proud reality-based liberal, I challenge gay activists to show evidence that the organisation has not ceased in its war against them in public since then.

Perhaps FOTF Singapore, in paying daily columns in Today newspaper written by its chapterhouse in the US, is guilty of spreading virulent hatred against liberals, gays and women seeking abortion? Well, I challenge gay activists to furnish actual instances and quotes where Today printed a hate article by James Dobson and chapterhouse FOTF. They will come up with nothing.

Everywhere you look, there is no reality-based, evidence-rooted just cause for the boycott. And having a just cause is that important, because presumably you're fighting for the moral higher ground - and not engaging in an intimidation contest to see who can marshal the loudest proxies to sink the opponents' share of public opinion.

Was this the right project to scuttle?

So, what did FOTF Singapore do to drive our beloved gay activists into shrill unholy madness?

It turns out that DBS, the Far East Organisation, and even the paleo-Christian (i.e. the only protestants here who have a death-feud with the evangelicals, non-denominations, and political Christians) Tangs (who used to open after noon on Sundays because it wanted to give its Christian staff time for church) made the decision to support FOTF Singapore for the building of a learning centre for children with learning disabilities.

Alex Au and his trigger-happy radicalised young turks on facebook should consider themselves very, very lucky to have gotten away with their stupidity. Only because FOTF Singapore is even more stupid than them, and missed out on a huge publicity coup to plaster photographs of the beneficiaries of the learning-disabled children, and cry out Alex Au and the gay activists hate Christmas, hate the family, and hate the learning centre for learning-disabled children.

So here's an educational lesson for Alex Au and his gay facebook movement: In the reality based world, banks and rich organisations work vet the charities by vetting the charity projects they sponsor. In other words, DBS, Far East Organisation, and Tangs are not idiots - of course they did specify what type of projects they would allow FOTF to use their money for.

Alex Au and his gay facebook movement, on the other hand, are the real idiots in this saga, for failing to do their homework on how charity funding works, or even to ask very nicely where the money would be spent.

I hope that liberals in Singapore have not been so silly as to get recruited as convenient proxies for the gay agenda in what is clearly an animalistic, to the death fight with FOTF Singapore and its FOTF chapterhouse. Liberalism would have died an ugly death here, if Au and his ill-informed minions led a larger group of even less informed liberal sympathisers to wage war on DBS.

Just causes and just desserts

No matter how much or little we buy into FOTF Singapore's plausible deniability, there was no just cause for the boycott action - if the funding for a school for the learning-disabled isn't clear or embarrassing enough to Alex Au's horde.

As questionable as FOTF Singapore fundamentally is, this special school would be the least tainted of its social projects to date. It has been rewarded with such a reaction from the gay movement.

As liberals, we are not interested in an eternal war with conservatives. On the contrary, we would applaud whatever progressive projects they come up with, and support these projects in the hope that it encourages conservatives to focus MORE on progressive issues in the future instead of culture war issues.

The boycott campaign by the gay activists only serves to make such change and moderation impossible. Moreover, their actions can only encourage their opponents to stage reprisals in the same vein: namely, scuttling any positive social projects (HIV awareness, testing, drug subsidies, anyone?) by objecting to the mere presence of the gay activists and gay organisations involved in these projects.

Once again, as before, I call for the seppuku of Alex Au and his gay activist allies, and their exile from activism of ANY KIND. They're a bunch of clowns who endanger the gay movement and discredit liberalism in Singapore.

The conservative case for: Rejecting Focus on the Family Singapore

Elsewhere in blogland: a campaign to rail against the DBS sponsorship of the Singapore branch of Focus on the Family, spearheaded by Singapore's favourite gay overlord Alex Au and other more media-savvy activists. There is little to comment on the tired and self-serving propaganda battles between the gay activists and the family activists, except to note thus:

No religion please, we're Singaporeans

FOTF Singapore is a non-religious affiliate of the American evangelical FOTF founded by James Dobson.

The FOTF mother organisation in America has muscled its way into American politics and public policy. It is unashamed of what it sees as its religious mission to fight the cultural wars on the gays, liberals and their degenerate sexual mores, to protect its vision of a traditional family.

Yet the overseas branches of FOTF tend to display some reticence and even coy near-disavowal of the religious underpinnings of their pro-family activities and public policy positions.

As an exercise, you can search for full details of FOTF Singapore's charter here. You should find this:

1. To meet the heartfelt needs of families and to provide them with a legacy of solid marriages, stable homes, reverence for human life and sound moral principles that undergird the foundations of Family Life.

2. To publish, translate, produce, sell and distribute books, magazines, audio-cassettes, CDs, videos, films, radio and TV programmes, educational toys and other related resource materials relating to the promotion of Family Life.

3. To organize and promote talks, seminars, workshops, conferences, meetings, camps and special events and to train and provide counseling and mediation services on all matters affecting Family Life.

4. To conduct research, facilitate education and training on Family Life issues and to work with local and international institutions, organizations and government agencies to promote and propagate positive family values by whatever means and in whatever manner as may now or hereafter be available.

Compare with mothership FOTF's mission statement:

To cooperate with the Holy Spirit in sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ with as many people as possible by nurturing and defending the God-ordained institution of the family and promoting biblical truths worldwide.
Vision:

Redeemed families, communities, and societies worldwide through Christ.

The conservative case against FOTF

There is something to be said about the variance between the charters of the local FOTF and its chapterhouse in the US. For anyone who expects consistency if not truth, it is intolerable that the branch organisation be seen to hide its true ideological allegiance and ties to its mother organisation.

At best, this variance may be seen as a cynical attempt to gently skirt the religious and ideological issue in a society where the US evangelical culture-political wars hold very little traction. At worst, this is the sort of deceit practised by peaceful charities linked to nefarious terrorist organisations. And somewhere in between, whoever drew up the charter for the Singapore branch clearly understood that the religious angle of FOTF would have automatically prevented a successful registration with the Registry of Societies - proselytism being a no-no in Singapore's charity landscape. What follows is a cynical exercise in bad faith...

"No, don't look at us with those eyes. We're not really the same conservative Christian organisation as the one that bears our name in the United States. Even though theoretically we're a branch of that same organisation... we're really independent of them. Don't even think about Focus on the Family when you think of Focus on the Family Singapore."

By its very existence, Focus on the Family Singapore has already succeeded in making fools out of the Registry of Charities. Because of what they've done, any questionable, dangerous, or undesirable foreign organisation may now set up a proxy branch in Singapore that bears the same name, admit to being a branch, and yet pretend it has shares nothing of the ideology and principles of the mother organisation.

As a conservative, I expect honesty and consistency from any activist group. As a conservative, I'm shocked and appalled at the level of obfuscation and bad faith mirror-dressing of Focus on the Family Singapore. In its disowning of the religious commission behind its charter, the Singapore chapter has turned its face against God in a misguided attempt to appeal to the authorities and religiously-apathetic locals here.

Know your organisation! Call to Action

I urge all Christian conservatives to contact the office holders of Focus on the Family Singapore, to question them about the sincerity of their efforts and to demand they make a clear stand on whether religion guides their hearts when they run this organisation, and to rectify their misleading, Christ-denying charter.

From the same MCYS search page, contact these publicly known officers and office holders of FOTF Singapore:

President: Joanna Koh-Hoe Su Yin. We know that however much she wants to come across as a president of a non-religious organisation, she has given a sermon at the non-denominational River of Life Community Church. We hope she has more pride in her religion and fess up unashamedly of how it should guide her organisation.

Office holders:
Lee Wee Min. A Malaysian by birth, Lee is the president of FOTF Malaysia and has been more above board in that group's operations, openly organising seminars at Subang Methodist Church and giving a lecture on "Covenant Marriage" in his FOTF Malaysia capacity at Indonesia's Lippo-group linked Harvest International Theological Seminary.

Soh Gim Teik. CFO of Sincere Watch Company. Also Director of WWF-World Wide Fund for Nature (Singapore) Ltd.

Ho Sun Yee. Former CEO of Singapore Heart Foundation.

Wong Siu Hong Alfred. Founder, Managing Director and Executive Director of Noel Gifts International Ltd.

Tan Thuan Seng. Former President of FOTF Singapore.

Queer women within feminist Singapore

Part of Singapore's month-long gay pride celebration Indignation 2008, this talk might be its most important event as it best fits this year's theme of Building Bridges. Agagooga has declined to attend the talk due to his antipathy to the idea of feminists, but for the boy who grew up counting Murphy Brown (since 1989), Hillary Rodham Clinton (since 1991), and Ellen Degeneres (since 1994 - I loved the unconventional streak in her even before she came out) as his role models, this is a must-go event.

Ms. Constance Singam, current president of AWARE [Association of Women for Action & Research], Singapore’s leading advocacy group for gender equality, will shed some light on the place of queer women within the feminist movement. Where have we been?

Building bridges is terribly important. As is painfully clear with the years, the LGBT movement does not have much allies in the wider civil society. None vouched for PLU when it made its various attempts at formal registration. None fought alongside its members when they protested against the Liberty League and NPVC. When its NLB/Spell#7 event was pulled out by the NAC, none of the rest of civil society groups featured in the event came to its defense. During the 377A debate, the community could only count on the theatre community for its endorsement as a community, and on AWARE.

For me, this talk held the possibility that the recounting by Ms Singam would provide a guideline, some clues, or a blueprint for the LGBT community to build bridges to the wider civil society.

1. Perhaps I was naive, but only the L part of the community turned out in force. Maybe the men didn't need to learn how to build alliances...

2. Constance Singam made what amounted to a manifesto for civil society today. The statement may have eluded its audience, but I'll repeat it here for posterity (making allowances for imperfect memory and lack of access to the presentation slides):

We are engaged in a project to change the unsatisfactory [limited, intolerant] paradigm of Singapore society, to create a truly diverse, inclusive, and tolerant society

This is a core statement that any liberal civil society group in Singapore can affirm and base their future cooperation and coordination on. A future Singapore that is more likely to accept homosexuality would most probably be as likely to support non-discrimination of women, unfettered citizen participation in policy discourse, and so on.

This statement was the single most important gift Ms Singam gave to the LGBT community in attendance today. What follows is whether they see the point of building strategic alliances and cooperating with other groups on projects where their values and interests overlap, and standing up for other groups - even if it's not on an explicitly LGBT issue.

Questions and Answers

The Q&A session provided a clear picture of where the LGBT movement and AWARE stand, in relation to each other.

3. Classic feminism vs identity politics

Singam formulated AWARE's fundamental ethic as the support of diversity and rejection of all discrimination. That means supporting all women - regardless of race, age, class, gender orientation, and what have you.

Most interestingly, the response from the audience was to question the fairness of this adherence to "general diversity" - as I understand it, they wanted AWARE to
have lesbian-specific programmes and be explicitly pro-lesbian - because being just "pro general diversity" is apparently as good as being heteronormative.

I think I need to point out, on behalf of Singam, that look: AWARE is bound to serve ALL women. Its pro general diversity stand should be a guarantee that it will NEVER have an anti-lesbian agenda, and that the policies it champions will at least make Singapore better to live in, for the FEMALE part of any lesbian person.

Which brings me to the next observation: 4. AWARE is not the gahment.

The overall impression from all the beseeching of the audience was that they wanted AWARE to spoonfeed the LGBT community with all the answers [i.e. come out with explicitly in support of LGBT issues, formulate pro-lesbian policy recommendations, etc].

Unfortunately, this is not how civil society works. Every group has limited capital and manpower. Every group needs to have a clear set of objectives that mustn't be diluted. AWARE is your ally, not your maid. Their charter is to serve all women, without distinction. Without. Distinction.

In other words: there will be times when AWARE's goals and interests will overlap, intersect with the LBGT community's. That will be an opportunity to collaborate. And this is why they must be counted as allies in the wider civil society.

Further, it's troubling that the LGBT activists (whom Singam believes are more well-funded than AWARE) expect AWARE to do the spoonfeeding and heavy lifting for the community... when AWARE itself is direly short of funds and is probably overextended on the manpower front.

5. AWARE is not the oppressor of lesbians

I'm saddened that this point has to be made. Yes, AWARE's membership has lots of lesbians. That these lesbians have not deemed it necessary to declare their orientation, is not a BAD thing nor indicative of something rotten within the organisation.

A. AWARE's activist culture is general diversity. I take it to mean that they're a bunch of race-blind, age-blind, gender-blind people who would of course not see sexuality as something they should divide women with.

[I know it sounds weird, but what was Singam's idea of an ideal Singaporean man again? As I recall, Singam feels the ideal Singaporean man is the same as the ideal Singaporean woman; and that men can be just as feminist as women can be. In other words, AWARE's second-wave inclusive liberal feminism is completely at odds with the exclusive identity-based activism of latter-day activist movements]

B. LGBT activists in Singapore should be aware that there are gay and lesbian people who would very much prefer to dedicate themselves to other causes, or to swear allegiance to other, more general ideals like the betterment of all women, or to the liberal project. And that this isn't a wrong decision. Because in the end, everyone will still end up collaborating once in a while in the shared liberal project to change/subvert the dominant paradigm.

Brain surgery - what's inside the heads of homophobes?

Part of Singapore's month-long gay pride celebration Indignation 2008, the eponymous talk attracted the attention and interest of Agagooga and myself. [Yes, we attended the talk together and I typed the notes on his laptop - happy picture of us live-blogging (or note-taking, as it turned out that 72-13 had no wireless@sg network) at event to come, courtesy of the official photographers from Sayoni].

Brain surgery - what’s inside the heads of homophobes? AnJ Ho will take you inside homophobia, to find out from the perspective of research: What constitutes homophobia? What’s the profile of a typical homophobe like, and what might make a difference?

There are several possibilities that suggest themselves from a title like this: as Agagooga points out in his blog post, it is highly provocative:

try turning it around: "Brain surgery - what's inside the heads of homosexuals". Surely, such an event would be labelled homophobic sooner than you could say "rim me now". Given that the theme of the festival is "Building Bridges: Indignation 2008", the title was especially puzzling.

To me, the title raised the possibility that the talk would about giving people who have negative attitudes towards homosexuality a bad name, and/or possibly raising up strawmen arguments of people unaccepting of homosexual (the aforesaid "homophobes").

As Agagooga points out, thanks to the saner heads of Sayoni and its event speaker AnJ, the worst of our fears did not come to pass. This is my report on the talk.

1. The psychological construction of homophobia

We were relieved that the talk consisted of a literature review of homophobia from the psychological perspective, and AnJ was more than qualified and trained to conduct this talk.

That said, being scientific wasn't really a guarantee against the potential pitfalls of the title of the talk: the study of homophobia by psychologists is apparently a new field, and a working definition of 'homophobia' (currently defined as a score in the Wright, Adams, and Bernat Homophobia Scale), hasn't been agreed on by the experts in the field - who are still in the process of fine-tuning their methodology.

Second warning sign: other researchers in this field have acknowledged that homophobia isn't even a real (clinical) 'phobia'. For simplicity's sake, we know that personal and public acceptance of homosexuality runs along a scale, but 'homophobe studies' makes the leap into turning a emotion-leaden phrase (homophobe) into... a subject of study.

Third warning sign: Sociologists of medicine and those familiar with Michel Foucault's Birth of the Clinic will recognise with discomfort from AnJ's overview of current Abnormal Psych research, the all too familiar strategy of grand medical science: the creation of a clinical scale for a brand new phenomena (homophobia); of a field of knowledge, with objects of knowledge, subjected to a medical gaze that asks: What are the answers a good (nonhomophobic) person should conform to and report?

Presumably anyone who disapproves of homosexuality in any way could be labelled as a diseased and unnatural "homophobe".

Of course this is highly problematic: More than a century ago, the psychological profession used a set of methods, strategy, and rhetoric to classify homosexuality as a condition; today, the psychological profession uses the same methods etc. to create new 'abnormalities of human psychology' to include "internet addiction" and now... homophobia.

I have no doubts that the researchers cited by AnJ were acting in the purest of motives - yet the studies cited are extremely troubling, and Agagooga raises doubts of the assumptions and methodology of the experiments carried out in "Homophobia and physical aggression toward homosexual and heterosexual individuals", as well as the validity of the questions used in the WAB scale, which I do not have anything new to add.

An interesting note about the alternate "functional theory" of homophobia - more time should have been spent to explain what's a functional theory and how this one differs from the rest of the night's offerings. My personal analysis of the slide: functional theory approach may explain 'homophobia' as a manifestation of boundary maintenance behaviour, but does not explain why it takes the form of homophobia specifically - this may mean homophobia is not a special condition and homosexuals aren't all that special - they're just being discriminated against like any other minority and out-group.

2. Profiling the homophobe

While other social scientists (notably Ronald Inglehart and his World Values Survey) have confirmed the correlation between lower acceptance of homosexuality with religion, age and education, I fail to see the wisdom in launching from this fact into a hatchet job on "conservatism", which the speaker blamed for the ills of racism, classicism, sexism, intolerance, inequality and authoritarianism.

Here's your history lesson of the day: the suffragette movement only gained traction when Susan B Anthony got the conservatives on board; the abolition movement was very much the effort of very religious people; the "solid (racist) South" used to be the province of liberal Democrats before they crossed party lines to join the Republicans. Last I heard, authoritarianism isn't the sole province of the conservative right.

This particular section of the talk was thankfully short, taking only paltry 3 slides of a total of about 20, and being the 3 of the slightest slides of the presentation. That the speaker got sufficiently carried away to raise the hatchet on conservatism or blame homophobia (note: not the same as 'low acceptance of homosexuality') on people being older, less educated, and therefore unenlightened... tsk.

3. Breaking news: Everyone's a little bit racist (should we pathologise them too?)

Lest readers think I'm being unfair to the speaker, allow me to report some of the Q&A responses from the floor: Several audience members told several anecdotes highlighting the point that LGBTs themselves make disparaging remarks about each other that straight people would be labelled homophobes if caught using.

A member of the audience also pointed out/weakly objected to the apparent rush to medicalise/pathologise homophobia as a condition.

I'm not sure if the speaker got the import of what these audience members were hinting. The dialogue that would have resulted would have served to clear up questions about the assumptions of homophobia studies for everyone, including Agagooga and myself.

4. Conclusion: Eye for an eye makes the world go blind: How not to build bridges

If the psychological profession used to create a homosexual subject, criminalise and pathologise 'homosexuality', it appears that the same profession is now being used to create a homophobic subject, to criminalise and pathologise 'homophobia'.

I'm flabbergasted. I don't get it. According to the banner on Sayoni, Indignation 2008 is dedicated to "Building Bridges". I don't get how this talk builds bridges, and who it will build any bridges with, given it ultimately did end up being about giving people who have negative attitudes towards homosexuality a bad name.

As a talk, it has succeeded in giving a fair overview of current research in the field of abnormal psychology, as well as avoid creating strawmen arguments for the opposition, but failed in the sense that:

99.9% of the audience already know how the opposition behaves, what they tend to say about the acceptance of homosexuality, and how to spot the opposition a mile off.

While interesting to know what motivates opponents of homosexual acceptance, the talk failed to develop strategies of building bridges and civil engagement with them.

While glib and entertaining, the stereotyping of 'homophobes' failed to suggest a way to divide and conquer, or to handle them.

If the speaker had prepared by searching for studies about acceptance/non-acceptance of homosexuality instead of homophobia (thanks, Alex Au, for sabotaging AnJ with just one line of advice!), and taken a far wider interdisciplinary perspective, it could have been a truly well-researched and informative talk.

Instead of building bridges, the talk ultimately did to 'homophobes' what had been done upon to LGBT; and embraced the eye for an eye logic of its title. That Alex Au persuaded AnJ to change the title of her talk to this is proof enough of its disturbing, incendiary logic.

Evidently several audience members got the dog-whistle too, and were infected with it: possessing a laptop on which we used to type notes during the talk, an audience member was jittery enough to mistake us for Christian fundies out to sabotage/picket the talk, and pointedly asked if "the two gentlemen in the corner [that is, myself and Agagooga] are from a religious organisation". I suppose that when you give your talk a name like that, people from the religious organisations will want to crash and picket your talk. Ergo: How does this build bridges?

Never mind that Agagooga and myself are natural allies of the LGBT community - Agagooga having been flamed and threatened by Christian fundies, while I have declared my opposition to the National Council of Christian Ayatollahs Singapore - if the two gentlemen had been any other blogger (aka "potential liberal ally") than Agagooga and myself, that one statement from the audience member would have cost the community our support, right there and then.

Again: By giving this talk such a name that somehow signals to audience members of possible 'enemy participants' and heightening their paranoia, how does this build bridges?

I'd disagree vehemently and gladly debate with anyone subscribing to stupid conceptions of homosexuality, but I'd defend their right to believe in such nonsense - rather than try to get them institutionalised, pathologised, marginalised out of the conversation and labelled as 'abnormal'.

Unlike Agagooga, I intend to attend more Indignation events, namely Queer Women within Feminist Singapore, on Saturday.

In other news:

I'm back.

I sent an email to Thio and all I got was this lousy T-shirt

Part 2 of 2

I hope you're happy... I hope you're happy now! I hope you're happy how you've hurt your cause forever, I hope you think you're clever...

Poor Kway Teow Man is flabbergasted at why some gay activists say that even though the failure to repeal Section 377A was as expected, this was a sign of progress.

Why ye of little faith, have ye no faith in the Father of the Singapore Gay Equality Movement? Question not the judgement of the Bread That Yawneth! For assuredly, there is victory in defeat! Life in death! Honour in debasement! Just like how Alex Au finds victory in his failures to get gay interest group PLU registered as a society, our efforts to repeal 377A have resulted in a resounding victory that must be shouted from the rooftops and echoed in basement carparks! And you too of little faith and much naivete, yes you: Kway Teow Man, you too shall cheer along with us in this historic triumph that will be recorded in the annals of history, and recited by Singaporean schoolchildren of the future in their gay civics class!

Oh yes, indeed, the greatest achievement Alex Au has contributed to the victory of our cause is when NMP Thio Li-ann (whom Alfian Sa'at wishes would "douses herself with the petrol of her own rhetoric and lights the match unaided") became the victim of a second threatening note!

Oh yes, Alex Au, there's no need to be so modest =D "I will totally condemn any malicious letters. It's completely against the spirit of civil discourse and democracy", you say to Li Xueying. Oh no, don't you dare pile it on by saying you have "made it known in gay forums that any criticism should be issues-based rather than targeted at the person."

My leader, do not belabour yourself! We hear you loud and clear, and we get your nudge nudge wink wink!

O Kway Teow Man, look and learn! Rookie reporter Li Xueying clearly is no match for the witty wits of our esteemed repeal 377A commander in chief! He has run circles around her, for nowhere in the SIGNEL gay forum has he explicitly advised his legions of gay activists who dedicate themselves fully to the gay agenda that they have to be "issues-based rather than target at the person"!

In fact, in the entire month of October leading up to today, Alex Au has mostly posted without comment, several news articles and essays regarding gay issues in Singapore and around the world! In his only 2 posts where he does make any personal comment, it was to ask our 21st Keyboard Legions to find sources to corroborate or demolish a claim that Andy Ho made, as usual without citing his sources! And in the 1 week between Alfian Sa'at and the second threatening note, Alex Au has made a total of 0 comments on the issues of civility, civil discourse, or democracy in the gay forums!

O Kway Teow Man, look and learn from the matchless machinations of warmaster Alex Au! For clearly he no longer uses the gay forums to issue his pronouncements! No, open your mind, humble yourself in a mind of servitude, and direct your willing ears to the Bread that Yawns! Here you see the Warmaster's only pronouncement on malice, civil discourse and democracy in the light of the fight to repeal 377A!

For clearly, young KTM, as Alex's article is titled: there are LIMITS TO CIVILITY! Yes, the spirit of civil discourse has a limit. For the shrill stalking and malicious machinations of Thio on the 377A repeal has bent the mind of poor Alfian Sa'at and caused him to issue a somewhat embarrassing email to her... And who do we blame, young KTM? Of course the blame is with NMP Thio!

"I would not crown civility as supreme in all situations." Indeed so, my liege and lord!

"When the Religious Right (and this includes Thio) are out to bludgeon me psychologically, socially and politically, they don't deserve respect or civility from me. Nor from Alfian and thousands, thousands more." And indeed so, my liege and lord!

And it is no wonder, praise Alex Au, that the wise have heeded, and the willing have put into action Alex's desire that Thio and her Religious Right collaborators no longer deserve any civility or respect!

My friend, Alfian Sa'at did not do anything we should be ashamed of! On the contrary, his bold attack must be defended by pointing out that Thio deserves no civility nor respect - and that thousands more people should boldly attack her! Follow the footsteps and heed the pronouncements of our great leader Alex Au!

But seriously, the repeal 377A campaign doesn't need Thio Li-ann, the fundie churches, or a Parliament stacked with conservatve and Christian MPs as their enemies. They merely need Alex Au, and that is sufficient.

I weighed in the 377A debate and all I got was this lousy T-shirt

Part I of 2

I hope you're happy... I hope you're happy now! I hope you're happy how you've hurt your cause forever, I hope you think you're clever...

Fellow conservatives, Professor Thio Li-ann has failed us all. I speak of course about her contributions in the 377A debate, of her fiery speech in Parliament and her defence of how fundamental religious viewpoints must be allowed expression in public policy making in the context of a secular society.

But wait, you say. Did the eminent Professor Thio, in her impassioned speech, not scuttle the gay agenda to repeal 377A, and halt our nation's slippery slide into the endorsement of homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle, gay marriages, and weekly gay pride beach parties at Sentosa? What can possibly be lacking in how Thio has served the conservative cause, you ask.

We must go back to the first principles: What is an NMP supposed to do? Who is Thio Li-ann, and why has she been appointed to serve as an NMP? Is she serving her role as an NMP, in a manner that adheres to constitutional and historical expectations of NMPs?

As the constitution states, the list of candidates are proposed by the public to the Special Select Committee, who eventually appoint the Non-Elected Member of Parliament.

The criteria for selection?

The persons to be nominated shall be persons who have rendered distinguished public service, or who have brought honour to the Republic, or who have distinguished themselves in the field of arts and letters, culture, the sciences, business, industry, the professions, social or community service or the labour movement; and in making any nomination, the Special Select Committee shall have regard to the need for nominated Members to reflect as wide a range of independent and non-partisan views as possible.

In practice, all NMPs have been chosen for their expertise in their respective fields, or for their leadership roles in civil society groups, special interest groups, or minority groups. Hence, the list of NMPs include Malay businessmen, law professors, the heads of aging associations, AWARE, environmentalists, and so on. These NMPs have steered Parliament through difficult issues, providing their professional views and unique viewpoints. This is a system that, despite serving to co-opt dissent and opposition into a "non-elected" representation scheme, works.

And then, we have Thio Li-ann. She's a law professor, an expert in constitutional law and human rights law. She's not uncritical of the NMP scheme, and very critical of the changes Parliament has made to the Elected Presidency since its creation. By all accounts, Prof Thio understands the role she is expected to play.

Back in her appointment to the non-elected seat, she proposes several areas of jurisdiction that she expects to advise Parliament on. They are all constitutional issues - "She wants to scrutinise legislation on the Elected Presidency, for example, and probe further into the mechanics and powers of the presidency." (Lynn Lee and Sue-ann Chia, "Looking forward to advance the debate", in ST Review, 9 Feb 2007)

Note there is no mention of her staking out the repeal of 377A as a platform she is interested in. Nor does 377A fit coherently in the bag of issues that her expertise should touch on. Yet for all this, Professor Thio's maiden speech in Parliament is a pungent, stinging attack on homosexuality. Yet for all this, her entire attack on homosexuality was based on the morality and moral repugnance argument. Her subsequent articles in the Straits Times defends her attacks as a legitimate expression of religious convictions in a secular state.

In the midst of all this, it is easy to forget that Thio Li-ann is an NMP selected for her expertise in the law. One would have expected, if Thio were indeed fulfilling her role as prescribed in articles 39.1.c and 44.1 of the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution of Singapore and as established in the practice of her predecessors, that Thio would have at least provided the one viewpoint and area of expertise that her colleagues in the entire Parliament could not.

But we haven't heard her speak from a legal or constitutional basis on the 377A debate. Astonishingly for a legal expert charged with educating the nation's future lawyers, there is not a bit of legal theory in it. Where, when we need her expertise most, is the legal reasoning whether to keep or repeal 377A? Where, when the debate is clouded with categorical morality arguments from the right and unbending liberal rhetoric from the left, is the voice of reason, the clear-headed and non-partisan voice of a law professor?

Instead, we find that we might as well have elected Pastor Kong Hee as the NMP, who could have given the same speech Thio gave in Parliament.

If there is a constitutional argument for not repealing 377A (note that I do have one for repealing 377A!), Thio Li-ann has not made it known. Shocking! She could well be batting for the gays, since her utter reliance on the moral repugnance argument suggests that there isn't a constitutional argument for keeping 377A.

The pro-377A faction doesn't need an Alex Au, a gay agenda, or a well-organised campaign as their enemies. They have Thio Li-ann, and that is sufficient.

The same problem, elsewhere

UK politician steps down for questioning immigration policy

The row over the Midlands candidate was ignited after the Observer reported details of his column in the local Express and Star newspaper, in which he claimed that "we roll out the red carpet for foreigners while leaving the locals to fend for themselves ..."

Also related:
Intra-EU immigration patterns, via takchek.

One way to shift the focus of the debate, to neutralise the Whiteshirt playbook of maligning critics of its FT policy as revanchists playing up the politics of envy, is to note that the cosmopolitan/heartlander, FT/native debates and fissures... are a result of late capitalism under the sign of the elite global labour market... that creates the same problem and social fissures in every country.

We who despair over this country's ridiculously lax FT immigration policy do so not because we are parochial, near-sighted, and not cosmopolitan enough - but precisely because we are aware of how this problem is replayed in every country whose labour market is as free as ours.

The conservative case for 377A

Gabriel Seah has recently argued that the energies of the state and the activist citizens of Singapore should not be spent on a campaign to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code. The act criminalises homosexual sex as unnatural gross indecency, yet for all that it's worth, various leaders of the state (i.e. father and son) have stressed repeatedly that this law will not be enforced.

For male homosexuals in Singapore, a curious state of affairs now exist: the very acts that some say define their existence are illegal, yet these theoretical criminals are free to practise their lifestyle choices, free of legal persecution. J.Tan may froth at the mouth, alleging continued persecutions of homosexuals, but the fact remains - and is acknowledged even by Alex Au, leader of the gay equality movement in Singapore, that the only instances of prosecution since 1988 have been in cases involving minors, non-consensual sexual activity and public play.

Practically speaking, gay people can pretty much practise whatever they want, wherever they want, in the privacy of their homes or business establishments (clubs, spas, etc). They are free even now to strike up friendships in singles bars, attend the ubiquitous gay-themed plays at Theatreworks and other stage productions, and so on. We can no longer speak of active persecutions, only the usual restrictions against political organisation (aka registration of PLU) and perhaps civil marriage (a fight for another day) and inheritance and maintenance of spouse and surviving children (then again, HDB rules disadvantage single mothers too).

Yet for a conservative, this fine balance or legal impasse is intolerable. Singapore is first and foremost a nation run by the rule of law. That we as a populace observe its laws, that Singapore as a polity lays down laws and regulations, is the key to its success. Singapore is not a cowboy town, not a free-for-all; we are not ruled by strongmen and robber barons, for our laws ensure that Singapore is seen as a predictable and safe place to do business, and to nurture businesses.

Singapore, run by the rule of law, is seen as a well-run polity. Laws are reasonable and logical, otherwise they won't be laws. Our legislators make good laws, simplify complicated ones, and remove those that no longer serve the state.

Our leaders refuse to enforce Section 377A for moral reasons: Minilee believes that "some people are like that and some people are not. How they live their own lives is really for them to decide, it's a personal matter." In other words, this law is not enforced because it does not have a legal basis.

For it to remain on the books is to say that we have a law where the leaders forbid the police to enforce, the attorney-general to prosecute, and the judges to administer. Given that we all agree not to enforce 377a, not repealing it means that we now proclaim to the world Singapore does not take its laws seriously - some laws will never be enforced because they are wrong and baseless, yet there they are on the statutes, as fully legal as every other law on the statutes...

If one law is seen to be unfair yet legal, legal yet unenforced, then we make a mockery of the system, and encourage people to think they too can decide which laws society should not enforce. Worse, we encourage a mindset where people disrespect the legal framework and undermine it. By letting one toothless law stay on the statutes just for show, the government of Minilee encourages others to cherry pick other laws as possibly unfair, just for show, and deserving of flouting.

Because one law does not apply, others will be encouraged to rely on their own personal interpretations of the constitution, to discover for themselves other laws that should not apply. Then as every man becomes the law unto himself, the rule of law will no longer hold sway in Singapore, chaos and riots will break out, and Singapore will be finished.

Singapore must not just be seen as a place where the rule of law prevails, but where the rule of law must be seen to prevail. Given that Section 377A is seen as legally unsound, that it is unenforceable, that the guardians of the state refuse to enforce it, they must therefore take steps to ensure that the law is struck down, and Singapore's legal framework is not undermined by this unenforced law.

Sedition! Russian Edition

Jonathan Eyal (read as "isle") is the research director of the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies, and also apparently the correspondent for the Straits Times Europe bureau in London. On most days of the week, Eyal has a doctorate in International Law and Relations, and is by all means a respectable military historian and analyst.

Of course, respectable is a relative term; as a respectable analyst and Eastern Europe specialist, Eyal was part of the intellectual community that facilitated and provided justifications for the conquest and occupation of Serbia, but still he did deconstruct the GWOT for the charade that it is.

What I do not get is how Eyal manages to be a ST correspondent on some days of the week. Note that whenever he talks about Europe, it is almost always through a libertarian set of glasses: Europe outside UK is almost always economically sclerotic, addled with overtaxed citizens paying for exorbitant and inefficient social welfare, losing the civilisational will to live in contrast to its immigrants and probable heirs, the Muslim immigrants. And so on, and so forth. While not supportive of Bush, Eyal has made a living supporting any European leader who supported Bush. And so on, and so forth.

Here's Jonathan Eyal on Putin's Power Play:

"Russian President Vladimir Putin has indicated that he intends to retain political influence when he steps down from the presidency... By accepting to lead United Russia - the country's biggest political formation - he could become the next prime minister.

It all sounds cleverly simple: a new figurehead president will be elected to respect existing constitutional provisions, while Mr Putin continues to run the show as prime minister...

Top powers will have to be granted to the government rather than the head of state. Furthermore, Russian prime ministers are not popular for long. They are expected to take controversial decisions..."

Eyal muses therefore that "Mr Putin... could become a kingmaker from the sidelines."

"But this scenario would be even more confusing. Governments and investors would have to deal with officials who, despite their formal titles, would have no real power, while the man really pulling the strings would have no official position."

I'm sure Jonathan Eyal would have realised that's how Sonia Gandhi is the leader of India even though she isn't the President of India.

And looking closer to who's paying for Eyal's bills, he might as well have saved us the sight of reading yet another "analysis article" (WTH is it that all his analysis articles are in the news section and not the op/eds?) if he just wrote a 4-word article:

Senior Minister Vladimir Putin

Malicious, mendacious, and meretricious

Recently in the news, 3 major challenges facing Singapore getting some discussion in the current Parliament session.

1. The re-tweaking of CPF, the annuity, and the "Longevity Insurance"

Goodness knows why the government of Minilee has finally acknowledged that the average Singaporean is still unable to have any significant savings when they retire.

Of course, Minilee holds fast to the sacred tenet that Singapore Must Never Have Social Welfare - nevermind that Singapore's healthcare, education, public libraries, and housing are funded and discounted by the state in what appears to be classic social welfare policies. Instead, the Dear Leader reiterates that Singaporeans must continue to save on their own, with minimal support from the state, which will of course from time to time adjust and introduce a few schemes here and there.

"Oh most gracious Minilee, our poor cannot afford to feed themselves once they retire! What shall we do?"

"Let them eat their CPF savings and annuities!"

2. Employment of seniors

Not entirely unrelated to the fact that one can't retire in Singapore without sinking into poverty is Minilee's push for employers to start hiring seniors. Bravo!

But let's not forget that Goh Chok Tong had previously pushed for this idea as well, but without bothering to make it a compulsory law, because our leaders would rather be seen as pro-elderly, but not at the expense of business interests.

And so it is that Minilee has taken steps to assure business interests that even if he decides to draft a law to make them to hire seniors, they'll be sheltered from the worst. The compromise, apparently floated by Minilee, is to let companies only pay for the basic health insurance of elderly workers.

BASIC HEALTH INSURANCE. But aren't seniors more prone to developing complications if they fall ill? Ah, I guess Minilee wants to save companies from footing the bills when the seniors in their employ get seriously sick!

3. The optimal population and foreign talent

Not discussed in this Parliament so far, but take note that according to Dear Leader's great plan, we're 2 million shy of the optimal population of Singapore, and hence the need to import even more foreign talent.

Not wholly unrelated to the influx of FTs are a corresponding hike in rentals of private properties that these expats tend to exclusively go for. It's simple economics, but they're now complaining of the ridiculous rents, the hardship it's causing and might even begin to leave in droves.

Welcome to Singapore, I say! Now you Foreign Talents finally have a taste of what every local experiences on a daily basis: having to pay for lodging that eats up most of your savings! How do you suppose Singaporeans end up cash poor and asset rich when they retire? Again, it's simple economics, and now I hope FTs will finally realise why the hell Singaporeans complain so much about their government.

But just so you know, Minilee claims that it's not true Singapore is only for the rich.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the government of Minilee.

Holy real estate, Batman!

Via Asiabuilders:

Capitaland joins with Rock Productions (aka the business arm of New Creation Church!) to build a $600 million lifestyle hub at Buona Vista...

Holy real estate, Batman!

"COME 2011, a futuristic-looking lifestyle hub with a 5,000-seat theatre, restaurants, shops, chill-out wine bars and even dance clubs will emerge in Buona Vista."

Guess who's going to use the 5,000-seat theatre? And will the alcoholic version of Cafe Galilee operate the wine bars? Inquiring minds want to know!

"Designed by Mr Andrew Bromberg of Aedas Hong Kong, it will have eight levels of civic and cultural space, and four levels of retail and entertainment space."

Yup, Rock Productions will manage the 8 levels of "civic and cultural space", which I bet is some crypto-fundie term for "NCC and NCC-related enterprises space"...

But heck, since Rock Productions invested 280 mil out of the 660, it gets a cut out of any rental profits that come out of the retail and entertainment space as well. Whaddaya know, the church has hit on a plan to accumulate fat profits, through its Jesus Mall!

Up next: Consumers for Christ! Or knowing the Singapore megachurch, Capitalists for Christ. Will someone be so kind as to deregister CHC as a non-profit religious group and start taxing the hell out of them like we do any other business?

Architectures of Control

From the introduction to Architectures of Control:

Increasingly, many products are being designed with features that intentionally restrict the way the user can behave, or enforce certain modes of behaviour. The same intentions are also evident in the design of many systems and environments.

I usually add to my blogroll without much fanfare, but here's a site that I would make some noise about. And I'm sure Singaporean readers would find this fascinating - architectures of control exist everywhere in the world, and it's time we start recognising in our own landscape, geography, and urban design as well.

Need proof of this blog's mandatory reading status? You might want to begin with:

Casino design and slot machine winning chances
Why your third-party battery lasts shorter on a Nokia
The default choice in OSes, programmes, and Starbucks
How airports keep people moving