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.
23 July 2006
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.
30 June 2006
Fevre Dream
4 days facing wave after wave of high fever. And dear reader, you too must wait for the final wave to break.
Beyond the waves lie a flood of articles that I hope to publish during the weekend. Some of these topics are old... but I assure you, no one will write them like me.
10 short notes on sedition: The National Council of Churches
10 short notes on sedition: what other guidelines should demarcate a clear case from a frivolous case?
The brilliant timing of STOMP: lessons and a warning to the local blogosphere
IPS post-election survey
Finally, here's some good news to cheer about. SCOTUS rules Guantanamo military tribunals are illegal. Court opinion here.
Beyond the waves lie a flood of articles that I hope to publish during the weekend. Some of these topics are old... but I assure you, no one will write them like me.
10 short notes on sedition: The National Council of Churches
10 short notes on sedition: what other guidelines should demarcate a clear case from a frivolous case?
The brilliant timing of STOMP: lessons and a warning to the local blogosphere
IPS post-election survey
Finally, here's some good news to cheer about. SCOTUS rules Guantanamo military tribunals are illegal. Court opinion here.
22 June 2006
Pensées: 10 short notes on sedition
Part I
1. Sedition complements treason and martial law: treason controls primarily the establishment, the civil service, the police and the army; martial law frightens heartlanders; and sedition frightens intellectuals.
(with apologies to Curtis Breight)
2. "The police will investigate when someone complains about offensive material on the Internet because it can have an impact on the public" - Wong Kan Seng, 17 June 2006
What counts as overreaction in a case of sedition? Even in the bad old days when the sedition laws were designed, sedition - like treason - was an accusation not lightly made, a charge not taken up by the state unless there was a clear case to answer to.
Here, Deputy Minister Wong Kan Seng shows his utter disregard for the common law, acceptable procedure, and common sense. An individual makes a police report, complaining that certain pictures posted were offensive to Christians, ergo damaging the racial and religious harmony of Singapore, ergo seditious.
Yet any man with common sense will ask: are the pictures really seditious? do they offend Christians? a vast majority of Christians? to the extent of inciting riots?
Any man with common sense will state: material that mildly offend, that a sizeable proportion of Christians do not find offensive, is not seditious and warrants no investigation.
Any man with common sense and more brains will believe there must be clear guidelines to prosecute only cases that are offensive enough to threaten the population. Otherwise, unchecked, this leads not to the preservation of racial and religious harmony that Minilee so loves and will do anything to protect (anything, including allowing the frivolous prosecution of mildly offensive bloggers), but the creation of a frivolously litigious society most feared by Papalee, who reformed Singapore's legal system to avoid just this sort of scenario.
The system needs to distinguish, at the earliest stage, what constitutes a genuine case of religious sedition and what is evidently a frivolous application, a mendacious attempt by a lone gunman to create a litigious society - and worse, a frivolously litigious society via the proxy of mandatory police investigations for any and every allegation of sedition.
Reprise: "The police will investigate when someone complains about offensive material on the Internet because it can have an impact on the public" - Wong Kan Seng, 17 June 2006
Any single person can complain over any alleged slight, any perceived insult? And the police will investigate? Thank you for encouraging every nutcase. Thank you for turning Singapore into a country of intolerant assholes who sic the police on anyone they disagree with. This is a clear indication of how vastly incompetent the Deputy Prime Minister is, of how much he values hot-headed, hard line rhetoric over cool sensibility, of fostering intolerance and tearing apart the social fabric of Singapore over creating a real legal framework that protects it.
3. "Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng on Saturday apologised for the way the police overreacted to a group of school girls' plan to sell and wear white elephant T-shirts at the opening of Buangkok Station." - The Straits Times, 22 January 2006
We eagerly await the inevitable apology from DPM Wong Kan Seng to Char and the citizens of Singapore, over the overreaction of the police and his own overreaction in the press. It seems that Wong has a certain proclivity towards overreaction, to using the police as a vicious dog to maul undeserving schoolgirls and bloggers. It seems Wong has the illusion that he is the chief of the Gestapo instead of a senior cabinet minister in a country with respectable and reasonable legal procedures.
For his mendacity, incompetence and sheer disconnection from reality, impeach DPM Wong Kan Seng! Impeach him NOW!
1. Sedition complements treason and martial law: treason controls primarily the establishment, the civil service, the police and the army; martial law frightens heartlanders; and sedition frightens intellectuals.
(with apologies to Curtis Breight)
2. "The police will investigate when someone complains about offensive material on the Internet because it can have an impact on the public" - Wong Kan Seng, 17 June 2006
What counts as overreaction in a case of sedition? Even in the bad old days when the sedition laws were designed, sedition - like treason - was an accusation not lightly made, a charge not taken up by the state unless there was a clear case to answer to.
Here, Deputy Minister Wong Kan Seng shows his utter disregard for the common law, acceptable procedure, and common sense. An individual makes a police report, complaining that certain pictures posted were offensive to Christians, ergo damaging the racial and religious harmony of Singapore, ergo seditious.
Yet any man with common sense will ask: are the pictures really seditious? do they offend Christians? a vast majority of Christians? to the extent of inciting riots?
Any man with common sense will state: material that mildly offend, that a sizeable proportion of Christians do not find offensive, is not seditious and warrants no investigation.
Any man with common sense and more brains will believe there must be clear guidelines to prosecute only cases that are offensive enough to threaten the population. Otherwise, unchecked, this leads not to the preservation of racial and religious harmony that Minilee so loves and will do anything to protect (anything, including allowing the frivolous prosecution of mildly offensive bloggers), but the creation of a frivolously litigious society most feared by Papalee, who reformed Singapore's legal system to avoid just this sort of scenario.
The system needs to distinguish, at the earliest stage, what constitutes a genuine case of religious sedition and what is evidently a frivolous application, a mendacious attempt by a lone gunman to create a litigious society - and worse, a frivolously litigious society via the proxy of mandatory police investigations for any and every allegation of sedition.
Reprise: "The police will investigate when someone complains about offensive material on the Internet because it can have an impact on the public" - Wong Kan Seng, 17 June 2006
Any single person can complain over any alleged slight, any perceived insult? And the police will investigate? Thank you for encouraging every nutcase. Thank you for turning Singapore into a country of intolerant assholes who sic the police on anyone they disagree with. This is a clear indication of how vastly incompetent the Deputy Prime Minister is, of how much he values hot-headed, hard line rhetoric over cool sensibility, of fostering intolerance and tearing apart the social fabric of Singapore over creating a real legal framework that protects it.
3. "Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng on Saturday apologised for the way the police overreacted to a group of school girls' plan to sell and wear white elephant T-shirts at the opening of Buangkok Station." - The Straits Times, 22 January 2006
We eagerly await the inevitable apology from DPM Wong Kan Seng to Char and the citizens of Singapore, over the overreaction of the police and his own overreaction in the press. It seems that Wong has a certain proclivity towards overreaction, to using the police as a vicious dog to maul undeserving schoolgirls and bloggers. It seems Wong has the illusion that he is the chief of the Gestapo instead of a senior cabinet minister in a country with respectable and reasonable legal procedures.
For his mendacity, incompetence and sheer disconnection from reality, impeach DPM Wong Kan Seng! Impeach him NOW!
12 June 2006
Smile 2006
Ah, Minilee wants to welcome the world with a smile - or more precisely, he wants the entire nation to greet the IMF/World Bank conference with 4 million smiles.
It's as though Singapore is a gigantic Potemkin village, yes? That the entire population of Singapore will magically transform into obliging, smiling flight stewardesses to welcome the robber barons of global capitalism? And why on earth would Singaporeans be so docile and obedient to smile for the Prime Minister and his WTO, just because he's asking nicely?
Then again, this isn't unusual from the man who claimed that there is no angst in Singapore.
Okay Minilee and Mr Wong Kan Seng, here's my submission for Smile 2006.
Welcome to Singapore!
Protesters will be caned!
Have a nice day =D
It's as though Singapore is a gigantic Potemkin village, yes? That the entire population of Singapore will magically transform into obliging, smiling flight stewardesses to welcome the robber barons of global capitalism? And why on earth would Singaporeans be so docile and obedient to smile for the Prime Minister and his WTO, just because he's asking nicely?
Then again, this isn't unusual from the man who claimed that there is no angst in Singapore.
Okay Minilee and Mr Wong Kan Seng, here's my submission for Smile 2006.
Welcome to Singapore!
Protesters will be caned!
Have a nice day =D
06 June 2006
Goh Chok Tong speech decoded
3 May 2006 - Washington, speech to reporters
"The PAP is not out to have a clean sweep. What we are trying to offer is certainty of good government and good people in charge. So my message is this: Have your desire for opposition fulfilled, but never to the extent of changing the government."
--- Peanut Goh
Get your decoding rings ready!
1. "I do not have the calibre to function in a true democracy."
2. "In Singapore, the PAP decides how many opposition MPs Singaporeans are allowed."
Peanut Goh should grow up and accept the challenge of governing in a democratic country, where the voters decide how much of an opposition they want in Parliament. If he's unable to deal with the decision of the voters, he should either step down or work for peanuts.
My question to Peanut Goh: Let's cut to the chase and forget about elections, in this case. How many opposition MPs do you allow us to have, at maximum? Please, I want some more.
3. "We will do what we can to prevent Singaporeans from voting in more opposition MPs."
Peanut Goh admits he wants to control how Singaporeans vote! We need a clarification on what legal or extra-legal means he is contemplating. Does this include fixing opposition candidates? Or finding more ways to buy his supporters votes?
4. "The PAP will never allow voters to change ruling parties."
But Peanut Goh, you have no right to make this kind of statement. It is not your place to dictate to voters who they can and cannot vote for; how many seats the opposition is allowed and not allowed to win. It is not your place to tell voters they can vote in opposition politicians, but not too many.
Need I say that this is scandalous? Peanut Goh should withdraw from Marine Parade GRC for the insult to Singaporean voters he has made. The PAP should take clear, unambiguous steps to do the right thing, to sack Peanut Goh from the party before he damages their credibility any further.
"We can't fight the next battle using today's strategies," says Peanut Goh. But it is clear that the objectives of the Whiteshirt battle still remains the same as yesterday's battle. It is clear that the Whiteshirts still view voters as frightened children who must be told who they can vote for, and how many sweets they're allowed. It is clear that the Whiteshirts continue to be wildly out of touch with reality.
"The PAP is not out to have a clean sweep. What we are trying to offer is certainty of good government and good people in charge. So my message is this: Have your desire for opposition fulfilled, but never to the extent of changing the government."
--- Peanut Goh
Get your decoding rings ready!
1. "I do not have the calibre to function in a true democracy."
2. "In Singapore, the PAP decides how many opposition MPs Singaporeans are allowed."
Peanut Goh should grow up and accept the challenge of governing in a democratic country, where the voters decide how much of an opposition they want in Parliament. If he's unable to deal with the decision of the voters, he should either step down or work for peanuts.
My question to Peanut Goh: Let's cut to the chase and forget about elections, in this case. How many opposition MPs do you allow us to have, at maximum? Please, I want some more.
3. "We will do what we can to prevent Singaporeans from voting in more opposition MPs."
Peanut Goh admits he wants to control how Singaporeans vote! We need a clarification on what legal or extra-legal means he is contemplating. Does this include fixing opposition candidates? Or finding more ways to buy his supporters votes?
4. "The PAP will never allow voters to change ruling parties."
But Peanut Goh, you have no right to make this kind of statement. It is not your place to dictate to voters who they can and cannot vote for; how many seats the opposition is allowed and not allowed to win. It is not your place to tell voters they can vote in opposition politicians, but not too many.
Need I say that this is scandalous? Peanut Goh should withdraw from Marine Parade GRC for the insult to Singaporean voters he has made. The PAP should take clear, unambiguous steps to do the right thing, to sack Peanut Goh from the party before he damages their credibility any further.
"We can't fight the next battle using today's strategies," says Peanut Goh. But it is clear that the objectives of the Whiteshirt battle still remains the same as yesterday's battle. It is clear that the Whiteshirts still view voters as frightened children who must be told who they can vote for, and how many sweets they're allowed. It is clear that the Whiteshirts continue to be wildly out of touch with reality.
22 May 2006
Singapore Urban Legends Part Deux
Cherian George opines: Opposition coverage has been greater and fairer than at any point in the past 30 years at least.
Get your debunking tools ready!
In the previous post, I went to the National Archives with fellow SBPer Pleinelune to search for the Holy Grail of Singapore politics: undeniable proof that Papalee threatened to find out who exactly voted in Jeyaratnam and Chiam in 1984, and why.
We didn't find any such account in the Straits Times.
What we did find:
A much more sympathetic report of the opposition in its stories (although numerically, articles covering the Whiteshirts still dominated).
More critical reporting of the Whiteshirt campaign and election issues, compared to the 2006 election.
The combination of sympathetic and critical reporting led Papalee to accuse the press of being biased against his party, a claim he continued to make as late as 2006, in a televised dialogue session with ST journalists.
What does Cherian George say about this editorial from the Straits Times, in 1984?
Can Cherian George honestly say that today's Straits Times is capable of printing such editorials? That it is more fair towards the opposition?
We also paid attention to photographs of the politicians. All were of low quality and in black and white. Papalee had one of the worst photos (him in side profile, clenching a fist at the microphone), while other PAP and opposition MPs and candidates had full-face passport photo style mugs, regardless of position and post.
There was also a half page interview with Chiam, where he outlined what he'll do in Parliament. A quarter page interview with an outgoing opposition party leader, his analysis of how his Malay party managed to garner suprise Chinese votes in 1984. ST also published full articles from foreign newspapers (the Bangkok Post, the New Straits Times, the Wapo). These were articles chastising Papalee for being a sore loser, pondering over his rejection of one-man one-vote democracy, and suggesting that voters, in their 12% national swing towards the opposition, were rejecting the increasingly hectoring style and torrent of Papalee's national campaigns.
Which is the Pro-PAP ST?
A. ST in 1984: Quoting Whiteshirts word for word, no matter what they say. Headlines are direct quotes from their speeches, and come with quote marks.
B. ST in 2006: Spinning Whiteshirt speeches, dressing up headlines to mislead readers, editing out unfortunate phrases like "fix them and buy my supporters votes".
Cherian George, I'd like to see a retraction of the statement in your blog, really. And it took just 2 people 1 hour at the National Archives to do what you thought would take 2 years by NUS/NTU honours thesis candidates. Gah.
Bonus Section
Just to see how the Whiteshirts have commited the mistakes it accused opposition parties of making in 1984, and how little things have changed, here are the headlines of the post-election coverage from 24 and 26 December 1984:
PM replies to voters' signal (papalee promises a more open and less austere government)
Genuine distress or blackmail, asks Raja (Raja vows to show voters they cannot blackmail the government into compromising policies and principles. This man does not understand the meaning of democracy)
Senior ministers' pay to go up (he did promise a less austere government. and is leading by example)
PAP has support of most younger voters (claim by Goh Chok Tong, then a new MP)
26,000 voters cast spoilt or rejectd votes
Snake pit politics will scare off credible candidates (now we know why the Whiteshirts find it so hard to recruit)
Brigadier-General Lee makes early "thank you" call
We will settle accounts (Papalee refuses to congratulate Chiam and JBJ, vows not to put election clashes behind)
PAP must make greater effort (to bond with voters. GCT)
Not so much a vote for opposition: Mah (it's a plebiscite)
Chua to step down from Cabinet
By-elections may be needed (to allow Mah Bow Tan to get back into parliament after defeat by Chiam)
Let's take it in our stride (critical editorial by ST chief. Soon replaced by a more pliant and cooperative candidate)
26 December
Voting is not like making a film (excerpt from Papalee election victory speech)
Voting not based on racial lines, says Yatiman (denies Malays ever vote as a bloc)
Opposition denies playing gutter politics
Get your debunking tools ready!
In the previous post, I went to the National Archives with fellow SBPer Pleinelune to search for the Holy Grail of Singapore politics: undeniable proof that Papalee threatened to find out who exactly voted in Jeyaratnam and Chiam in 1984, and why.
We didn't find any such account in the Straits Times.
What we did find:
A much more sympathetic report of the opposition in its stories (although numerically, articles covering the Whiteshirts still dominated).
More critical reporting of the Whiteshirt campaign and election issues, compared to the 2006 election.
The combination of sympathetic and critical reporting led Papalee to accuse the press of being biased against his party, a claim he continued to make as late as 2006, in a televised dialogue session with ST journalists.
What does Cherian George say about this editorial from the Straits Times, in 1984?
"Let's take it in our stride"
What is disturbing is talk of the need to re-examine the one-man, one-vote system in light of what happened. Equally disturbing is the prospect that residents of Anson and Potong Pasir are in for a lesson, for voting in opposition candidates.
Can Cherian George honestly say that today's Straits Times is capable of printing such editorials? That it is more fair towards the opposition?
We also paid attention to photographs of the politicians. All were of low quality and in black and white. Papalee had one of the worst photos (him in side profile, clenching a fist at the microphone), while other PAP and opposition MPs and candidates had full-face passport photo style mugs, regardless of position and post.
There was also a half page interview with Chiam, where he outlined what he'll do in Parliament. A quarter page interview with an outgoing opposition party leader, his analysis of how his Malay party managed to garner suprise Chinese votes in 1984. ST also published full articles from foreign newspapers (the Bangkok Post, the New Straits Times, the Wapo). These were articles chastising Papalee for being a sore loser, pondering over his rejection of one-man one-vote democracy, and suggesting that voters, in their 12% national swing towards the opposition, were rejecting the increasingly hectoring style and torrent of Papalee's national campaigns.
Which is the Pro-PAP ST?
A. ST in 1984: Quoting Whiteshirts word for word, no matter what they say. Headlines are direct quotes from their speeches, and come with quote marks.
B. ST in 2006: Spinning Whiteshirt speeches, dressing up headlines to mislead readers, editing out unfortunate phrases like "fix them and buy my supporters votes".
Cherian George, I'd like to see a retraction of the statement in your blog, really. And it took just 2 people 1 hour at the National Archives to do what you thought would take 2 years by NUS/NTU honours thesis candidates. Gah.
Bonus Section
Just to see how the Whiteshirts have commited the mistakes it accused opposition parties of making in 1984, and how little things have changed, here are the headlines of the post-election coverage from 24 and 26 December 1984:
PM replies to voters' signal (papalee promises a more open and less austere government)
Genuine distress or blackmail, asks Raja (Raja vows to show voters they cannot blackmail the government into compromising policies and principles. This man does not understand the meaning of democracy)
Senior ministers' pay to go up (he did promise a less austere government. and is leading by example)
PAP has support of most younger voters (claim by Goh Chok Tong, then a new MP)
26,000 voters cast spoilt or rejectd votes
Snake pit politics will scare off credible candidates (now we know why the Whiteshirts find it so hard to recruit)
Brigadier-General Lee makes early "thank you" call
We will settle accounts (Papalee refuses to congratulate Chiam and JBJ, vows not to put election clashes behind)
PAP must make greater effort (to bond with voters. GCT)
Not so much a vote for opposition: Mah (it's a plebiscite)
Chua to step down from Cabinet
By-elections may be needed (to allow Mah Bow Tan to get back into parliament after defeat by Chiam)
Let's take it in our stride (critical editorial by ST chief. Soon replaced by a more pliant and cooperative candidate)
26 December
Voting is not like making a film (excerpt from Papalee election victory speech)
Voting not based on racial lines, says Yatiman (denies Malays ever vote as a bloc)
Opposition denies playing gutter politics
Singapore Urban Legends
"Some elections back when the 'Mentor' was PM, he threatened the electorate by saying he would find out why those who voted against the PAP did so. That was in a speech after an election when the public was beginning to be brave enough to rub the dictatorship up the right way. I still remember the sinister and menacing tone when Harry Lee made his open threat."From A.K. Tan, in comment to Voting must be kept secret
Pleinelune and I went down to the National Archives during the weekend to verify this claim. A.K. Tan has to be referring to the 1984 General Elections, notable for the loss of 2 seats to the opposition JB Jeyaratnam (WP-Anson) and Chiam See Tong (SDP-Potong Pasir). As the election was on 23 December, we checked the Straits Times from 24-27 December.
Results:
There was no account of Papalee issuing threats to find out who voted for whom. The Straits Times in the 1980s had to print every single word of Papalee's speeches; we waded through 5 pages of his election victory speech, printed over 2 days, and found nothing similar to AK Tan's anecdote.
That's not to say there weren't any harsh lectures from the then-PM.
On the morning of 24 December 1984, Papalee made several interesting remarks:
Because they had begun losing seats to the opposition: "at this rate, the one-man, one-vote system could lead to decline and disintegration"
He accused the opposition of "gutter politics": "Every election campaign starts off on a reasonable note, then in order to get the crowds excited, they make more and more brazen, scurrilous, wild accusations." (Like for example, accusing their opponents of planting bombs with their election manifestos?)
Papalee sternly warned the electorate in Potong Pasir and Anson that they would have to live with their choices; "the party would withdraw services to the two opposition-held seats of Anson and Potong Pasir"
Of course, there were the usual admonitions about Singapore descending into riots, that the people must realise this is not a game, you cannot change governments, etc.
However, the best lines came from the recently deceased S Rajaratnam, then Second Deputy Prime Minister in Papalee's cabinet. Said the man who wrote the national pledge: "If this is an attempt by voters to blackmail the government, to compromise on important issues or principles, then we must show them we cannot be blackmailed. No government should succumb to blackmail." That was the most chilling quote from the 1984 election, and it didn't come from Papalee.
It was Rajaratnam who made the threat AK Tan remembers. In "Genuine distress or blackmail, asks Raja", the then-2DPM wanted to find out whether the vote swing to the opposition was a genuine distress signal or an attempt by voters to blackmail the Whiteshirts. He then followed up by saying "we must show them that we cannot be blackmailed". Perhaps due to the passage of time, we now have the impression that it was Papalee who threatened "he would find out why those who voted against the PAP did so"?
Now, on that night, with Papalee raising a clenched fist at the microphone during the election victory speech and interview, with Rajaratnam, Mah Bow Tan, Richard Hu taking turns to reiterate their leader's disappointments, one threat would've seemed indistinguishable from the next.
So please, everyone. Let that urban legend rest. Papalee did not threaten to undermine the secrecy of the vote.
11 May 2006
Endgame
In Chess, the endgame can be seen as mop-up action. The stage where you finish off the weakest and yet most significant pieces. The endgame in Go is similar - players move to clarify which formations are alive and dead.
Whiteshirt endgame
James Gomez. Frankly if I were the Whiteshirts, this would be exactly what I'd do anyway.
Fact: Authority and power inspire obedience and confidence
Fact: Singaporeans scored high in authority and tradition in the last World Values Survey
Fact: It will take about 25 years for this country to have a sufficient liberal electorate to make this strategy cost too much for the Whiteshirts.
In addition, it's also a gambit.
WP central committee offer no public comments about Gomez, show no support, no effort to work public opinion to frame Gomez as innocent: WP is discredited in the eyes of liberal voters.
WP central committee back Gomez up to the hilt: WP is discredited in the eyes of conservative voters, who will see them as the next SDP.
How WP responds will determine if it can keep the gains it made in the public mind last week.
Since the Public Prosecutor has chosen not to prosecute James Gomez, he has not been found guilty of criminal intimidation by the courts. It's up to the opposition to frame this as their victory, though. And that concludes the Whiteshirt endgame.
Opposition endgame
MPs Chiam See Tong (SDA-Potong Pasir) and Low Thia Khiang (WP-Hougang) have SM Goh Chok Tong (PAP-Marine Parade) in their crosshairs. Their strategy is simply
Where is the money, Mr Goh?
The mistake Goh made was to announce the exact figure of the upgrading funds set aside for Potong Pasir and Hougang - in the almost 12 years of using the upgrading carrot-and-stick (in Chua Mui Hoong's own words), the Whiteshirts have never specified any monetary value of their sweeteners.
Very well, you have set aside 180 million dollars. Or so you claim. In which account books is the money budgetted under? Who will pay the 180 million dollars? How much of it will actually come from the residents of Potong Pasir and Hougang? What happens to the money now? Where does it go to? And so on.
Bury the Whiteshirts under accountability of funds. But Mr Goh, while being weak, isn't a significant piece in the Whiteshirt machinery.
Focus on Khaw Boon Wan (non-NKF)
In a little-known CNA report, Minister Khaw announced that the Government has shortlisted several locations for retirement villages in Batam and Johore Bahru. That's right, and at least one will be built. The opposition needs to question Minister Khaw to reveal more details on this.
Khaw says that in the past, "the Singapore market was... too small for retirement villages to be commercially viable". That overseas retirement villages are now viable indicates that Singapore's cost of living has become unaffordable for the old, that Singapore becomes unlivable for retirees. It also means that the CPF system has failed: despite a high rate of enforced savings, retirees still cannot survive. It also means that the rate of poverty in the old will rise, and the Whiteshirts have no real solution. It also means abalone porridge was a hypocritical election ploy. The opposition needs to frame the retirement village as a failure of social security and a cost of living issue.
As Minister Khaw makes a big deal out of being a devout Buddhist who cannot lie, who will refuse to answer questions if he feels he'll make a lie, further frame the issue: Is the retirement village idea not an immoral thing - both in itself, and the implication that social security in Singapore has fallen apart?
The man who said "If you do wrong things, tell lies, defame people, create trouble, incite hatred...then I think you have wasted your life and I worry about your afterlife" and "In my religion, one of the biggest sins is to tell lies. The next life, you'll become a cockroach or something" needs to be reminded that ill-treating the old and failing to care for the old is even more immoral.
The opposition should get the message out before the first session of Parliament begins. The silver lining in SDP losing the Sembawang contest is this: it's more embarrassing and damaging for the Whiteshirts to be forced to reshuffle Mr Khaw out of his Ministry.
Citizen endgame
3rd May 06 - Lunchtime Election Rally
"Right now we have Low Thia Khiang, Chiam See Tong, Steve Chia. We can deal with them. Suppose you had 10, 15, 20 opposition members in Parliament. Instead of spending my time thinking what is the right policy for Singapore, I'm going to spend all my time thinking what's the right way to fix them, to buy my supporters votes, how can I solve this week's problem and forget about next year's challenges?"
--- Minilee
Thanks to some creative editing by Chua Mui Hoong in the Straits Times, Minilee wasn't completely damaged by his fix them and buy votes speech. We need to keep this issue in play as much as Minilee and the Straits Times want to bury it.
100 letters to the Straits Times and Today forum pages will remind them of their journalistic failure to scrutinise Minilee's speech. They could include most of the following points:
1. We thank Minilee for clarifying his use of "fix" during the lunchtime election rally of 3 May.
2. However, we still require him to make further clarifications in the clearest language as possible.
3. Most importantly, we as Singaporean citizens look forward to hearing an explanation for what our PM meant when he talked about buying supporters votes.
4. Not only must Singapore have no climate of fear, Singapore must be seen to have no climate of fear. Use of sharp and violent language like fixing people, buying votes fosters impressions of a climate of fear.
(Of course, if the opposition were strong enough, I'd recommend Minilee as their joint endgame target, along with Khaw)
Blogger endgame
A relevant ministry will examine the effect of the internet on the election. Bloggers have two viable targets and two strategies that can be carried out simultaneously.
Moral and international right to comment freely on elections
From Comment 25 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights,
The blogosphere right now needs to frame the upcoming debate from one about the dangers of irresponsible blogging to one about the right to comment and take part in elections, to form opinions and discuss issues with each other freely.
Fix the media, don't fix bloggers
The reputation of SPH and Mediacorp has taken a beating from foreign press reports of their biases in reporting this election. Day after day, from nomination day to the day before polling, the main newspapers and television stations showed endless reports of Whiteshirt campaign, written and read in the highest and most congratulatory language, while giving opposition candidates next to zero airtime.
Where were the pictures of the Workers Party rallies?
Why did Chua Mui Hoong change Minilee's speech to "counter my opponents" instead of the actual "fix" and "buy" line?
Why were the teams from prize-winning, world-class Mediacorp unable to track down opposition politicians for their victory speeches, some of which are podcast anyway by bloggers?
1. The mainstream media is biased
2. The mainstream media is incompetent
3. The election coverage was so awful that bloggers provided NEWS that Singaporeans kept going online to get.
We bloggers aren't political, we aren't making crazy, unverifiable, outrageous statements about the election campaign. We offered our comments and analyses and from the looks of it, countless citizens wanted to hear what we wanted to say.
The message bloggers need to make loud and clear to the "relevant ministry" and the MDA is this": Fix your mainstream media. Don't fix us.
Bloggers should remember that for months, SPH and Mediacorp were hatchet men, painting bloggers as dangerous, irrelevant, or irresponsible. Spare them no quarters this time.
Whiteshirt endgame
James Gomez. Frankly if I were the Whiteshirts, this would be exactly what I'd do anyway.
Fact: Authority and power inspire obedience and confidence
Fact: Singaporeans scored high in authority and tradition in the last World Values Survey
Fact: It will take about 25 years for this country to have a sufficient liberal electorate to make this strategy cost too much for the Whiteshirts.
In addition, it's also a gambit.
WP central committee offer no public comments about Gomez, show no support, no effort to work public opinion to frame Gomez as innocent: WP is discredited in the eyes of liberal voters.
WP central committee back Gomez up to the hilt: WP is discredited in the eyes of conservative voters, who will see them as the next SDP.
Since the Public Prosecutor has chosen not to prosecute James Gomez, he has not been found guilty of criminal intimidation by the courts. It's up to the opposition to frame this as their victory, though. And that concludes the Whiteshirt endgame.
Opposition endgame
MPs Chiam See Tong (SDA-Potong Pasir) and Low Thia Khiang (WP-Hougang) have SM Goh Chok Tong (PAP-Marine Parade) in their crosshairs. Their strategy is simply
Where is the money, Mr Goh?
The mistake Goh made was to announce the exact figure of the upgrading funds set aside for Potong Pasir and Hougang - in the almost 12 years of using the upgrading carrot-and-stick (in Chua Mui Hoong's own words), the Whiteshirts have never specified any monetary value of their sweeteners.
Very well, you have set aside 180 million dollars. Or so you claim. In which account books is the money budgetted under? Who will pay the 180 million dollars? How much of it will actually come from the residents of Potong Pasir and Hougang? What happens to the money now? Where does it go to? And so on.
Bury the Whiteshirts under accountability of funds. But Mr Goh, while being weak, isn't a significant piece in the Whiteshirt machinery.
Focus on Khaw Boon Wan (non-NKF)
In a little-known CNA report, Minister Khaw announced that the Government has shortlisted several locations for retirement villages in Batam and Johore Bahru. That's right, and at least one will be built. The opposition needs to question Minister Khaw to reveal more details on this.
Khaw says that in the past, "the Singapore market was... too small for retirement villages to be commercially viable". That overseas retirement villages are now viable indicates that Singapore's cost of living has become unaffordable for the old, that Singapore becomes unlivable for retirees. It also means that the CPF system has failed: despite a high rate of enforced savings, retirees still cannot survive. It also means that the rate of poverty in the old will rise, and the Whiteshirts have no real solution. It also means abalone porridge was a hypocritical election ploy. The opposition needs to frame the retirement village as a failure of social security and a cost of living issue.
As Minister Khaw makes a big deal out of being a devout Buddhist who cannot lie, who will refuse to answer questions if he feels he'll make a lie, further frame the issue: Is the retirement village idea not an immoral thing - both in itself, and the implication that social security in Singapore has fallen apart?
The man who said "If you do wrong things, tell lies, defame people, create trouble, incite hatred...then I think you have wasted your life and I worry about your afterlife" and "In my religion, one of the biggest sins is to tell lies. The next life, you'll become a cockroach or something" needs to be reminded that ill-treating the old and failing to care for the old is even more immoral.
The opposition should get the message out before the first session of Parliament begins. The silver lining in SDP losing the Sembawang contest is this: it's more embarrassing and damaging for the Whiteshirts to be forced to reshuffle Mr Khaw out of his Ministry.
Citizen endgame
3rd May 06 - Lunchtime Election Rally
"Right now we have Low Thia Khiang, Chiam See Tong, Steve Chia. We can deal with them. Suppose you had 10, 15, 20 opposition members in Parliament. Instead of spending my time thinking what is the right policy for Singapore, I'm going to spend all my time thinking what's the right way to fix them, to buy my supporters votes, how can I solve this week's problem and forget about next year's challenges?"
--- Minilee
Thanks to some creative editing by Chua Mui Hoong in the Straits Times, Minilee wasn't completely damaged by his fix them and buy votes speech. We need to keep this issue in play as much as Minilee and the Straits Times want to bury it.
100 letters to the Straits Times and Today forum pages will remind them of their journalistic failure to scrutinise Minilee's speech. They could include most of the following points:
1. We thank Minilee for clarifying his use of "fix" during the lunchtime election rally of 3 May.
2. However, we still require him to make further clarifications in the clearest language as possible.
3. Most importantly, we as Singaporean citizens look forward to hearing an explanation for what our PM meant when he talked about buying supporters votes.
4. Not only must Singapore have no climate of fear, Singapore must be seen to have no climate of fear. Use of sharp and violent language like fixing people, buying votes fosters impressions of a climate of fear.
(Of course, if the opposition were strong enough, I'd recommend Minilee as their joint endgame target, along with Khaw)
Blogger endgame
A relevant ministry will examine the effect of the internet on the election. Bloggers have two viable targets and two strategies that can be carried out simultaneously.
Moral and international right to comment freely on elections
From Comment 25 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights,
Voters should be able to form opinions independently, free of violence or threat of violence, compulsion, inducement or manipulative interference of any kind.
In order to ensure the full enjoyment of rights protected by article 25, the free communication of information and ideas about public and political issues between citizens, candidates and elected representatives is essential. This implies a free press and other media able to comment on public issues without censorship or restraint and to inform public opinion. It requires the full enjoyment and respect for the rights guaranteed in articles 19, 21 and 22 of the Covenant, including freedom to engage in political activity individually or through political parties and other organizations, freedom to debate public affairs, to hold peaceful demonstrations and meetings, to criticize and oppose, to publish political material, to campaign for election and to advertise political ideas.
The blogosphere right now needs to frame the upcoming debate from one about the dangers of irresponsible blogging to one about the right to comment and take part in elections, to form opinions and discuss issues with each other freely.
Fix the media, don't fix bloggers
The reputation of SPH and Mediacorp has taken a beating from foreign press reports of their biases in reporting this election. Day after day, from nomination day to the day before polling, the main newspapers and television stations showed endless reports of Whiteshirt campaign, written and read in the highest and most congratulatory language, while giving opposition candidates next to zero airtime.
Where were the pictures of the Workers Party rallies?
Why did Chua Mui Hoong change Minilee's speech to "counter my opponents" instead of the actual "fix" and "buy" line?
Why were the teams from prize-winning, world-class Mediacorp unable to track down opposition politicians for their victory speeches, some of which are podcast anyway by bloggers?
1. The mainstream media is biased
2. The mainstream media is incompetent
3. The election coverage was so awful that bloggers provided NEWS that Singaporeans kept going online to get.
We bloggers aren't political, we aren't making crazy, unverifiable, outrageous statements about the election campaign. We offered our comments and analyses and from the looks of it, countless citizens wanted to hear what we wanted to say.
The message bloggers need to make loud and clear to the "relevant ministry" and the MDA is this": Fix your mainstream media. Don't fix us.
Bloggers should remember that for months, SPH and Mediacorp were hatchet men, painting bloggers as dangerous, irrelevant, or irresponsible. Spare them no quarters this time.
08 May 2006
Post-mortem III
The campaign for the next election begins now
From Todayonline:
Get the message out
The opposition parties need to disseminate their viewpoints out consistently and frame public consciousness. It is their duty to get their message out and communicate to the people. It needs to happen 365/7, and not just one week every 5 years. The old granny who was reduced by circumstances in 2002 to selling tissue packets in hawker centres or collecting cardboard boxes in streets to sell to recycling companies continues to vote for the PAP. Yes, she understands times are bad, something has gone wrong, but she never for once associates her situation as a direct effect of national policy. You cannot convince anyone until you frame the message, in other words.
Take back local government
Seetoh Yih Pin is the head of the Potong Pasir RC. Yes, a political man, head of the Residential Committee. Did you know that all holders of RC positions and posts are democratically elected by the residents of their estate? Then again, not many residents of estates know they can vote for their RC members. It is not compulsory to vote for your RC committee. Just how many people actually turn up to vote for their RC leaders?
Opposition parties need to take back local government. Set aside people, volunteer them into RCs, and if possible, mobilise enough residents in selected estates to vote them into RC leadership posts. If RCs can be politicised, and are already politicised, and Senior Minster Goh found nothing untoward about the PAP running an RC in an opposition ward, the precedent is already set.
For better intelligence, recruit election officials
How did Minilee know that it was the young voters from Anchorvale and Rivervale that strongly voted against his party? How is it he knows why he lost a particular swing vote and precinct, but Chiam and Low don't even know which swing voters cast their lots for them?
Until such time when either
a. political polling is legalised, or
b. all precinct results are reported to all parties
what the WP needs to do is to recruit as many people as possible, and encourage volunteers to work as polling agents and counting agents for the party. The Whiteshirts have sufficient manpower to monitor precinct voting to the extent where they know (although belatedly) which way the wind is blowing, opposition parties need to beef up on this as well.
What other moves should the Opposition take in the coming weeks and years?
Ringisei feels Opposition parties should take back the grassroots
PAPtalk feels the Whiteshirts should give up its upgrading election gimmick, shrink GRCs down, and play clean
Szemeng has advice for both the Whiteshirts and the Hammers
(Lzydata, thanks for the links. Do enable comments on your site, or fix your other site...)
From Todayonline:
"The election is a politicising process — we politicise and raise the awareness of the young. (Whether) that awareness level will translate into the person joining a party or (becoming) just a supporter, we do not know," he said yesterday. Mr Low did reveal that some young people, "who are interested to join us" either as volunteers or just supporters, have approached his party. The profiles of spectators at his party's rallies also helped him gauge the WP's appeal to young Singaporeans.
"I noticed that there is a sizeable number of younger Singaporeans who are attending our rallies," he added. "When I speak, they listen. I also got feedback from party members that some of them (young Singaporeans) were prepared to join us during GE 2006 or after," Mr Low added.
Get the message out
The opposition parties need to disseminate their viewpoints out consistently and frame public consciousness. It is their duty to get their message out and communicate to the people. It needs to happen 365/7, and not just one week every 5 years. The old granny who was reduced by circumstances in 2002 to selling tissue packets in hawker centres or collecting cardboard boxes in streets to sell to recycling companies continues to vote for the PAP. Yes, she understands times are bad, something has gone wrong, but she never for once associates her situation as a direct effect of national policy. You cannot convince anyone until you frame the message, in other words.
Take back local government
Seetoh Yih Pin is the head of the Potong Pasir RC. Yes, a political man, head of the Residential Committee. Did you know that all holders of RC positions and posts are democratically elected by the residents of their estate? Then again, not many residents of estates know they can vote for their RC members. It is not compulsory to vote for your RC committee. Just how many people actually turn up to vote for their RC leaders?
Opposition parties need to take back local government. Set aside people, volunteer them into RCs, and if possible, mobilise enough residents in selected estates to vote them into RC leadership posts. If RCs can be politicised, and are already politicised, and Senior Minster Goh found nothing untoward about the PAP running an RC in an opposition ward, the precedent is already set.
For better intelligence, recruit election officials
How did Minilee know that it was the young voters from Anchorvale and Rivervale that strongly voted against his party? How is it he knows why he lost a particular swing vote and precinct, but Chiam and Low don't even know which swing voters cast their lots for them?
Until such time when either
a. political polling is legalised, or
b. all precinct results are reported to all parties
what the WP needs to do is to recruit as many people as possible, and encourage volunteers to work as polling agents and counting agents for the party. The Whiteshirts have sufficient manpower to monitor precinct voting to the extent where they know (although belatedly) which way the wind is blowing, opposition parties need to beef up on this as well.
What other moves should the Opposition take in the coming weeks and years?
Ringisei feels Opposition parties should take back the grassroots
PAPtalk feels the Whiteshirts should give up its upgrading election gimmick, shrink GRCs down, and play clean
Szemeng has advice for both the Whiteshirts and the Hammers
(Lzydata, thanks for the links. Do enable comments on your site, or fix your other site...)
Post-mortem II
In a slip of her tongue, ST political journalist Chua Mui Hoong tells the honest truth about using the upgrading election gimmick.
"Voters have become familiar with the upgrading carrot-and-stick approach", Chua says in "Three different styles in PAP campaign", Straits Times, p.18.
Singapore may not be a signatory to the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights, but these things hold true nonetheless:
And in particular,
Look, Chua Mui Hoong says the upgrading issue is used as a carrot-and-stick. It is both intimidation and vote-buying at the same time. It is a clear violation of the General Comments on article 25 of the ICCPR. Our country may not have ratified the treaty, but we see its goodness and rightness are evident.
Singaporeans should heed Ms Chua's message and use the time from now to the next election to send a clear message to their elected or walkover representatives: No more talk about upgrading in election discourse from now on. The PAP is not campaigning for a seat in the HDB, citizens are not voting to return PAP's candidates to the HDB.
This generation of Singaporeans believe, together with Chua Mui Hoong, that it is morally wrong to use upgrading as an election issue; that it constitutes undue influence and coercion of voters; that it is a threat and a manipulation of voters that over 66 countries in the United Nations have pledged to reject.
We will spend the next 5 years repeating this point to our MPs. During their walkabouts, meet-the-MP sessions, ministerial forums and talks. Make this point clearly, politely, and firmly. Make it as often as you can. You have the power to change the discourse of the next election.
"Voters have become familiar with the upgrading carrot-and-stick approach", Chua says in "Three different styles in PAP campaign", Straits Times, p.18.
Singapore may not be a signatory to the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights, but these things hold true nonetheless:
Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions:
(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives;
(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors;
(c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.
And in particular,
Persons entitled to vote must be free to vote for any candidate for election and for or against any proposal submitted to referendum or plebiscite, and free to support or to oppose government, without undue influence or coercion of any kind which may distort or inhibit the free expression of the elector's will. Voters should be able to form opinions independently, free of violence or threat of violence, compulsion, inducement or manipulative interference of any kind.
Look, Chua Mui Hoong says the upgrading issue is used as a carrot-and-stick. It is both intimidation and vote-buying at the same time. It is a clear violation of the General Comments on article 25 of the ICCPR. Our country may not have ratified the treaty, but we see its goodness and rightness are evident.
Singaporeans should heed Ms Chua's message and use the time from now to the next election to send a clear message to their elected or walkover representatives: No more talk about upgrading in election discourse from now on. The PAP is not campaigning for a seat in the HDB, citizens are not voting to return PAP's candidates to the HDB.
This generation of Singaporeans believe, together with Chua Mui Hoong, that it is morally wrong to use upgrading as an election issue; that it constitutes undue influence and coercion of voters; that it is a threat and a manipulation of voters that over 66 countries in the United Nations have pledged to reject.
We will spend the next 5 years repeating this point to our MPs. During their walkabouts, meet-the-MP sessions, ministerial forums and talks. Make this point clearly, politely, and firmly. Make it as often as you can. You have the power to change the discourse of the next election.
Post-mortem
I wasn't surprised with the results - not with the lower national vote for the Whiteshirts, or with Messrs Chiam and Low holding on to their constituencies. Things to note: ignore the 2001 GE results. Take them out of your mind, pay no attention to them.
Then, compare this year's results to those from 1985 onwards.
1. The national vote of this election is within the Whiteshirt average of 62-67%
2. WP fielded its best team in Aljunied but came nowhere near Francis Seow's Eunos results. Best team, as in most credible, etc.
3. The people have given WP the mandate to be Singapore's major opposition party. It has consistently outperformed both the SDA and the SDP.
Yes, I reacted to Minilee's 66.1% with some glee, but that's not anywhere near the important facts of this election. Minilee has failed, but for other reasons.
Minilee originally claimed this election to be a mandate for his personal leadership.
One would expect this campaign to be a showcase of PAP's policies. One would expect this campaign to show voters how each policy has led to Singapore's economic recovery, and which policies are due in line, and how they compare to policy suggestions from other parties. One would expect this campaign to be conducted with the personable, gentle style that Minilee has carefully cultivated with help from his PR consultants over the past half decade.
Instead, the Whiteshirts chose to:
1. Counter WP's 40-page manifesto with a 5-page manifesto that promised much but gave no concrete proposals (aside from that hospital in the North),
2. Focus on demolishing James Gomez and the Ang Mo Kio suicide squad,
3. Contest the elections solely on upgrading issues, and
4. Minilee chose to give a speech saying how too many opposition leaders in Parliament will force him to find ways to fix them and to buy his supporters votes.
Regardless of the results of the vote, Minilee has failed in every possible way to obtain the mandate for his personal leadership. Minilee demolished his kinder, gentler, open leadership image with his personal and his party's tactics in this election.
Singaporeans will no longer trust Minilee when he says "but there is no angst in Singapore", or "I want an open, consultative society". The PAP won the election, but Minilee has lost his mandate.
Then, compare this year's results to those from 1985 onwards.
1. The national vote of this election is within the Whiteshirt average of 62-67%
2. WP fielded its best team in Aljunied but came nowhere near Francis Seow's Eunos results. Best team, as in most credible, etc.
3. The people have given WP the mandate to be Singapore's major opposition party. It has consistently outperformed both the SDA and the SDP.
Yes, I reacted to Minilee's 66.1% with some glee, but that's not anywhere near the important facts of this election. Minilee has failed, but for other reasons.
Minilee originally claimed this election to be a mandate for his personal leadership.
One would expect this campaign to be a showcase of PAP's policies. One would expect this campaign to show voters how each policy has led to Singapore's economic recovery, and which policies are due in line, and how they compare to policy suggestions from other parties. One would expect this campaign to be conducted with the personable, gentle style that Minilee has carefully cultivated with help from his PR consultants over the past half decade.
Instead, the Whiteshirts chose to:
1. Counter WP's 40-page manifesto with a 5-page manifesto that promised much but gave no concrete proposals (aside from that hospital in the North),
2. Focus on demolishing James Gomez and the Ang Mo Kio suicide squad,
3. Contest the elections solely on upgrading issues, and
4. Minilee chose to give a speech saying how too many opposition leaders in Parliament will force him to find ways to fix them and to buy his supporters votes.
Regardless of the results of the vote, Minilee has failed in every possible way to obtain the mandate for his personal leadership. Minilee demolished his kinder, gentler, open leadership image with his personal and his party's tactics in this election.
Singaporeans will no longer trust Minilee when he says "but there is no angst in Singapore", or "I want an open, consultative society". The PAP won the election, but Minilee has lost his mandate.
04 May 2006
Minilee speech decoded
3rd May 06 - Lunchtime Election Rally
"Right now we have Low Thia Khiang, Chiam See Tong, Steve Chia. We can deal with them. Suppose you had 10, 15, 20 opposition members in Parliament. Instead of spending my time thinking what is the right policy for Singapore, I'm going to spend all my time thinking what's the right way to fix them, to buy my supporters votes, how can I solve this week's problem and forget about next year's challenges?"
--- Minilee
Get your decoding rings ready!
1. "I do not have the calibre to govern with an opposition party in Parliament"
Minilee should grow up and accept the challenge of governing a democratic country. If he's really unable to deal with an opposition that global leaders drawing lesser paycheques have to live with, he should either step down or work for peanuts.
2. "I want to fix the opposition"
To fix: to do something dishonest to make certain that a competition, race, or election is won/lost by a particular person
To fix: to punish someone
Minilee should be sued by Papalee and the entire cabinet for making defamatory remarks impugning the integrity and honesty of the Government.
3. "I'm going to spend all my time thinking what's the right way to buy my supporters votes"
Minilee admits that he is not beneath vote-buying. This is scandalous! Minilee should withdraw from Ang Mo Kio GRC for the insult to Singaporean voters he has made. The PAP should take clear, unambiguous steps to do the right thing, to sack Minilee from the party before he damages their credibility any further.
Otherwise... Impeach Minilee! Impeach him NOW!
"Right now we have Low Thia Khiang, Chiam See Tong, Steve Chia. We can deal with them. Suppose you had 10, 15, 20 opposition members in Parliament. Instead of spending my time thinking what is the right policy for Singapore, I'm going to spend all my time thinking what's the right way to fix them, to buy my supporters votes, how can I solve this week's problem and forget about next year's challenges?"
--- Minilee
Get your decoding rings ready!
1. "I do not have the calibre to govern with an opposition party in Parliament"
Minilee should grow up and accept the challenge of governing a democratic country. If he's really unable to deal with an opposition that global leaders drawing lesser paycheques have to live with, he should either step down or work for peanuts.
2. "I want to fix the opposition"
To fix: to do something dishonest to make certain that a competition, race, or election is won/lost by a particular person
To fix: to punish someone
Minilee should be sued by Papalee and the entire cabinet for making defamatory remarks impugning the integrity and honesty of the Government.
3. "I'm going to spend all my time thinking what's the right way to buy my supporters votes"
Minilee admits that he is not beneath vote-buying. This is scandalous! Minilee should withdraw from Ang Mo Kio GRC for the insult to Singaporean voters he has made. The PAP should take clear, unambiguous steps to do the right thing, to sack Minilee from the party before he damages their credibility any further.
Otherwise... Impeach Minilee! Impeach him NOW!
02 May 2006
Blogging during elections
The test of a democracy is not the elections. During my discussion with Rench in the previous post, I feel we have come back to the original issues of what it means to live in a democracy, and what it means to blog.
A healthy democracy, contrary to what Chiam and the opposition claim in this week of electioneering, does not end with just an opposition in Parliament. The failure of the opposition to gain more than 4 seats in Parliament for the past 40 years is not solely the fault of an allegedly oppressive ruling party, its gaming of election laws, or even its consistent legal strategies against opposition leaders (from Seow to Chee).
One can equally point fingers at the opposition for failing to disseminate their viewpoints out consistently and frame public consciousness. It is the duty of political parties - in power or otherwise - in a healthy democracy to get their message out and communicate to the people. No one knows, for example, that according to the Department of Statistics, the top 10% owns 60% of its wealth, a demographic statistic that puts this country in the league of third-world nations. Thanks, Steve Chia, for pointing that out. But this hardly puts any dent in the national consciousness. You had 4 years to convince Singaporeans that the economic recovery plan of Minilee's Whiteshirts weren't working, and nothing came out... until now. On my blog, you see me pointing out just how bad the economic situation was on the ground from 2003 to now - there's a consistent message that needs to be out there 24/7, not just 1 week in 5 years.
It's also the responsibility of people to talk more to each other as well. A healthy polity depends on a healthy civil society - I may disagree with Rench, we may misunderstand each other, tempers may get flared, but we both keep working at talking to each other. There is nothing so dangerous to a functioning democracy than the death of discourse. That leads to the shrinking of an informed electorate, to politically uninformed citizens.
That's why I don't believe that the rash of blogs springing up to focus on the elections will do anything to the eventual outcome. Bloggers need to be there on other days as well, contributing more to discussion on local and international issues, and less to reporting the same issues. The blogosphere is the key to building a society where people can talk to one another, engage dissimilar minds on common issues. You can't do that by playing citizen journalist.
Howard Dean used to say: you get a C for just turning up to vote. Here, oppposition parties get a C just for turning up and raising issues once every 5 years. Citizens get a D for being uninformed and then apathetic about being uninformed. Bloggers can do better if they put their efforts to foster a society where people can discuss issues with other people who don't necessarily agree with them.
A healthy democracy, contrary to what Chiam and the opposition claim in this week of electioneering, does not end with just an opposition in Parliament. The failure of the opposition to gain more than 4 seats in Parliament for the past 40 years is not solely the fault of an allegedly oppressive ruling party, its gaming of election laws, or even its consistent legal strategies against opposition leaders (from Seow to Chee).
One can equally point fingers at the opposition for failing to disseminate their viewpoints out consistently and frame public consciousness. It is the duty of political parties - in power or otherwise - in a healthy democracy to get their message out and communicate to the people. No one knows, for example, that according to the Department of Statistics, the top 10% owns 60% of its wealth, a demographic statistic that puts this country in the league of third-world nations. Thanks, Steve Chia, for pointing that out. But this hardly puts any dent in the national consciousness. You had 4 years to convince Singaporeans that the economic recovery plan of Minilee's Whiteshirts weren't working, and nothing came out... until now. On my blog, you see me pointing out just how bad the economic situation was on the ground from 2003 to now - there's a consistent message that needs to be out there 24/7, not just 1 week in 5 years.
It's also the responsibility of people to talk more to each other as well. A healthy polity depends on a healthy civil society - I may disagree with Rench, we may misunderstand each other, tempers may get flared, but we both keep working at talking to each other. There is nothing so dangerous to a functioning democracy than the death of discourse. That leads to the shrinking of an informed electorate, to politically uninformed citizens.
That's why I don't believe that the rash of blogs springing up to focus on the elections will do anything to the eventual outcome. Bloggers need to be there on other days as well, contributing more to discussion on local and international issues, and less to reporting the same issues. The blogosphere is the key to building a society where people can talk to one another, engage dissimilar minds on common issues. You can't do that by playing citizen journalist.
Howard Dean used to say: you get a C for just turning up to vote. Here, oppposition parties get a C just for turning up and raising issues once every 5 years. Citizens get a D for being uninformed and then apathetic about being uninformed. Bloggers can do better if they put their efforts to foster a society where people can discuss issues with other people who don't necessarily agree with them.
26 April 2006
On the Thai elections
Thaksin Shinawatra generates some sympathy fawning from some normally critical local bloggers. It's not easy to see why: he was on the verge of a long historical project to turn the kingdom into a benevolently authoritarian one-party state, replacing unproductive party politics with pragmatic, technocratic business sense, and instituting some control over the nation's independent media. What's there to hate in people who sincerely want to imitate your country?
So newspapers here were the only ones caught out of the loop. Local reporters were fawning and predicting 2006 will be Thailand's 1966, that the decision of the oppposition parties to boycott the election undo them and propel Thaksin's ascension to legal and legitimate one-party rule. That's a national blind spot for you, but surely they should've rmembered that when history actually repeats itself, the second time is always a farce?
What they did not count on (the national blind spot!) was the constitution of Thailand, which was written to prevent precisely these travesties from occuring. In constituencies with a walkover, the unopposed candidate is not confirmed unless 20% of the voters turn up to vote for him anyway. Voters are also given the choice to cast a "no vote", essentially a vote for "none of the above" that in sufficient numbers will invalidate the winner of the election. These are safeguards that prevent the country from sliding into a one-party state with a fake opposition.
Today, Thai King Bhumibol Adulyadej gives the best sign that Singapore should be the one emulating Thailand instead. Speaking out at the "complete mess" that Thaksin's snap elections caused, the monarch commented strongly: "The current election is undemocratic. Where there is only one candidate it is not considered a democracy."
King Bhumibol Adulyadej, the true senior statesman of Asia.
So newspapers here were the only ones caught out of the loop. Local reporters were fawning and predicting 2006 will be Thailand's 1966, that the decision of the oppposition parties to boycott the election undo them and propel Thaksin's ascension to legal and legitimate one-party rule. That's a national blind spot for you, but surely they should've rmembered that when history actually repeats itself, the second time is always a farce?
What they did not count on (the national blind spot!) was the constitution of Thailand, which was written to prevent precisely these travesties from occuring. In constituencies with a walkover, the unopposed candidate is not confirmed unless 20% of the voters turn up to vote for him anyway. Voters are also given the choice to cast a "no vote", essentially a vote for "none of the above" that in sufficient numbers will invalidate the winner of the election. These are safeguards that prevent the country from sliding into a one-party state with a fake opposition.
Today, Thai King Bhumibol Adulyadej gives the best sign that Singapore should be the one emulating Thailand instead. Speaking out at the "complete mess" that Thaksin's snap elections caused, the monarch commented strongly: "The current election is undemocratic. Where there is only one candidate it is not considered a democracy."
King Bhumibol Adulyadej, the true senior statesman of Asia.
25 April 2006
A funny thing happened on the way to the GRC
Sylvia Lim, the chief of the Worker's Party, raises the standard complaint about the unfair bloating of GRCs from 4 to 6 wards.
That's not the point. No one in Singapore cares if the electoral system is unfair to opposition parties.
Instead, look at the Parliamentary Elections Act, which says a GRC is:
(i) a constituency where at least one of the candidates in every group shall be a person belonging to the Malay community; or
(ii) a constituency where at least one of the candidates in every group shall be a person belonging to the Indian or other minority communities.
In 1991, when the GRC system was implemented, all GRCs had 4 wards. By 1996, the Act was changed to allow the Whiteshirts to create 6-ward GRCs.
Look, the Prime Minister began life as a mathematician. He'll tell you that increasing the size of GRCs will dilute minority representation in Parliament, since 6-member teams need to field at least one minority candidate, the same minimum requirement of a 4-member team.
If the GRC system was to ensure minorities have a voice in Parliament, the move to expand the size of GRCs is inconsistent with the stated aim, to say the least. Are the Whiteshirts committed to racial harmony or not?
That's not the point. No one in Singapore cares if the electoral system is unfair to opposition parties.
Instead, look at the Parliamentary Elections Act, which says a GRC is:
(i) a constituency where at least one of the candidates in every group shall be a person belonging to the Malay community; or
(ii) a constituency where at least one of the candidates in every group shall be a person belonging to the Indian or other minority communities.
In 1991, when the GRC system was implemented, all GRCs had 4 wards. By 1996, the Act was changed to allow the Whiteshirts to create 6-ward GRCs.
Look, the Prime Minister began life as a mathematician. He'll tell you that increasing the size of GRCs will dilute minority representation in Parliament, since 6-member teams need to field at least one minority candidate, the same minimum requirement of a 4-member team.
If the GRC system was to ensure minorities have a voice in Parliament, the move to expand the size of GRCs is inconsistent with the stated aim, to say the least. Are the Whiteshirts committed to racial harmony or not?
23 April 2006
The first real test
I never expected such crap from Reuters.
"SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Singapore's government dissolved parliament on Thursday and called an election for May 6, a poll that will be the first real test of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's leadership."
For those of us living in the reality-based world,
1. the death of Papalee will be the first real test of Minilee's leadership.
2. the suing of Chee Soon Juan will be the first real test of Minilee's leadership.
"SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Singapore's government dissolved parliament on Thursday and called an election for May 6, a poll that will be the first real test of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's leadership."
For those of us living in the reality-based world,
1. the death of Papalee will be the first real test of Minilee's leadership.
2. the suing of Chee Soon Juan will be the first real test of Minilee's leadership.
16 April 2006
Great moments in television history
On 12 April 2006, Channel News Asia Singapore telecast a dialogue between Papalee and several Singaporeans born after 1970. You don't have to watch the entire thing, because you can fast forward to about the 12m30s mark of the video to view this interesting exchange:
(previously: a journalist fields a question on whether any invasion of privacy and violation of the secrecy of the vote had been committed since (allegedly) the PAP does know the percentage of people, down to the apartment block or polling district, who voted one way or another)
MM Lee: But you won't know who comprises the 60%, right?
Ken Kwek, 26 - Journalist; Never voted: You don't need to know that to strike fear, though.
MM Lee: Oh, come off it! (laughter) You mean to tell me you have, you're one of the 40% who voted against the PAP and something happens to you?
Ken Kwek: I mean, I've never voted for that matter, but I mean - we talk to hundreds of voters in the course of our work, and it's either "no comment" or "if I vote against the PAP, I may..."
MM Lee: No, no. Let's get down. What are the hundreds of voters? You name the hundreds of voters, a few of them. Tell me.
Ken Kwek: Well, I mean I can't name them by name...
MM Lee: No, no. You tell me you've spoken to and tell you they're afraid.
Ken Kwek: A few weeks ago, the Straits Times did a report, we polled a hundred voters...
MM Lee: No, no, no, no. Never mind the Straits Times poll. You made a statement just now, that "I spoke to a hundred respondents, and they were all afraid." I say, you name them. Tell me who.
Ken Kwek had the guts to start this, but he did not have the gumption to go all the way. After being badgered by Lee Kuan Yew, he remained silent for the remaining 40 minutes of the forum.
Foreign media should watch this video clip and take down notes here. When the Minister Mentor goes to a foreign talk show, he answers difficult questions through spinning. This video shows how he answers difficult questions from his own citizens and subjects.
Since Ken Kwek did have a point to make, let me perhaps construct what he should've said to the Minister Mentor, had he the guts to finish what he started:
Mr Minister, what will you do with this list of names of people who believe there is a climate of fear in Singapore? Can we trust you not to run investigations on who these people are, who they have studied with, who taught them?
Sir, many Singaporeans of my age do not want to live in a country where people get their names on a list because they espouse a view that you cannot accept, a view that you insist is factually wrong.
You may have started life as a cross-examiner. I have started life as a journalist, and one of the basic rules of the profession, one that is legally protected, is the right to confidentiality of journalists and their interviewees. You may ask for the list of names, but you have no right to ask for them. You, sir, do not have the right to know.
My editor at the Straits Times would have that right, to check my findings. You do not. You may even cross-examine me in court. Our judges, whose legal standards and rulings are in lockstep with judicial matters elsewhere, will answer to you the same way: you do not have the right to ask me for that list of names. Perhaps you could test this out legally. I welcome you to cross-examine me, not in a television studio, but in open court, in the full attention of the world media.
Mr Minister, why are you so insistent on proving that there cannot exist a hundred people in Singapore who believe there is a climate of fear? They are but a hundred. They are insignificant, compared to the popular support your party has had.
We at the Straits Times polled a hundred people. On the conservative side, say we have 10 people out of the 100 who believe there is some fear, and 40 who gave no comment. We shan't bother with the 40. What is the probability that out of this sample, the actual number of people in the entire population of Singapore who believe there is fear, is less than 100? The Prime Minister, your son, is a mathematician. He can tell you the odds, and he can certainly tell you that it's silly to swipe at this claim just because I didn't personally interview all the 100 respondents. Your own department of statistics operates on the same principle as well, and I don't see you swiping at them.
Why are you so insistent, then, that there cannot exist even 100 people in Singapore who believe the electorate is cowed by your party?
27 March 2006
Tired Election Strategies
A party desperately clutching at straws.
An election gimmick that didn't quite work the first time round.
The same election gimmick used yet again this year.
Gentle readers, I refer not to the "by-election" strategy in this post, but the Whiteshirt "lifting of the whip" strategy.
This year, Mr Peanut Goh has promised to allow Messrs Eric Low and Seetoh Yih Pin, the challengers in the opposition-held Hougang and Potong Pasir ridings, freedom from the party whip in the next Parliament if voters deliver these two long-time oppo wards to the Whiteshirts.
Never mind that some political experts in the Channelnewsasia article see Peanut Goh's move as inconsistent, unprincipled, and damaging Whiteshirt credibility and party discipline - we've been here before. Cue to the previous general election, where Mr Peanut Goh promised to select new MPs to form a Shadow Cabinet to keep policymakers on their toes.
Whither Peanut Goh's Shadow Cabinet today?
An election gimmick that didn't quite work the first time round.
The same election gimmick used yet again this year.
Gentle readers, I refer not to the "by-election" strategy in this post, but the Whiteshirt "lifting of the whip" strategy.
This year, Mr Peanut Goh has promised to allow Messrs Eric Low and Seetoh Yih Pin, the challengers in the opposition-held Hougang and Potong Pasir ridings, freedom from the party whip in the next Parliament if voters deliver these two long-time oppo wards to the Whiteshirts.
Never mind that some political experts in the Channelnewsasia article see Peanut Goh's move as inconsistent, unprincipled, and damaging Whiteshirt credibility and party discipline - we've been here before. Cue to the previous general election, where Mr Peanut Goh promised to select new MPs to form a Shadow Cabinet to keep policymakers on their toes.
When criticised during the recent General Elections of a lack of checks and balances on the Government, PM Goh Chok Tong had this response - the People's Action Forum. The group, described by the PM as a Shadow Cabinet, is to ensure more debate in parliament. However, unlike other countries where the Shadow Cabinet is formed by the Opposition, Singapore's Shadow Cabinet will be drawn from the ruling party, with 20 PAP MPs and Ministers serving a 2-year run. The Party whip will be lifted so they don't have to toe the party line and can even vote against party decisions.
Whither Peanut Goh's Shadow Cabinet today?
23 March 2006
21 March 2006
The ST's latest brickbat
My tuition kid and I love to read the Straits Times. So far we've learnt that:
1. Forum letters all seem to say "I so angry/stupid at X, will the relevant authorities please comment."
2. Straits Times photographers in the Home crimes page assign varying degrees of guilt depending on how closely cropped the mug of the suspect is. Clearest sign of guilt: when ST crops off the top part of the hair, takes away the neck and collar, and squishes just the face into a small box.
3. Most nonpolitical articles in the Home section seem to be written to provoke an immediate response by the reader: "What a stupid/evil/lame/unfortunate/boh liao etc. person". I call this the Incitement to Kneejerk JudgeMentality.
1. Forum letters all seem to say "I so angry/stupid at X, will the relevant authorities please comment."
2. Straits Times photographers in the Home crimes page assign varying degrees of guilt depending on how closely cropped the mug of the suspect is. Clearest sign of guilt: when ST crops off the top part of the hair, takes away the neck and collar, and squishes just the face into a small box.
3. Most nonpolitical articles in the Home section seem to be written to provoke an immediate response by the reader: "What a stupid/evil/lame/unfortunate/boh liao etc. person". I call this the Incitement to Kneejerk JudgeMentality.
11 March 2006
The Smoking Gun
And a BG is Born!
Minilee's son recently passed out from basic military training at Tekong with a marksmanship medal. Chibilee's achievement? Getting 42 out of a possible 36 points at the rifle range. This kid is going places. Today, marksman... Tomorrow, BG? (And 20 years later, the THIRD member of the Lee emperors?)
No Links Between Grassroots and PAP
Branch and local chairmen of assorted grassroots committees and the Citizens Consultative Committee (CCC) have been writing furious letters to the ST forums this week, after the paper reported allegations/complaints at a NUS politics forum on the links between grassroots organisations and the Whiteshirts.
Their denials are pretty fun to read. It's almost as though no one remembers a certain article, published in page 26 of the 5 June 2005 edition of the Straits Times, on the retirement of one Mr S Phyaindran, top grassroots activist from the CCC.
The caption of the photo says: Mr S Phyaindran (left), describing a time drug addicts loitered in Marine Parade void decks. If you look at the photo, you'll realise that Mr S Phyaindran is supposedly posing outside the entrance of the Marine Parade CCC. Its signboard displays the PAP lightning bolt in circle logo and slogans in 4 languages. The chinese one is clearly visible, and reads: 全民一心
So will the grassroots leaders and members of the CCC still be able to say honestly that their organisations are not linked to the Whiteshirts?
Minilee's son recently passed out from basic military training at Tekong with a marksmanship medal. Chibilee's achievement? Getting 42 out of a possible 36 points at the rifle range. This kid is going places. Today, marksman... Tomorrow, BG? (And 20 years later, the THIRD member of the Lee emperors?)
No Links Between Grassroots and PAP
Branch and local chairmen of assorted grassroots committees and the Citizens Consultative Committee (CCC) have been writing furious letters to the ST forums this week, after the paper reported allegations/complaints at a NUS politics forum on the links between grassroots organisations and the Whiteshirts.
Their denials are pretty fun to read. It's almost as though no one remembers a certain article, published in page 26 of the 5 June 2005 edition of the Straits Times, on the retirement of one Mr S Phyaindran, top grassroots activist from the CCC.
The caption of the photo says: Mr S Phyaindran (left), describing a time drug addicts loitered in Marine Parade void decks. If you look at the photo, you'll realise that Mr S Phyaindran is supposedly posing outside the entrance of the Marine Parade CCC. Its signboard displays the PAP lightning bolt in circle logo and slogans in 4 languages. The chinese one is clearly visible, and reads: 全民一心
So will the grassroots leaders and members of the CCC still be able to say honestly that their organisations are not linked to the Whiteshirts?
10 March 2006
Lessons on Constructive Criticism
Singapore's leaders are a bunch of creative people who repackage every possible concept in Democracy 101 into Orwell 1984.
Civil society is now civic society.
Bourdieu's cultural capital is now a show-me-your-money concept, thanks to Khaw Boon Wan's very short stint at the Ministry of Culture.
Welfare is now workfare (despite the fact that our workfare has nothing in common with how the rest of the world understands it).
In order to deny that 4 straight years of economic doldrums could create a Generation X, then-PM Goh popularised the term Generation M in his speeches.
And now constructive criticism is rebranded as "constructive suggestions", according to the Feedback Unit's "Feedback Pursuit" online game to teach Singaporeans how to engage with the System. This, of course, is another move to defang the increasingly bold mentality that's sprung up lately in the populace since the NKF debacle broke.
Agagooga has stronger nerves of steel than me, which explains why he's visited the site already. Great findings from him on the hidden messages of the Feedback Pursuit game:
Our leaders prefer that there is no politics in Singapore; hence their happy subjects are only allowed administrative participation and not political participation, tweaking policies rather than questioning policies.
Well-meaning persons will do well to understand this next time they insist that critics of the Whiteshirts should take bigger part in the feedback process. There is no substitute for political participation, no substitute for open and free questioning of policies, no substitute for accountability of politicians to their electorates. The feedback process provides none of that.
Civil society is now civic society.
Bourdieu's cultural capital is now a show-me-your-money concept, thanks to Khaw Boon Wan's very short stint at the Ministry of Culture.
Welfare is now workfare (despite the fact that our workfare has nothing in common with how the rest of the world understands it).
In order to deny that 4 straight years of economic doldrums could create a Generation X, then-PM Goh popularised the term Generation M in his speeches.
And now constructive criticism is rebranded as "constructive suggestions", according to the Feedback Unit's "Feedback Pursuit" online game to teach Singaporeans how to engage with the System. This, of course, is another move to defang the increasingly bold mentality that's sprung up lately in the populace since the NKF debacle broke.
Agagooga has stronger nerves of steel than me, which explains why he's visited the site already. Great findings from him on the hidden messages of the Feedback Pursuit game:
...instead of using Critical Thinking skills so important to the New Economy in writing their Op-Eds, Catherine Lim and Cherian George should have gone to more tea sessions and participated in more feedback dialogues and written more letters to the Straits Times Forum with suggestions to the relevant authorities.
Given that the Feedback Unit is part of the Civil Service, it is exceedingly odd for the people to engage with it, rather than with the political process proper by voicing their opinions to their elected representatives; the Civil Service deals with implementation of policies, while the political process formulates them - thus, working through the civil service would presumably only tweak the implementation of said policies, rather than resulting in substantive change.
Our leaders prefer that there is no politics in Singapore; hence their happy subjects are only allowed administrative participation and not political participation, tweaking policies rather than questioning policies.
Well-meaning persons will do well to understand this next time they insist that critics of the Whiteshirts should take bigger part in the feedback process. There is no substitute for political participation, no substitute for open and free questioning of policies, no substitute for accountability of politicians to their electorates. The feedback process provides none of that.
08 March 2006
Arab-American Lays the Smackdown on Radical Clerics
Via Edward,
This 5'27" video capture from Al Jazeera's news programme on 21 Feb shows an Arab-American psychologist berating her fellow studio guests, a group of radical imams, and the rightwing presentors, on the state of Muslim society and the Danish cartoon affair.
I, for one, am impressed at how she manages to stare down and plow through the furious cleric who kept shouting "Heretic!" at her during her presentation.
You can view the video, or read the transcript here. Her sheer force of personality comes through more in the video, though.
Excerpts:
Wafa Sultan: The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century...
Host: I understand from your words that what is happening today is a clash between the culture of the West, and the backwardness and ignorance of the Muslims?
Wafa Sultan: Yes, that is what I mean.
[...]
Host: Who came up with the concept of a clash of civilizations? Was it not Samuel Huntington? It was not Bin Laden. I would like to discuss this issue, if you don't mind...
Wafa Sultan: The Muslims are the ones who began using this expression. The Muslims are the ones who began the clash of civilizations... When the Muslims divided the people into Muslims and non-Muslims, and called to fight the others until they believe in what they themselves believe, they started this clash, and began this war.
This 5'27" video capture from Al Jazeera's news programme on 21 Feb shows an Arab-American psychologist berating her fellow studio guests, a group of radical imams, and the rightwing presentors, on the state of Muslim society and the Danish cartoon affair.
I, for one, am impressed at how she manages to stare down and plow through the furious cleric who kept shouting "Heretic!" at her during her presentation.
You can view the video, or read the transcript here. Her sheer force of personality comes through more in the video, though.
Excerpts:
Wafa Sultan: The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century...
Host: I understand from your words that what is happening today is a clash between the culture of the West, and the backwardness and ignorance of the Muslims?
Wafa Sultan: Yes, that is what I mean.
[...]
Host: Who came up with the concept of a clash of civilizations? Was it not Samuel Huntington? It was not Bin Laden. I would like to discuss this issue, if you don't mind...
Wafa Sultan: The Muslims are the ones who began using this expression. The Muslims are the ones who began the clash of civilizations... When the Muslims divided the people into Muslims and non-Muslims, and called to fight the others until they believe in what they themselves believe, they started this clash, and began this war.
07 March 2006
The Substation Loves White Elephants
It has been 4 months since the Substation launched its monthly online magazine ("The Substation Magazine"). While it does mostly performance and visual arts reviews, the magazine editor Cyril Wong seems to be steering it towards some social commentary as well as metacriticism of Singapore's art and artists.
Hopefully the Substation Magazine will shape up to be a more assessable and frequent counterpart to Focas.
(Disclosure: I wrote the top feature article for the March issue of the Substation Magazine.)
Updated 5 Sep 2007: Full text of article released here as the archives of the Substation Magazine is down, perhaps for good)
White Elephants in Singapore Art
The artist, unfettered?
Singapore’s artists have deep-set beliefs of themselves and their work. They often find it necessary to defend the value of art in a technocratic state like Singapore, especially at public forums, seminars, or even Q&A sessions at arts events. As if artists are somehow emotionally alien and distinct from the rest of humanity and completely incomprehensible:
“Why (or how) do you struggle with making art, instead of just following the rat race?”
“Is it worth it, being a round peg in a universe of square holes?”
And occasionally, even: How do artists here operate, given the restrictions of the state?
These are predictable questions that are perennially raised in almost every public forum. Of interest to us is the artist’s reply to the final question: There is freedom of speech, and we have to be very creative in putting certain politically-sensitive points across, and we occasionally have to exercise some self-censorship. So as an artist, I do not feel the heavy hand of the state.
The artist’s answer is, of course, as predictable and obligatory as the questions of of the public audience. An obligatory question meets with an obligatory reply: such is the nature of the social ritual, a liturgy of art, that establishes a kind of truth. Through each re-enactment, that truth is restated and reaffirmed as a timeless fact in itself. The coolness of the answer drowns out the doubts raised in the initial question, and re-establishes the primal state of innocence of the uncompromised artist ? a state of innocence natural, undisputed, commonsensical, and eternally so.
For all the qualities of a 10-year series answer, I hope audiences at the next public forum or Q&A session with an artist ask this question: Why was last year’s most important public art installation not done by an artist?
White elephants as art
Instead, the white elephants installation piece was created by a local businessman and minor grassroots activist from the Punggol South constituency. One August morning, eight white cardboard elephants stood outside the expensive, unopened Buangkok train station, a stunning reminder of the contest between the residents of the estate and the mandarins at the Land Transport Authority that may have shamed vacillating authorities, intent on postponing the opening of the train station in the due ripeness of time, into actually opening the station.
Even though they were exhibited for less than an hour (the grassroots activist feared reprisals and a genuine embarrassment to the visiting politician), these white elephants provide the wider audience in Singapore the idea of public art.
Good public art is:
1.Site specific art that speaks directly to the public. The work was integrated in the Buangkok MRT locale. At the same time, its installation raised the problematics of locality ? for instance, the residents campaign and the Land Transport Authority contested over the number and location of residents who would have used the station.
2.Relevant to area residents. There wasn’t any need to contemplate too deeply about what the installation meant, at its primary level. Yet, it provided much food for thought and public discussion.
3.Strong, clear social and political commentary. To call into question the judgement of technocratic mandarins, to contrast between the residents, who needed the station for their transport, and the white-collared mandarins, who did not see their need as sufficient for providing public transport. To call train station that cannot be opened a white elephant...
4.Controversial, yet humorous and cheeky. Despite its radical nature, the installation was well-liked and brought smiles to the fortunate spectators who saw it in person. Compared to other legitimate public art installations in Singapore during the same period, the public will have an enduring memory of the white elephants.
5.Safe and almost legal. The police could find no grounds to prosecute the activists involved, as the installations did not cause public annoyance or nuisance (notwithstanding the ire of the patriotic citizen who made the police report), even though the installation had not been approved within the Public Entertainment and Meetings Act.
The question, reprised
Why was the installation not done by an artist? Or, as a typical audience member in a forum might put it: Does the artist wish they had done this instead?
Let us assume first that the mythos of the unfettered artist is true. Then, there is something deficient about the white elephant installation.
Perhaps the idea of using white elephant cut-outs as an installation piece for Buangkok MRT was not creative and subtle enough? Was it too crude, the imagery not polysemic enough? If so, there wouldn’t have been a public debate or controversy over the installation. Or perhaps, was the installation socially relevant, but not art? An installation wouldn’t be real installation art if no reader disputed its status, and to remark that something is more social than artistic betrays the speaker’s ideas of what acceptable art should be...
Or, perhaps, it is time to admit that the artist has become removed, even alienated from entire types of art, through his creativity, prudent sensitivity, good taste, and self-censorship. In the oeuvre of the typical Singaporean artist, there is a lacuna that becomes the more conspicuous each time the artist insists on keeping the image of their self-censorship not affecting their creative work.
Installation art with Singaporean characteristics
Conceptual, aesthetic, avowedly non-confrontational, even to the point of avoiding biting socio-political commentary. Interred in formalised spaces within galleries; if public, curiously uninterrogative of public discourse. Perhaps the public aren’t that naive when they ask: “How do (can) artists here operate, given the restrictions of the state?” The internalisation of legal and political strictures creates a commonsensical second nature of the artist to instinctively reject certain tropes as beyond artistic markers, while maintaining protestations of his unsullied creativity.
What sort of installation art is missing in Singapore? More ephemeral pieces that last less than an hour, and only survive immaterial, in the minds of the public and their popular discourse; pieces which, in an age of mechanical reproduction, can be sold by some enterprising students on T-shirts; whose continued secondary existence point towards the multiplicity of meanings and contestations of meanings between orthodoxy and the public?
Perhaps it is time for someone to wrap the Supreme Court with a kilometre of yellow ribbon. Or plant cut-outs of a politician on a soapbox giving a speech to a large crowd in the Speaker’s Corner. Or cut-outs of picnickers, skateboarders, children flying kites ? at the wide open grass spaces prohibiting any sort of activity (State Land: No trespassing). The aim of public installation art should alert the public to alternative imaginings of public spaces; but first, practitioners should be alerted to alternative imaginings of public art.
Hopefully the Substation Magazine will shape up to be a more assessable and frequent counterpart to Focas.
(Disclosure: I wrote the top feature article for the March issue of the Substation Magazine.)
Updated 5 Sep 2007: Full text of article released here as the archives of the Substation Magazine is down, perhaps for good)
White Elephants in Singapore Art
The artist, unfettered?
Singapore’s artists have deep-set beliefs of themselves and their work. They often find it necessary to defend the value of art in a technocratic state like Singapore, especially at public forums, seminars, or even Q&A sessions at arts events. As if artists are somehow emotionally alien and distinct from the rest of humanity and completely incomprehensible:
“Why (or how) do you struggle with making art, instead of just following the rat race?”
“Is it worth it, being a round peg in a universe of square holes?”
And occasionally, even: How do artists here operate, given the restrictions of the state?
These are predictable questions that are perennially raised in almost every public forum. Of interest to us is the artist’s reply to the final question: There is freedom of speech, and we have to be very creative in putting certain politically-sensitive points across, and we occasionally have to exercise some self-censorship. So as an artist, I do not feel the heavy hand of the state.
The artist’s answer is, of course, as predictable and obligatory as the questions of of the public audience. An obligatory question meets with an obligatory reply: such is the nature of the social ritual, a liturgy of art, that establishes a kind of truth. Through each re-enactment, that truth is restated and reaffirmed as a timeless fact in itself. The coolness of the answer drowns out the doubts raised in the initial question, and re-establishes the primal state of innocence of the uncompromised artist ? a state of innocence natural, undisputed, commonsensical, and eternally so.
For all the qualities of a 10-year series answer, I hope audiences at the next public forum or Q&A session with an artist ask this question: Why was last year’s most important public art installation not done by an artist?
White elephants as art
Instead, the white elephants installation piece was created by a local businessman and minor grassroots activist from the Punggol South constituency. One August morning, eight white cardboard elephants stood outside the expensive, unopened Buangkok train station, a stunning reminder of the contest between the residents of the estate and the mandarins at the Land Transport Authority that may have shamed vacillating authorities, intent on postponing the opening of the train station in the due ripeness of time, into actually opening the station.
Even though they were exhibited for less than an hour (the grassroots activist feared reprisals and a genuine embarrassment to the visiting politician), these white elephants provide the wider audience in Singapore the idea of public art.
Good public art is:
1.Site specific art that speaks directly to the public. The work was integrated in the Buangkok MRT locale. At the same time, its installation raised the problematics of locality ? for instance, the residents campaign and the Land Transport Authority contested over the number and location of residents who would have used the station.
2.Relevant to area residents. There wasn’t any need to contemplate too deeply about what the installation meant, at its primary level. Yet, it provided much food for thought and public discussion.
3.Strong, clear social and political commentary. To call into question the judgement of technocratic mandarins, to contrast between the residents, who needed the station for their transport, and the white-collared mandarins, who did not see their need as sufficient for providing public transport. To call train station that cannot be opened a white elephant...
4.Controversial, yet humorous and cheeky. Despite its radical nature, the installation was well-liked and brought smiles to the fortunate spectators who saw it in person. Compared to other legitimate public art installations in Singapore during the same period, the public will have an enduring memory of the white elephants.
5.Safe and almost legal. The police could find no grounds to prosecute the activists involved, as the installations did not cause public annoyance or nuisance (notwithstanding the ire of the patriotic citizen who made the police report), even though the installation had not been approved within the Public Entertainment and Meetings Act.
The question, reprised
Why was the installation not done by an artist? Or, as a typical audience member in a forum might put it: Does the artist wish they had done this instead?
Let us assume first that the mythos of the unfettered artist is true. Then, there is something deficient about the white elephant installation.
Perhaps the idea of using white elephant cut-outs as an installation piece for Buangkok MRT was not creative and subtle enough? Was it too crude, the imagery not polysemic enough? If so, there wouldn’t have been a public debate or controversy over the installation. Or perhaps, was the installation socially relevant, but not art? An installation wouldn’t be real installation art if no reader disputed its status, and to remark that something is more social than artistic betrays the speaker’s ideas of what acceptable art should be...
Or, perhaps, it is time to admit that the artist has become removed, even alienated from entire types of art, through his creativity, prudent sensitivity, good taste, and self-censorship. In the oeuvre of the typical Singaporean artist, there is a lacuna that becomes the more conspicuous each time the artist insists on keeping the image of their self-censorship not affecting their creative work.
Installation art with Singaporean characteristics
Conceptual, aesthetic, avowedly non-confrontational, even to the point of avoiding biting socio-political commentary. Interred in formalised spaces within galleries; if public, curiously uninterrogative of public discourse. Perhaps the public aren’t that naive when they ask: “How do (can) artists here operate, given the restrictions of the state?” The internalisation of legal and political strictures creates a commonsensical second nature of the artist to instinctively reject certain tropes as beyond artistic markers, while maintaining protestations of his unsullied creativity.
What sort of installation art is missing in Singapore? More ephemeral pieces that last less than an hour, and only survive immaterial, in the minds of the public and their popular discourse; pieces which, in an age of mechanical reproduction, can be sold by some enterprising students on T-shirts; whose continued secondary existence point towards the multiplicity of meanings and contestations of meanings between orthodoxy and the public?
Perhaps it is time for someone to wrap the Supreme Court with a kilometre of yellow ribbon. Or plant cut-outs of a politician on a soapbox giving a speech to a large crowd in the Speaker’s Corner. Or cut-outs of picnickers, skateboarders, children flying kites ? at the wide open grass spaces prohibiting any sort of activity (State Land: No trespassing). The aim of public installation art should alert the public to alternative imaginings of public spaces; but first, practitioners should be alerted to alternative imaginings of public art.
05 March 2006
On Workfare
The Curious Incident of the Workfare Budget in Parliament
On 1 March, Minilee announced in Parliament, near the end of the Budget debates, that the much-hyped workfare component is not meant to be a permanent fixture; having it every year will lead to welfarism, which is bad for Singapore. To clarify, the workfare component in this year's Budget should be viewed as a one-off, infrequent, occasional bonus.
Contrary to Straits Times headline of Minilee conclusively refuting opposition criticisms, the declaration that the workfare idea is just a one-off only serves to highlight the fact that since it's not permanent, it's not a shift, then it has to be an election goodie.
I do not begrudge the fact that Singapore's current Parliamentary acts as a rubberstamp for whatever policy directions and final decisions its Prime Minister ("the Princeps") decides upon. Ministers and backbenchers debate the Budget for 2 weeks, then regardless of the criticisms and points raised, vote to pass the same Budget in a ritual vote afterwards. Outwardly, the forms of democratic rule are observed.
Real transparency and open government, however, depends not on the destination that Minilee selects, but the journey and the process by which he arrives at his decisions. On the 17 Feb, on the opening of the Budget debate, Minilee unveiled the workfare component as a major shift in thinking, to focus more on the poor and the elderly in the long term.
Workfare, he declared, is not welfare. It will not lead to welfare. Minilee even made the same declaration during last year's National Day Rally Speech. Throughout the month of January, in the runup to the Budget session of Parliament, Minilee had continually played up the role of workfare and promising a permanent shift in Budget.
Even the Straits Times, on 25 February, after the first week of the Budget session, issued a 6-page feature in its Insight pages, proclaiming that "Budget 06 marks shift in thinking" with its new workfare component. Its top political operative, Chua Mui Hoong (the Maureen Dowd of Singapore), cheered on the creation of a "Kinder, gentler rat race". The efficient press regulatory framework ensures a tight coordination between the state and the news media, especially for major features analysing political events like these Budget reports.
At this moment, for example, in March 2006 (if it is March 2006), workfare will lead to welfare. In no public or private utterance will it ever be admitted that the two concepts had at any time been grouped along different lines. Actually, as everyone well knows, it was only 1 week ago that workfare was not welfare, would never lead to welfare, and had the backing of Minilee, who introduced the idea himself. But this is merely a piece of furtive knowledge which we happen to possess because our memories are not satisfactorily under control. Officially the change of relations had never happened. Workfare will lead to welfare: therefore Workfare had always led to Welfare...
That Minilee made the reversal in such short notice that it took the Straits Times in surprise isn't as shocking as the blase acceptance of the new state of events by his 80+ colleagues in Parliament. No one took a minute to address the plothole or request the Princeps to account for the sudden and complete demolition of an ideological point he built up so painstakingly since last year.
Minilee first unveiled the workfare idea last August. His million-dollar ministers and elite backbenchers have had more than 6 months to do their homework on workfare. It appears they didn't, or didn't bother to. At no time during the Budget session did any minister or backbencher actually do a presentation of the implementation and philosophy of workfare as it exists in other countries. Perhaps if they had done so, we would come to the embarrassing realisation that workfare:
1. Is not an original invention of Minilee
The media kept putting quotation marks on workfare last August, to make it seem this was new term coined on the spot by Minilee.
2. Actually exists in other countries
Google is your best friend.
3. Is a full-fledged, theoretically sound (although widely criticised) concept
4. As it exists in Singapore, has completely zero relation to workfare as it exists in other countries, and as it exists as a theoretical concept.
Appropriation and bastardisation of existing concepts has long being the modus operandi of the new crop of ministers; see Khaw Boon Wan's excreable appropriation, reinvention, and bastardisation of Bourdieu's "cultural capital", but surely, one expects better from the Prime Minister of Singapore.
On 1 March, Minilee announced in Parliament, near the end of the Budget debates, that the much-hyped workfare component is not meant to be a permanent fixture; having it every year will lead to welfarism, which is bad for Singapore. To clarify, the workfare component in this year's Budget should be viewed as a one-off, infrequent, occasional bonus.
Contrary to Straits Times headline of Minilee conclusively refuting opposition criticisms, the declaration that the workfare idea is just a one-off only serves to highlight the fact that since it's not permanent, it's not a shift, then it has to be an election goodie.
I do not begrudge the fact that Singapore's current Parliamentary acts as a rubberstamp for whatever policy directions and final decisions its Prime Minister ("the Princeps") decides upon. Ministers and backbenchers debate the Budget for 2 weeks, then regardless of the criticisms and points raised, vote to pass the same Budget in a ritual vote afterwards. Outwardly, the forms of democratic rule are observed.
Real transparency and open government, however, depends not on the destination that Minilee selects, but the journey and the process by which he arrives at his decisions. On the 17 Feb, on the opening of the Budget debate, Minilee unveiled the workfare component as a major shift in thinking, to focus more on the poor and the elderly in the long term.
Workfare, he declared, is not welfare. It will not lead to welfare. Minilee even made the same declaration during last year's National Day Rally Speech. Throughout the month of January, in the runup to the Budget session of Parliament, Minilee had continually played up the role of workfare and promising a permanent shift in Budget.
Even the Straits Times, on 25 February, after the first week of the Budget session, issued a 6-page feature in its Insight pages, proclaiming that "Budget 06 marks shift in thinking" with its new workfare component. Its top political operative, Chua Mui Hoong (the Maureen Dowd of Singapore), cheered on the creation of a "Kinder, gentler rat race". The efficient press regulatory framework ensures a tight coordination between the state and the news media, especially for major features analysing political events like these Budget reports.
At this moment, for example, in March 2006 (if it is March 2006), workfare will lead to welfare. In no public or private utterance will it ever be admitted that the two concepts had at any time been grouped along different lines. Actually, as everyone well knows, it was only 1 week ago that workfare was not welfare, would never lead to welfare, and had the backing of Minilee, who introduced the idea himself. But this is merely a piece of furtive knowledge which we happen to possess because our memories are not satisfactorily under control. Officially the change of relations had never happened. Workfare will lead to welfare: therefore Workfare had always led to Welfare...
That Minilee made the reversal in such short notice that it took the Straits Times in surprise isn't as shocking as the blase acceptance of the new state of events by his 80+ colleagues in Parliament. No one took a minute to address the plothole or request the Princeps to account for the sudden and complete demolition of an ideological point he built up so painstakingly since last year.
Minilee first unveiled the workfare idea last August. His million-dollar ministers and elite backbenchers have had more than 6 months to do their homework on workfare. It appears they didn't, or didn't bother to. At no time during the Budget session did any minister or backbencher actually do a presentation of the implementation and philosophy of workfare as it exists in other countries. Perhaps if they had done so, we would come to the embarrassing realisation that workfare:
1. Is not an original invention of Minilee
The media kept putting quotation marks on workfare last August, to make it seem this was new term coined on the spot by Minilee.
2. Actually exists in other countries
Google is your best friend.
3. Is a full-fledged, theoretically sound (although widely criticised) concept
4. As it exists in Singapore, has completely zero relation to workfare as it exists in other countries, and as it exists as a theoretical concept.
Appropriation and bastardisation of existing concepts has long being the modus operandi of the new crop of ministers; see Khaw Boon Wan's excreable appropriation, reinvention, and bastardisation of Bourdieu's "cultural capital", but surely, one expects better from the Prime Minister of Singapore.
03 March 2006
All of the people, all of the time
In Parliament on Wednesday, Minilee solemnly declares the workfare bonus is a one-off bonus; having it every year will lead to welfarism, which is bad for Singapore!
Any self-respecting journalist would've pointed out immediately that Minilee spent the entire past 2 weeks in Parliament selling workfare as an alternative to welfare, that it is NOT welfare and can never be welfare.
Yet Minilee now does a turnaround and say workfare will lead to welfare.
The Straits Times wrote a feature article over the weekend predicting that the workfare bonus scheme heralded a change in the Budget paradigm . Knowing the cosy partnership between state and media, and the tremendous coordination to get the message out, one wonders how Minilee's flipflop caught the Straits Times unaware.
Minilee keeps claiming that the workfare bonus is not an election sweetener. Now that we know the workfare bonus is neither a permanent reworking of the labour market, nor a shift in the Budget paradigm, and just a one-off event, what else can it be aside from an election sweetener?
How is it that Minilee and his lieutenants have once again appropriated an existing word (the workfare concept has been in existence for a long time), bastardised its meaning, and claimed it as their very own smart idea? (Shades of "cultural capital"!)
Let's not forget the million-dollar ministers and their elite backbenchers paid absolutely no attention, did no homework, and discussed nothing about existing implementations of 'workfare' in other countries during budget debate week.
Minilee also claims that increasing employers' share of CPF contributions cannot be done because that would drive up labour costs, making Singapore uncompetitive. Let's see, didn't he claim when he cut employers' contribution that it was a drastic but necessary, and therefore temporary move?
To top this all off, Minilee has his own Marie Antoinette moment. Rejecting opposition calls for unemployment insurance, Minilee says most Singaporeans have some form of retirement benefits anyway.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong is either a fool or a liar. Impeach him, impeach him NOWWWW!
Any self-respecting journalist would've pointed out immediately that Minilee spent the entire past 2 weeks in Parliament selling workfare as an alternative to welfare, that it is NOT welfare and can never be welfare.
Yet Minilee now does a turnaround and say workfare will lead to welfare.
The Straits Times wrote a feature article over the weekend predicting that the workfare bonus scheme heralded a change in the Budget paradigm . Knowing the cosy partnership between state and media, and the tremendous coordination to get the message out, one wonders how Minilee's flipflop caught the Straits Times unaware.
Minilee keeps claiming that the workfare bonus is not an election sweetener. Now that we know the workfare bonus is neither a permanent reworking of the labour market, nor a shift in the Budget paradigm, and just a one-off event, what else can it be aside from an election sweetener?
How is it that Minilee and his lieutenants have once again appropriated an existing word (the workfare concept has been in existence for a long time), bastardised its meaning, and claimed it as their very own smart idea? (Shades of "cultural capital"!)
Let's not forget the million-dollar ministers and their elite backbenchers paid absolutely no attention, did no homework, and discussed nothing about existing implementations of 'workfare' in other countries during budget debate week.
Minilee also claims that increasing employers' share of CPF contributions cannot be done because that would drive up labour costs, making Singapore uncompetitive. Let's see, didn't he claim when he cut employers' contribution that it was a drastic but necessary, and therefore temporary move?
To top this all off, Minilee has his own Marie Antoinette moment. Rejecting opposition calls for unemployment insurance, Minilee says most Singaporeans have some form of retirement benefits anyway.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong is either a fool or a liar. Impeach him, impeach him NOWWWW!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)