On 10 February 2022, the Committee of Privileges presented its official report on Ms Raeesah's Khan's lies to the Singapore Parliament.
Here are some of the salient points from the report.
 |
| For all intents and purposes, the fat lady has sung |
Showing posts with label the eternal revolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the eternal revolution. Show all posts
14 February 2022
When will it be safe to support the Workers' Party again?
26 May 2014
"Daddy where is your car & who are all these poor people?"
We put a spotlight on Singapore's transport policy to identify the ideology—a set of commonsensical assumptions so commonsensical their existence is not denied but unacknowledged—through which the Public Transport Council's (PTC) modelling of the transport system and its pricing and funding calculations are mediated.
In his Straits Times op-ed of 25 May 2014, PTC chairman (2005-2014) Gerard Ee defends the PAP government's current orthodoxy regarding transport fares: i.e. it is right that PTC-approved annual transport fare increases have nothing to do with service standards, and if the public wants better service standards, it ought to pay a premium over the annual fare increases.
That the chairman of the PTC thinks this way is not cause for consternation. He is after all no economist or a transport analyst or expert. He heads a council that is mandated to approve fare hikes by Singapore's bus and train monopolist, and not a research institute for transport policy studies.
But look: the chairman of the PTC lives in a bizarro universe where it is unrealistic for commuters to expect actual quality of service improvements in the face of state-guaranteed transport fare increases. In the reality where we live, it is unrealistic for monopolistic transport operators to enjoy state-guaranteed transport fare increases while failing to prevent near-guaranteed service deterioration every year.
This tells you something about the world-view, the ideology, the ontology of the crafters of Singapore's transport policy and the messenger they've tasked to convey their views to the public via an op-ed piece in yesterday's Straits Times.
And if you read his op-ed piece, it turns out Gerard Ee insists that the annual fare increases have been all about the bus and train monopolies investing in infrastructure. Clearly, Gerard Ee lives in a bizarro universe where the monumental series of train breakdowns of 2012-2014 weren't caused by the train monopolist failing to invest in infrastructure and maintenance for a decade.
Still, that's not a cause for consternation.
What's a real cause for consternation is Gerard Ee's vision of public transport:
"If you treasure your time and comfort, you pay a premium—there are premium services. If you value your time and comfort even more, buy a car. And then ultimately, get a chauffeur."
THEM'S FIGHTING WORDS!
In just 2 sentences, Gerard Ee's words betray the ideology lurking behind the dry, values-free tables and numbers that prop up current transport policy implementation. In just 2 sentences, Gerard Ee talks about public transport in terms of personal wealth. In just 2 sentences, Gerard Ee ties transport service—the idea of getting there in time and in comfort—with personal wealth.
In just 2 sentences, Gerard Ee whitewashes the very public failures of Singapore's transport policy: the inability of highly profitable monopolists to get people anywhere on time, and the chronic overcrowding and overloading of public transport infrastructure.
In just 2 sentences, one may infer that in the minds of Singapore's policy planners, public transport is a program for the poor, and a poor program because the poor can't afford better service and shouldn't be spoiled by good programs.
This patronising, elitist mindset is not too different from that of one Anton Casey, who riled half of Singapore with his allegedly offensive joke about public transport being for poor people.
And this narrative of the undeserving poor, the paths which cannot be taken for reasons too esoteric for the public to appreciate, is an ongoing habit of Gerard Ee. He has in the past publicly rejected outright lower transport fares for the elderly (while wearing his other hat as chairman for an active aging body), and concessions for polytechnic students (while wearing his PTC hat).
His successor, former judge Richard Magnus, is no better. Like Ee, he is no transport expert. For 2014, Magnus has excluded the poorest 20% from the PTC's transport fare calculations because they should be able to pay for public transport after taking into account the subsidies and handouts they get elsewhere. It is our opinion that this methodology necessarily makes transport more expensive than it would be if fare increases had to take into account the ability of the poorest 20% to pay for it.
Once you identify the ideological root of Singapore's public transport policies, you may begin to also understand the ideological blinkers behind the PTC's blanket refusal to consider several suggestions for fare subsidies and the government's automatic dismissal of several transport reform suggestions.
This is a pity, not only for Gerard Ee's credibility—public transport policy is beginning to turn, and his public pronouncements of "thou shalt not go there" will be forever remembered and measured against these reversals—but also for the fact that the son of Ee Peng Liang, the "father of charity in Singapore", seems to see public transport as a program for the poor, and a poor program.
07 August 2011
Bringing the gavel down on Workers Party I
MSN builds campaign against WP and Sylvia Lim
There is an unfolding situation over at Aljunied-Hougang Town Council. No doubt it's been angled ever so subtly by the government-owned media in Singapore as the B plot and convenient distraction to its presidential election due to take place on 27 August. Like a carefully plotted campaign, Singapore's news media is content to put its citizens on a drip on this story, calibrating the slow release of information that may build up to an implied allegation of mismanagement or corruption in the AHTC as well as the original HTC.
The reporters have the full story but they will not release all of it, not all at once - even though they have the fullest access to the information for a long time. Their cynical exercise may be rightly dismissed as a ploy but what if the story does have legs?
Non-transparency? Improper procedures? Or something far worse?
Consider this: Almost immediately after winning the ward of Aljunied, the Workers Party's town council HATC employed a new managing agent without a tender. The managing agent is FM Solutions (FMSS).
What is even more peculiar is how Ms Sylvia Lim, the incoming MP for Aljunied and concurrently the chairman of AHTC and HTC before that, defends this decision. She alleges "the decision to award FMSS the contract without calling for a tender was due to the deadline set by the Ministry of National Development".
That's bizarre logic there, Sherlock! If there's a deadline that the town council can't meet, the most obvious thing to do is to retain the old managing agent temporarily for a year - not replacing the incumbent with a new managing agent!
We see no logic for WP to claim grounds for its extraordinary measures. During the last election, the Aljunied ward had the least amount of redrawing. We do not hear of other town councils having to enact such measures despite their greater turmoil and reorganisation.
What's even more bizarre is how the managing agent was formed and registered with ACRA only just - on 15 May 2011, to be precise. Yes, AHTC terminated the ongoing incumbent whose contract was still in existence so they could hire a managing agent that is literally brand new. According to ACRA reports, this entity was formed not long before the elections with a paid up capital of $500,000 for the expressed sole purpose of providing town council services.
Let's say anyone with access to competent polling would have known Aljunied would fall to the Workers Party. Let's say someone is enterprising enough to do pre-emptively sink half a million to form a company whose sole business activity is "town councils" to bid for the managing agent position with the new Aljunied Town Council. And hire 77 people on short notice. But that doesn't really make sense unless they're very certain they'd get the contract. And it makes even less sense if FMSS was formed just to contest for the sole tender of AHTC.
None of us would believe that a newly established, costly venture will be content to get a one year contract by the back door. For all intents and purposes, FMSS will be awarded the full contract next year by the AHTC and hence help the press build up its allegations of procurement corruption.
One director, five directors, how many key directors?
Now Sylvia assures us that its managing agent's "key directors have been in the field for an average of 20 years". I don't know what this sentence means. No one can know what it means because it means nothing. It's nonsense, gobbledegook, balderdash. Here, I'll hold your hand in this exercise.
What is an "average" and why is it a meaningful number? An average is the sum total of the attributes of all the units divided by the total number of units there are.
The statement "FMSS's directors have been in the field for an average of 20 years" would make sense in this case. But to say that its key directors (i.e. not all directors) have an average of 20 years tells you exactly nothing. It's an intellectually dishonest and cynical statement. It's intellectually dishonest because an average of a subset of a population says nothing about the population, and cynical because legally speaking, all the directors of a company are jointly accountable - key directors or otherwise.
FMSS has 6 directors in total. Which are its "key directors"? What is the average experience of all the directors in FMSS? These are questions we want answered!
Of course ACRA has all this on record. You'll also notice how FMSS suddenly increased from its original sole director, Mr Danny Loh Chong Meng, registering 4 more directors hurriedly on 16 June just after the press started reporting on WP town councils. Who are these mysterious men? Are they normal directors or key directors? Where did they work previously and how much experience do they have in town council management?
Of interest to us is of the 4 new directors found their way into FMSS, a certain How Weng Fan also happens to be a former secretary of HTC, the direct precursor of AHTC. Is this not already a conflict of interest? When did How Weng Fan stop being a secretary of HTC? Was that before or after the formation of FMSS? How many other directors of FMSS have rendered services for HTC in the past? How many of them have rendered exclusive services for HTC?
Now you see why the news media is preparing the ground with the initial charge of non-transparent procedure in the Workers Party's management of the Aljunied-Hougang town council? It's so it can lead to the eventual allegation of corruption in public procurement.
Love me tender, WP
In fact, Sylvia's logic is even more warped if you take into account the fact that AHTC did have the time anyway to call for a tender for four other contracts on 17 June, barely weeks after winning the ward. And again, it made this decision over the option of holding on to its existing contractors temporarily for a year. Yes, AHTC had so little time that it found the time to call for a tender for everything but a managing agent in this Classifieds ad.
It has so little time that the tender period from announcement to closing date is just 2 weeks - a quickie compared to PAP-held town council project tenders, which are normally 3 weeks to 1 month.
To town council service providers and managers, this should set off alarm bells. Players in the town council services industry need at least 3 weeks to compete competently for a tender because of the time frames involved to get the necessary documentation, certificates, and licenses from the Building and Construction Authority.
In a more bizarre note, the AHTC tender insists on a "pay first" scheme. Ordinarily (i.e. how PAP town councils do things), interested contractors attend the tender briefing to get an idea of the scope of work, the coverage and condition of the town council's area. Then if they feel they are up for it and are still interested, they'll pay the money for the tender documents.
In contrast, AHTC demands that interested contractors pay first to attend the tender briefing. Under what circumstances would any contractor take part in this ridiculous process? Your guess is as good as mine, dear readers.
If we assume procurement corruption, AHTC's shortened and backwards tender process will certainly benefit players who are certain they'll get the awards, i.e. players who have links to the town council. It would be interesting to note which companies won the tenders and who heads them. It would fit in with the same shortened and illogical awarding of the management agent contract to FMSS too.
There is an unfolding situation over at Aljunied-Hougang Town Council. No doubt it's been angled ever so subtly by the government-owned media in Singapore as the B plot and convenient distraction to its presidential election due to take place on 27 August. Like a carefully plotted campaign, Singapore's news media is content to put its citizens on a drip on this story, calibrating the slow release of information that may build up to an implied allegation of mismanagement or corruption in the AHTC as well as the original HTC.
The reporters have the full story but they will not release all of it, not all at once - even though they have the fullest access to the information for a long time. Their cynical exercise may be rightly dismissed as a ploy but what if the story does have legs?
Non-transparency? Improper procedures? Or something far worse?
Consider this: Almost immediately after winning the ward of Aljunied, the Workers Party's town council HATC employed a new managing agent without a tender. The managing agent is FM Solutions (FMSS).
What is even more peculiar is how Ms Sylvia Lim, the incoming MP for Aljunied and concurrently the chairman of AHTC and HTC before that, defends this decision. She alleges "the decision to award FMSS the contract without calling for a tender was due to the deadline set by the Ministry of National Development".
That's bizarre logic there, Sherlock! If there's a deadline that the town council can't meet, the most obvious thing to do is to retain the old managing agent temporarily for a year - not replacing the incumbent with a new managing agent!
We see no logic for WP to claim grounds for its extraordinary measures. During the last election, the Aljunied ward had the least amount of redrawing. We do not hear of other town councils having to enact such measures despite their greater turmoil and reorganisation.
What's even more bizarre is how the managing agent was formed and registered with ACRA only just - on 15 May 2011, to be precise. Yes, AHTC terminated the ongoing incumbent whose contract was still in existence so they could hire a managing agent that is literally brand new. According to ACRA reports, this entity was formed not long before the elections with a paid up capital of $500,000 for the expressed sole purpose of providing town council services.
Let's say anyone with access to competent polling would have known Aljunied would fall to the Workers Party. Let's say someone is enterprising enough to do pre-emptively sink half a million to form a company whose sole business activity is "town councils" to bid for the managing agent position with the new Aljunied Town Council. And hire 77 people on short notice. But that doesn't really make sense unless they're very certain they'd get the contract. And it makes even less sense if FMSS was formed just to contest for the sole tender of AHTC.
None of us would believe that a newly established, costly venture will be content to get a one year contract by the back door. For all intents and purposes, FMSS will be awarded the full contract next year by the AHTC and hence help the press build up its allegations of procurement corruption.
One director, five directors, how many key directors?
Now Sylvia assures us that its managing agent's "key directors have been in the field for an average of 20 years". I don't know what this sentence means. No one can know what it means because it means nothing. It's nonsense, gobbledegook, balderdash. Here, I'll hold your hand in this exercise.
What is an "average" and why is it a meaningful number? An average is the sum total of the attributes of all the units divided by the total number of units there are.
The statement "FMSS's directors have been in the field for an average of 20 years" would make sense in this case. But to say that its key directors (i.e. not all directors) have an average of 20 years tells you exactly nothing. It's an intellectually dishonest and cynical statement. It's intellectually dishonest because an average of a subset of a population says nothing about the population, and cynical because legally speaking, all the directors of a company are jointly accountable - key directors or otherwise.
FMSS has 6 directors in total. Which are its "key directors"? What is the average experience of all the directors in FMSS? These are questions we want answered!
Of course ACRA has all this on record. You'll also notice how FMSS suddenly increased from its original sole director, Mr Danny Loh Chong Meng, registering 4 more directors hurriedly on 16 June just after the press started reporting on WP town councils. Who are these mysterious men? Are they normal directors or key directors? Where did they work previously and how much experience do they have in town council management?
Of interest to us is of the 4 new directors found their way into FMSS, a certain How Weng Fan also happens to be a former secretary of HTC, the direct precursor of AHTC. Is this not already a conflict of interest? When did How Weng Fan stop being a secretary of HTC? Was that before or after the formation of FMSS? How many other directors of FMSS have rendered services for HTC in the past? How many of them have rendered exclusive services for HTC?
Now you see why the news media is preparing the ground with the initial charge of non-transparent procedure in the Workers Party's management of the Aljunied-Hougang town council? It's so it can lead to the eventual allegation of corruption in public procurement.
Love me tender, WP
In fact, Sylvia's logic is even more warped if you take into account the fact that AHTC did have the time anyway to call for a tender for four other contracts on 17 June, barely weeks after winning the ward. And again, it made this decision over the option of holding on to its existing contractors temporarily for a year. Yes, AHTC had so little time that it found the time to call for a tender for everything but a managing agent in this Classifieds ad.It has so little time that the tender period from announcement to closing date is just 2 weeks - a quickie compared to PAP-held town council project tenders, which are normally 3 weeks to 1 month.
To town council service providers and managers, this should set off alarm bells. Players in the town council services industry need at least 3 weeks to compete competently for a tender because of the time frames involved to get the necessary documentation, certificates, and licenses from the Building and Construction Authority.
In a more bizarre note, the AHTC tender insists on a "pay first" scheme. Ordinarily (i.e. how PAP town councils do things), interested contractors attend the tender briefing to get an idea of the scope of work, the coverage and condition of the town council's area. Then if they feel they are up for it and are still interested, they'll pay the money for the tender documents.
In contrast, AHTC demands that interested contractors pay first to attend the tender briefing. Under what circumstances would any contractor take part in this ridiculous process? Your guess is as good as mine, dear readers.
If we assume procurement corruption, AHTC's shortened and backwards tender process will certainly benefit players who are certain they'll get the awards, i.e. players who have links to the town council. It would be interesting to note which companies won the tenders and who heads them. It would fit in with the same shortened and illogical awarding of the management agent contract to FMSS too.
07 May 2011
One final question for GE2011
As a voter, I will ask myself this as I enter the polling booth in a few hours' time.
Has my life improved in the past five years? Or do I count myself among the swathes of Singaporeans who had to work harder, faster, cheaper - while facing rising costs? Did the PAP's idea of their successful five years coincide with how my life went?
Do I see my life improving in the next five years under the incumbents? Do I see myself working even harder, faster, and cheaper in the next five years thanks to what the PAP considers as the right policies for Singapore?
That is all.
Has my life improved in the past five years? Or do I count myself among the swathes of Singaporeans who had to work harder, faster, cheaper - while facing rising costs? Did the PAP's idea of their successful five years coincide with how my life went?
Do I see my life improving in the next five years under the incumbents? Do I see myself working even harder, faster, and cheaper in the next five years thanks to what the PAP considers as the right policies for Singapore?
That is all.
24 August 2010
The ultimate national day video project
Your reading for the week at SINdie
Excerpts:
Before August ends, take a trip down with us through memory lane and look at a special set of videos. These videos have been around since 1985 and are influential in the way they have shaped our perception of ourselves, the places, the people and the systems around us.
06 May 2010
MOE and sex ed: let the culture war begin!
Last week, Singapore's Ministry of Education released its new approved sex education vendors list after a revamp and audit of external vendors and their programmes. Word has it that liberals and secularists in Singapore are concerned with the new list - 5 out of 6 of the vendors are linked to Christian organisations.
Should this be a concern? The ministry wants you to stop asking this question because "external vendors affiliated to religious groups are reminded not to proselytise or make reference to their religions during activities".
For Singaporeans who have been keeping tabs over the years of the objectionable content of the programmes by these vendors (showing the infamous Silent Scream video which shows gory abortion pics but doesn't say that these were pics of procedures now banned and from miscarried foetuses rather than aborted foetuses, requiring students to sign chastity promises, teaching that masturbation is morally wrong)... Well, let's just say that these Singaporeans won't buy MOE's Jedi Mind Trick that easily.
So have the fundamentalist Christians won this culture war? Should we all be worried that our children are going to be mis-educated in schools?
Interest; or Means, Motives, and Opportunity
Let us construct a hypothetical social field of sex education, where the players can be situated and bounded by their interest(s) and subsequent positioning and position-taking in the struggles of this field - which like all other social fields, are centred on who is a "legitimate" member and taking a "orthodox" stand.
Who would be interested to offer sex education in the institutional context of schools?
Who would be interested to offer sex education as a comprehensive subject?
Who would be interested in defining sex education as a normative subject, as opposed to a scientific subject?
I put it to you that the paucity of non-Christian and even non-fundamentalist Christian CSE providers is due to the lack of interest of any other factions (from the wider society, from the wider conservative majority, from even the varied Christian community) to offer sex education.
Out of society at large, it is the fundamentalist Christians are interested in sex education as a political issue. It is the fundamentalist Christians are most interested to see sex education taught as a subject in schools.
Sex education in schools is a narrow interest of fundamentalist Christians - and it should be no surprise that they constitute the bulk of the supply and demand for sex education in schools - and that the orthodox or consensus principles of sex education from these vendors are going to be the ultraconservative, with a hard Christian core.
The tyranny of the minority
Wider society may be conservative, but not all conservatives make an issue out of sex education or insist on a moralistic approach to sex education - aside from a tiny faction of fundamentalist Christians.
As demand and supply for this form of sex education is mostly from this small but vocal minority, I am scandalised that MOE has decided to allow these vendors to offer sex education to ALL schools in Singapore, a free platform to push their narrow philosophies on sexuality, which go further right than most conservatives in Singapore.
These sexuality programmes pander to such a small minority of Singaporeans, I am surprised that MOE is allowing these providers to push their programmes under the protection of the ministry, and even to charge money from it. As even retired Rev Yap Kim Hao has mentioned in the Straits Times forums, these CSE programmes are unlikely to be effective or informative or practical.
Why is MOE allowing taxpayers money (i.e from non-Christian and secular Singaporeans) to fund these clearly Christian, clearly impractical, clearly anti-educational programmes?
Whose philosophy? Whose transparency?
"MOE's philosophy on sexuality education is that it does not encourage nor promote masturbation, abortion and oral and anal sex."
MOE's sex education philosophy is counter to its stated objectives of tackling problems related to teenage pregnancies, STDs, sexual activity in teens.
Hardcore, ultraconservative sex education programmes have had a track record of abject failure. When GW Bush pushed them as a condition for aid to third-world countries, we have not seen data to show any relief in sex-related problems in these regions.
Instead of asking vendors for transparency, the Ministry of Education should be asked to be transparent - what groups did it consult to reach its philosophy of sex education? What criteria did it even use to say that these vendors' programmes are credible, truthful, or even "work"? Which other groups had approached the Ministry of Education and were rejected? Can the public examine the curricula and teaching material of these sex education vendors?
Officially, we live in a secular society. Even the ministers say so!
A growing list of distinguished ministers, senior ministers and deputy prime ministers and prime ministers of Singapore have made speeches and remarks over the past year about the secular nature of Singapore, repeating assurances that Singapore will never ever see the kind of cultural wars fought in schools and classrooms all across the US.
The Klever Kids at the Ministry of Education just made all these assurances worth precious little. I would like to ask Ministers Wong Kan Seng, S Jayakumar, Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong just how committed they are to keeping Singapore a secular society, and in particular, keeping classrooms in Singapore free from religious activists pushing their narrow ideas of sex education.
Should this be a concern? The ministry wants you to stop asking this question because "external vendors affiliated to religious groups are reminded not to proselytise or make reference to their religions during activities".
For Singaporeans who have been keeping tabs over the years of the objectionable content of the programmes by these vendors (showing the infamous Silent Scream video which shows gory abortion pics but doesn't say that these were pics of procedures now banned and from miscarried foetuses rather than aborted foetuses, requiring students to sign chastity promises, teaching that masturbation is morally wrong)... Well, let's just say that these Singaporeans won't buy MOE's Jedi Mind Trick that easily.
So have the fundamentalist Christians won this culture war? Should we all be worried that our children are going to be mis-educated in schools?
Interest; or Means, Motives, and Opportunity
Let us construct a hypothetical social field of sex education, where the players can be situated and bounded by their interest(s) and subsequent positioning and position-taking in the struggles of this field - which like all other social fields, are centred on who is a "legitimate" member and taking a "orthodox" stand.
Who would be interested to offer sex education in the institutional context of schools?
Who would be interested to offer sex education as a comprehensive subject?
Who would be interested in defining sex education as a normative subject, as opposed to a scientific subject?
I put it to you that the paucity of non-Christian and even non-fundamentalist Christian CSE providers is due to the lack of interest of any other factions (from the wider society, from the wider conservative majority, from even the varied Christian community) to offer sex education.
Out of society at large, it is the fundamentalist Christians are interested in sex education as a political issue. It is the fundamentalist Christians are most interested to see sex education taught as a subject in schools.
Sex education in schools is a narrow interest of fundamentalist Christians - and it should be no surprise that they constitute the bulk of the supply and demand for sex education in schools - and that the orthodox or consensus principles of sex education from these vendors are going to be the ultraconservative, with a hard Christian core.
The tyranny of the minority
Wider society may be conservative, but not all conservatives make an issue out of sex education or insist on a moralistic approach to sex education - aside from a tiny faction of fundamentalist Christians.
As demand and supply for this form of sex education is mostly from this small but vocal minority, I am scandalised that MOE has decided to allow these vendors to offer sex education to ALL schools in Singapore, a free platform to push their narrow philosophies on sexuality, which go further right than most conservatives in Singapore.
These sexuality programmes pander to such a small minority of Singaporeans, I am surprised that MOE is allowing these providers to push their programmes under the protection of the ministry, and even to charge money from it. As even retired Rev Yap Kim Hao has mentioned in the Straits Times forums, these CSE programmes are unlikely to be effective or informative or practical.
Why is MOE allowing taxpayers money (i.e from non-Christian and secular Singaporeans) to fund these clearly Christian, clearly impractical, clearly anti-educational programmes?
Whose philosophy? Whose transparency?
"MOE's philosophy on sexuality education is that it does not encourage nor promote masturbation, abortion and oral and anal sex."
MOE's sex education philosophy is counter to its stated objectives of tackling problems related to teenage pregnancies, STDs, sexual activity in teens.
Hardcore, ultraconservative sex education programmes have had a track record of abject failure. When GW Bush pushed them as a condition for aid to third-world countries, we have not seen data to show any relief in sex-related problems in these regions.
Instead of asking vendors for transparency, the Ministry of Education should be asked to be transparent - what groups did it consult to reach its philosophy of sex education? What criteria did it even use to say that these vendors' programmes are credible, truthful, or even "work"? Which other groups had approached the Ministry of Education and were rejected? Can the public examine the curricula and teaching material of these sex education vendors?
Officially, we live in a secular society. Even the ministers say so!
A growing list of distinguished ministers, senior ministers and deputy prime ministers and prime ministers of Singapore have made speeches and remarks over the past year about the secular nature of Singapore, repeating assurances that Singapore will never ever see the kind of cultural wars fought in schools and classrooms all across the US.
The Klever Kids at the Ministry of Education just made all these assurances worth precious little. I would like to ask Ministers Wong Kan Seng, S Jayakumar, Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong just how committed they are to keeping Singapore a secular society, and in particular, keeping classrooms in Singapore free from religious activists pushing their narrow ideas of sex education.
02 May 2009
Aware's new events management company
Sometime between a week and a month ago, the new Aware exco engaged the services of advertising agency Ape Communications as the event manager of its EGM for today.
From the New Paper:
Aware was informed yesterday afternoon of Singapore Expo's decision to withdraw the venue through its event management company, Ape Communications, and no reasons were given until this afternoon.
'Aware understands that its meeting cannot be held at the Singapore Expo for 'law-and-order' reasons.'
When pressed for more answers, Aware was not forthcoming.
Ape Communications too, declined comment.
So far, no one knows the conditions under which Ape Communications was hired, and how much its services cost.
Several questions arise, because Ape Communications is not an events management company; it's an advertising and branding consultant. Its subsidiary, Ape Productions, was only set up this January as an events company, and headed by one Caine Teo.
Ethics, client confidentiality, and the need to know basis
Though Ape Communications/Productions has been tight-lipped to the press on its role in the Aware saga, Caine Teo's girlfriend hasn't.
From Caine Teo's girlfriend's blog (screencap courtesy of Diodati):
Anyway, because of Caine, I've obtained new and unpublished insight to the whole issue. And all I can say is: "Don't judge until you've got all the facts right. The media is not always neutral."
I pray Saturday goes well.
Implications:
Ape Communications/Productions may have breached a serious code of client confidentiality if Caine Teo has indeed been passing on "new and unpublished insights" to his girlfriend on the Aware issue.
Further questions arise, such as why the new exco appears to have made Caine Teo its confidante and providing insights beyond his scope as an events manager for the organisation.
I welcome the explanations of Caine Teo, Ape Communications, and the new Aware exco on this matter.
From the New Paper:
Aware was informed yesterday afternoon of Singapore Expo's decision to withdraw the venue through its event management company, Ape Communications, and no reasons were given until this afternoon.
'Aware understands that its meeting cannot be held at the Singapore Expo for 'law-and-order' reasons.'
When pressed for more answers, Aware was not forthcoming.
Ape Communications too, declined comment.
So far, no one knows the conditions under which Ape Communications was hired, and how much its services cost.
Several questions arise, because Ape Communications is not an events management company; it's an advertising and branding consultant. Its subsidiary, Ape Productions, was only set up this January as an events company, and headed by one Caine Teo.
Ethics, client confidentiality, and the need to know basis
Though Ape Communications/Productions has been tight-lipped to the press on its role in the Aware saga, Caine Teo's girlfriend hasn't.
From Caine Teo's girlfriend's blog (screencap courtesy of Diodati):
Anyway, because of Caine, I've obtained new and unpublished insight to the whole issue. And all I can say is: "Don't judge until you've got all the facts right. The media is not always neutral."
I pray Saturday goes well.
Implications:
Ape Communications/Productions may have breached a serious code of client confidentiality if Caine Teo has indeed been passing on "new and unpublished insights" to his girlfriend on the Aware issue.
Further questions arise, such as why the new exco appears to have made Caine Teo its confidante and providing insights beyond his scope as an events manager for the organisation.
I welcome the explanations of Caine Teo, Ape Communications, and the new Aware exco on this matter.
22 April 2009
What does religion have to do with anything?
It was never about religion
Gentle readers: from the blogs you've been reading about the Aware takeover, how many of them make religion the issue? How many of them invent religious epithets for the group of 9? As with Sam, we note the prevalence of hate speech against a certain religion in the dominant discourse, and express our disconcert and disapproval of the vituperative language. We note the use of a certain epithet used by a certain Mr Yawning Bread. We will not repeat or link it here, out of decency and taste.
The religious affiliation of the group of 9 are no concern ours. Do not mistake Illusio for any of the websites or newspapers attempting to make hay out of the religious issue.
All comments attempting to rake up anti-religious sentiment or discuss the religious persuasion of the group of 9 have been and will continue to be deleted.
At Illusio, the moral outrage comes from the manner of the takeover, the behaviour of the group of 9 at the AGM and after the AGM. The issue for Illusio is the non-transparency of the group of 9, its subversion of the democratic process, the undisguised hostility of its takeover, the purge it has conducted since assuming power, and its blatant disregard for the open rules of civil society.
To paraphrase someone: I know of no religion that will condone this!
What do you do with people like this? Some suggest Operation Leper sounds like a thousand angry sharks jumping over the blogosphere, that it is too vicious...
But what would you do to a group of 9 who has done all this?
They won fair and square, right? Right?
We note with concern the political illiteracy prevailing in the discourse of Aware, where it pertains to the oft-repeated claim that the takeover was 'democratic' or 'legitimate'.
We identify this as illiteracy due to the fundamental inability of these commentators to distinguish between a victory achieved by pro forma adherence to Aware's constitution and a victory achieved through a fair and transparent election.
A takeover of any NGO, society, church, or listed company must - out of pragmatic and strategic concerns - be pro forma legal. Yet a takeover where membership rolls have been stacked and leaders pushed through without any honest and open discussion (thanks to the numbers) can only be seen as morally illegitimate. Immoral, even. Or in civil society terms, very much unhelpful to the maintenance of its values of openness, fairness, and transparency.
The charge of political illiteracy is made also on the grounds that similar hostile takeovers of NGOs and church have been occurring for the past 2 decades in other countries, with the appropriate uproar and condemnation - and yet our commentators are content, even adamant on not seeing evil where it clearly lies.
Yes they won according to the rules. Corporate raiders also make sure they win according to the rules. NGO and church raiders also make sure they win according tot the rules. But clearly, there's a difference between following the rules, and resorting to every trick and subterfuge in the book while following the rules. The difference is how your victory smells.
Gentle readers: from the blogs you've been reading about the Aware takeover, how many of them make religion the issue? How many of them invent religious epithets for the group of 9? As with Sam, we note the prevalence of hate speech against a certain religion in the dominant discourse, and express our disconcert and disapproval of the vituperative language. We note the use of a certain epithet used by a certain Mr Yawning Bread. We will not repeat or link it here, out of decency and taste.
The religious affiliation of the group of 9 are no concern ours. Do not mistake Illusio for any of the websites or newspapers attempting to make hay out of the religious issue.
All comments attempting to rake up anti-religious sentiment or discuss the religious persuasion of the group of 9 have been and will continue to be deleted.
At Illusio, the moral outrage comes from the manner of the takeover, the behaviour of the group of 9 at the AGM and after the AGM. The issue for Illusio is the non-transparency of the group of 9, its subversion of the democratic process, the undisguised hostility of its takeover, the purge it has conducted since assuming power, and its blatant disregard for the open rules of civil society.
To paraphrase someone: I know of no religion that will condone this!
What do you do with people like this? Some suggest Operation Leper sounds like a thousand angry sharks jumping over the blogosphere, that it is too vicious...
But what would you do to a group of 9 who has done all this?
They won fair and square, right? Right?
We note with concern the political illiteracy prevailing in the discourse of Aware, where it pertains to the oft-repeated claim that the takeover was 'democratic' or 'legitimate'.
We identify this as illiteracy due to the fundamental inability of these commentators to distinguish between a victory achieved by pro forma adherence to Aware's constitution and a victory achieved through a fair and transparent election.
A takeover of any NGO, society, church, or listed company must - out of pragmatic and strategic concerns - be pro forma legal. Yet a takeover where membership rolls have been stacked and leaders pushed through without any honest and open discussion (thanks to the numbers) can only be seen as morally illegitimate. Immoral, even. Or in civil society terms, very much unhelpful to the maintenance of its values of openness, fairness, and transparency.
The charge of political illiteracy is made also on the grounds that similar hostile takeovers of NGOs and church have been occurring for the past 2 decades in other countries, with the appropriate uproar and condemnation - and yet our commentators are content, even adamant on not seeing evil where it clearly lies.
Yes they won according to the rules. Corporate raiders also make sure they win according to the rules. NGO and church raiders also make sure they win according tot the rules. But clearly, there's a difference between following the rules, and resorting to every trick and subterfuge in the book while following the rules. The difference is how your victory smells.
26 September 2007
Malicious, mendacious, and meretricious
Recently in the news, 3 major challenges facing Singapore getting some discussion in the current Parliament session.
1. The re-tweaking of CPF, the annuity, and the "Longevity Insurance"
Goodness knows why the government of Minilee has finally acknowledged that the average Singaporean is still unable to have any significant savings when they retire.
Of course, Minilee holds fast to the sacred tenet that Singapore Must Never Have Social Welfare - nevermind that Singapore's healthcare, education, public libraries, and housing are funded and discounted by the state in what appears to be classic social welfare policies. Instead, the Dear Leader reiterates that Singaporeans must continue to save on their own, with minimal support from the state, which will of course from time to time adjust and introduce a few schemes here and there.
"Oh most gracious Minilee, our poor cannot afford to feed themselves once they retire! What shall we do?"
"Let them eat their CPF savings and annuities!"
2. Employment of seniors
Not entirely unrelated to the fact that one can't retire in Singapore without sinking into poverty is Minilee's push for employers to start hiring seniors. Bravo!
But let's not forget that Goh Chok Tong had previously pushed for this idea as well, but without bothering to make it a compulsory law, because our leaders would rather be seen as pro-elderly, but not at the expense of business interests.
And so it is that Minilee has taken steps to assure business interests that even if he decides to draft a law to make them to hire seniors, they'll be sheltered from the worst. The compromise, apparently floated by Minilee, is to let companies only pay for the basic health insurance of elderly workers.
BASIC HEALTH INSURANCE. But aren't seniors more prone to developing complications if they fall ill? Ah, I guess Minilee wants to save companies from footing the bills when the seniors in their employ get seriously sick!
3. The optimal population and foreign talent
Not discussed in this Parliament so far, but take note that according to Dear Leader's great plan, we're 2 million shy of the optimal population of Singapore, and hence the need to import even more foreign talent.
Not wholly unrelated to the influx of FTs are a corresponding hike in rentals of private properties that these expats tend to exclusively go for. It's simple economics, but they're now complaining of the ridiculous rents, the hardship it's causing and might even begin to leave in droves.
Welcome to Singapore, I say! Now you Foreign Talents finally have a taste of what every local experiences on a daily basis: having to pay for lodging that eats up most of your savings! How do you suppose Singaporeans end up cash poor and asset rich when they retire? Again, it's simple economics, and now I hope FTs will finally realise why the hell Singaporeans complain so much about their government.
But just so you know, Minilee claims that it's not true Singapore is only for the rich.
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the government of Minilee.
1. The re-tweaking of CPF, the annuity, and the "Longevity Insurance"
Goodness knows why the government of Minilee has finally acknowledged that the average Singaporean is still unable to have any significant savings when they retire.
Of course, Minilee holds fast to the sacred tenet that Singapore Must Never Have Social Welfare - nevermind that Singapore's healthcare, education, public libraries, and housing are funded and discounted by the state in what appears to be classic social welfare policies. Instead, the Dear Leader reiterates that Singaporeans must continue to save on their own, with minimal support from the state, which will of course from time to time adjust and introduce a few schemes here and there.
"Oh most gracious Minilee, our poor cannot afford to feed themselves once they retire! What shall we do?"
"Let them eat their CPF savings and annuities!"
2. Employment of seniors
Not entirely unrelated to the fact that one can't retire in Singapore without sinking into poverty is Minilee's push for employers to start hiring seniors. Bravo!
But let's not forget that Goh Chok Tong had previously pushed for this idea as well, but without bothering to make it a compulsory law, because our leaders would rather be seen as pro-elderly, but not at the expense of business interests.
And so it is that Minilee has taken steps to assure business interests that even if he decides to draft a law to make them to hire seniors, they'll be sheltered from the worst. The compromise, apparently floated by Minilee, is to let companies only pay for the basic health insurance of elderly workers.
BASIC HEALTH INSURANCE. But aren't seniors more prone to developing complications if they fall ill? Ah, I guess Minilee wants to save companies from footing the bills when the seniors in their employ get seriously sick!
3. The optimal population and foreign talent
Not discussed in this Parliament so far, but take note that according to Dear Leader's great plan, we're 2 million shy of the optimal population of Singapore, and hence the need to import even more foreign talent.
Not wholly unrelated to the influx of FTs are a corresponding hike in rentals of private properties that these expats tend to exclusively go for. It's simple economics, but they're now complaining of the ridiculous rents, the hardship it's causing and might even begin to leave in droves.
Welcome to Singapore, I say! Now you Foreign Talents finally have a taste of what every local experiences on a daily basis: having to pay for lodging that eats up most of your savings! How do you suppose Singaporeans end up cash poor and asset rich when they retire? Again, it's simple economics, and now I hope FTs will finally realise why the hell Singaporeans complain so much about their government.
But just so you know, Minilee claims that it's not true Singapore is only for the rich.
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the government of Minilee.
14 September 2007
Holy real estate, Batman!
Via Asiabuilders:
Capitaland joins with Rock Productions (aka the business arm of New Creation Church!) to build a $600 million lifestyle hub at Buona Vista...
Holy real estate, Batman!
"COME 2011, a futuristic-looking lifestyle hub with a 5,000-seat theatre, restaurants, shops, chill-out wine bars and even dance clubs will emerge in Buona Vista."
Guess who's going to use the 5,000-seat theatre? And will the alcoholic version of Cafe Galilee operate the wine bars? Inquiring minds want to know!
"Designed by Mr Andrew Bromberg of Aedas Hong Kong, it will have eight levels of civic and cultural space, and four levels of retail and entertainment space."
Yup, Rock Productions will manage the 8 levels of "civic and cultural space", which I bet is some crypto-fundie term for "NCC and NCC-related enterprises space"...
But heck, since Rock Productions invested 280 mil out of the 660, it gets a cut out of any rental profits that come out of the retail and entertainment space as well. Whaddaya know, the church has hit on a plan to accumulate fat profits, through its Jesus Mall!
Up next: Consumers for Christ! Or knowing the Singapore megachurch, Capitalists for Christ. Will someone be so kind as to deregister CHC as a non-profit religious group and start taxing the hell out of them like we do any other business?
Capitaland joins with Rock Productions (aka the business arm of New Creation Church!) to build a $600 million lifestyle hub at Buona Vista...
Holy real estate, Batman!
"COME 2011, a futuristic-looking lifestyle hub with a 5,000-seat theatre, restaurants, shops, chill-out wine bars and even dance clubs will emerge in Buona Vista."
Guess who's going to use the 5,000-seat theatre? And will the alcoholic version of Cafe Galilee operate the wine bars? Inquiring minds want to know!
"Designed by Mr Andrew Bromberg of Aedas Hong Kong, it will have eight levels of civic and cultural space, and four levels of retail and entertainment space."
Yup, Rock Productions will manage the 8 levels of "civic and cultural space", which I bet is some crypto-fundie term for "NCC and NCC-related enterprises space"...
But heck, since Rock Productions invested 280 mil out of the 660, it gets a cut out of any rental profits that come out of the retail and entertainment space as well. Whaddaya know, the church has hit on a plan to accumulate fat profits, through its Jesus Mall!
Up next: Consumers for Christ! Or knowing the Singapore megachurch, Capitalists for Christ. Will someone be so kind as to deregister CHC as a non-profit religious group and start taxing the hell out of them like we do any other business?
21 July 2007
An announcement
This isn't one of those things that I'm happy to have done; but
this isn't one of those things that I'm happier not to have done.
this isn't one of those things that I'm happier not to have done.
04 June 2007
גם זה יעבור
Gam zeh ya'avor: this too shall pass
Foucault's discourse theory places primacy on the zero point, the beginning point where a certain mode of discourse shaped from that time on how we see the world, describe it, and picture ourselves in it - such that we can scarcely think of any other way to see the world, describe it... that it appears as though from time immemorial we have always been seeing the world this way... naturally.
As an illustration, it is little known that "kiasuism" was coined in the late 1980s during a speech where a MINDEF general made fun of the go-getter characteristics of some soldiers in BMT. What is known is that since that zero point, that word grew to encompass and define everything that is Singaporean, that it is impossible to think of Singaporeans never being kiasu before - isn't it obvious they have always been in this state?
Hence, the Foucauldian project's obsession with zero points, with historical breaks that demonstrate that certain paradigms of thought, of social perception, weren't always so, and should never be taken as natural or commonsensical.
Gam zeh ya'avor: this too shall pass
Obsessed with beginnings, the Foucauldian project forgets that there are endings, that dominant modes eventually fall away; that, if certain social, political conditions, or a set of accidents could lead to a dominance in one form of discourse, that dominant discourse could very well pass away due to certain accidents - social or political. To gain a full understanding of political discourse, we must shift our focus from the zero point at its inception, and look to - and look forward to - the other zero point at its passing.
I'm going to build a list of political phrases that have fallen out of fashion in Singapore. These are well-turned phrases of closing off discourse, whose time have passed. It is important to remember, for those live in a city whose political nature seems unchanging, that seemingly unchallenge-able rhetoric have sell-by dates. After all, you can't use the same threats as people become more mature. Simply put, if the rhetoric is out of step with the populace, or too nonsensical, they will just make fun of it or even refuse point blank to accept such arguments - and hence such rhetoric is dropped from public discourse. From zero point to zero point, as it were.
The death of politicised phrases
Quitters vs Stayers
Died because: too many ministers had children who have settled permanently out of Singapore, including Goh Chok Tong's daughter.
Foreign talent
Died because: too many Singaporeans now realise it's just a disguise for foreign labour import substitution - even foreign labour and development specialists like Stephen Appold insist the foreign talent here "are not needed in the large number in which they are found".
Asian values
Died because: the Asian economic crisis of 1997 happened.
Unconstructive criticism
Died because: logically speaking I don't have to tell you to zip up your pants to point out that your fly is undone.
Boh Tua Boh Suay
Died because: no one agrees with George Yeo that criticising the leadership is tantamount to disrespecting the leaders. No one agrees with George Yeo that there is a natural hierarchy of order.
Helicopter vision
Died because: ministers in the Minilee cabinet were seen more as bumbling fools and incompetents making "honest mistakes" than infallible supermen.
OB Markers
Died because: fewer and fewer people believe that the government has the right to make up rules, stop discussions in their tracks arbitrarily, and issue red cards out of its ass.
And now, this too shall pass
This weekend, theonlinecitizen has released the full Attorney General's report (available in 4 parts) on its audit of over 12 ministries and statutory boards.
As the Blogger Samurai points out, the first lesson of political blogging is never attack in anger. Instead, we must use this unfortunate incident, this embarrassing report, to put to an end a particular dominant mode of thinking - that, for the sake of national competitiveness, ministries and statutory boards need not be subject to full transparency, oversight, and accountability to the public taxpayers. Instead of shrilling corruption and other accusations on the ministries, playing "Aha!" games with them, or like some political illiterates who conflate the ministries, the civil service, the government and the ruling party as a single entity, I suggest that the path of action for Singaporeans is clear, simple, and shrill-free.
It is time for us to reject, point blank, any future rhetoric designed to protect the operations of ministries and statutory boards from accountability and oversight. It is time for us to decisively and loudly remind our leaders that certain arguments just don't work anymore, and have lost their persuasive power. Softly but firmly insist "I don't buy your argument", and you shall see yet another political death, another political, politicised discourse fade into zero point.
Gam zeh ya'avor: this too shall pass
Foucault's discourse theory places primacy on the zero point, the beginning point where a certain mode of discourse shaped from that time on how we see the world, describe it, and picture ourselves in it - such that we can scarcely think of any other way to see the world, describe it... that it appears as though from time immemorial we have always been seeing the world this way... naturally.
As an illustration, it is little known that "kiasuism" was coined in the late 1980s during a speech where a MINDEF general made fun of the go-getter characteristics of some soldiers in BMT. What is known is that since that zero point, that word grew to encompass and define everything that is Singaporean, that it is impossible to think of Singaporeans never being kiasu before - isn't it obvious they have always been in this state?
Hence, the Foucauldian project's obsession with zero points, with historical breaks that demonstrate that certain paradigms of thought, of social perception, weren't always so, and should never be taken as natural or commonsensical.
Gam zeh ya'avor: this too shall pass
Obsessed with beginnings, the Foucauldian project forgets that there are endings, that dominant modes eventually fall away; that, if certain social, political conditions, or a set of accidents could lead to a dominance in one form of discourse, that dominant discourse could very well pass away due to certain accidents - social or political. To gain a full understanding of political discourse, we must shift our focus from the zero point at its inception, and look to - and look forward to - the other zero point at its passing.
I'm going to build a list of political phrases that have fallen out of fashion in Singapore. These are well-turned phrases of closing off discourse, whose time have passed. It is important to remember, for those live in a city whose political nature seems unchanging, that seemingly unchallenge-able rhetoric have sell-by dates. After all, you can't use the same threats as people become more mature. Simply put, if the rhetoric is out of step with the populace, or too nonsensical, they will just make fun of it or even refuse point blank to accept such arguments - and hence such rhetoric is dropped from public discourse. From zero point to zero point, as it were.
The death of politicised phrases
Quitters vs Stayers
Died because: too many ministers had children who have settled permanently out of Singapore, including Goh Chok Tong's daughter.
Foreign talent
Died because: too many Singaporeans now realise it's just a disguise for foreign labour import substitution - even foreign labour and development specialists like Stephen Appold insist the foreign talent here "are not needed in the large number in which they are found".
Asian values
Died because: the Asian economic crisis of 1997 happened.
Unconstructive criticism
Died because: logically speaking I don't have to tell you to zip up your pants to point out that your fly is undone.
Boh Tua Boh Suay
Died because: no one agrees with George Yeo that criticising the leadership is tantamount to disrespecting the leaders. No one agrees with George Yeo that there is a natural hierarchy of order.
Helicopter vision
Died because: ministers in the Minilee cabinet were seen more as bumbling fools and incompetents making "honest mistakes" than infallible supermen.
OB Markers
Died because: fewer and fewer people believe that the government has the right to make up rules, stop discussions in their tracks arbitrarily, and issue red cards out of its ass.
And now, this too shall pass
This weekend, theonlinecitizen has released the full Attorney General's report (available in 4 parts) on its audit of over 12 ministries and statutory boards.
As the Blogger Samurai points out, the first lesson of political blogging is never attack in anger. Instead, we must use this unfortunate incident, this embarrassing report, to put to an end a particular dominant mode of thinking - that, for the sake of national competitiveness, ministries and statutory boards need not be subject to full transparency, oversight, and accountability to the public taxpayers. Instead of shrilling corruption and other accusations on the ministries, playing "Aha!" games with them, or like some political illiterates who conflate the ministries, the civil service, the government and the ruling party as a single entity, I suggest that the path of action for Singaporeans is clear, simple, and shrill-free.
It is time for us to reject, point blank, any future rhetoric designed to protect the operations of ministries and statutory boards from accountability and oversight. It is time for us to decisively and loudly remind our leaders that certain arguments just don't work anymore, and have lost their persuasive power. Softly but firmly insist "I don't buy your argument", and you shall see yet another political death, another political, politicised discourse fade into zero point.
Gam zeh ya'avor: this too shall pass
23 April 2007
Questions for a new century
The history of communications (discourse, the exchange of ideas) is the history of the domination of relatively small groups over the means of literary, ideological, and literary production. Within the proto-state, only two caste-like classes of people had the legitimate access to public discourse and the interest to shape the content and nature of public discourse - the religious priesthood and its secular offshoot, the historians. Even during the age of the pamphleteers, of writers who could rouse hundreds of thousands to decapitate monarchs and overthrow governments, the story has remained the same: a vanguard leading the masses to revolution; the few, organising discourse, filtering the message and letting it loose on select crowds.
Even as technologies of communication and writing improved with the invention of the printing press, the newspaper and the nation-state, the message, now nationalised for the publics to embrace as their totality, has remained in the hands of the newspaper barons, opinion-makers, talking heads and pundits on television.
But you say, the internet has changed everything... Technically yes, perhaps, but it is important to note when and how this came about. The revolution did not come with newsgroups, forums, webpages or chat channels; the technology that you credit for the revolution did not give birth to it, but merely provided a space for people with similar interests to engage with each other. It is the blog and the social internet that has given the masses a medium to participate, influence and set the direction of public discourse itself. This is an age where everyone now has the voice to speak to all and the ear to listen to everyone else, where public discourse is discursively formed by the public itself. It is also an age where the public exercise of this power, the public participation in public discourse, creates a situation where discourse is made impossible.
To wit: Yes, we have the technological conditions, but what are the social conditions, the habits of mind necessary to create a conducive environment where people want to share points and develop ideas with each other? It's not a silly question - I have pointed out the deterioration in the climate of discussions and annonymous comments on local blogs some time ago, as have other bloggers more recently (some of whom I understand have become ex-bloggers).
So yes. We are at an odd juncture of local blogosphere history. In one ring, we witness a power grab of the blogosphere by the whiteshirts and their keyboard commandoes, with dual central command posts at the P65 and ypap blogs, supported by mysterious anonymous posters who pop up seemingly everywhere. In the other ring, we witness a power grab of the blogosphere by the redshirts and their keyboard commandoes, with dual central command posts at a non-partisan blog fueled by reader contributions (the open secret is the editor meets up with his regular contributors every fortnight to discuss articles and editorial direction) and an unofficial redshirt supporters blog fueled by apparently the same editors and public contributors from the first blog, and of course supported by mysterious anonymous posters who pop up seemingly everywhere. A pox on both their houses! Or as someone else has put it, black sheep or white sheep, you are still sheep. And in yet another ring, a gang of wise men pontificate politely over whether the state has any obligation to subsidise healthcare for the aged poor...[1]
When you create an atmosphere of escalating incivility, turn polite discourse into a parody of itself by abdicating common sense and responsible analysis, offer commentary from an inauthentic "non-partisan" position, you poison the well of discourse. And through demonstration, prove that public participation in public discourse cannot be guaranteed by just technology alone.
And hence the slow evaporation of the political blogosphere, the gradual exit of bloggers, the sight of Gresham's Law running its course here - where the local blogosphere has been a venue for the exchange of ideas, bad blogging drives out good blogging. The warning signs have been here for at least a year, the alarms sounded at least half a year ago, and the rush to the exits beginning in earnest.
Don't call us when the dust settles, when you know which party has grabbed the blogosphere for what it's worth. Don't call us when you're done with the mass identical anonymous postings, the ratcheting of angry rhetoric and namecalling, the insincere and dishonest argumentation. Don't call us, because political bloggers aren't going to rebuild the credibility of this medium once you decide you need us once again.
To wit: Yes, we have the technological conditions, but what are the social conditions, the habits of mind necessary to create a conducive environment where people want to share points and develop ideas with each other? What will you gain if the only way to gain a foothold - and then some - in the blogosphere, will destroy its credibility outright, as well as its position as a safe haven for public discourse?
Footnotes
Even as technologies of communication and writing improved with the invention of the printing press, the newspaper and the nation-state, the message, now nationalised for the publics to embrace as their totality, has remained in the hands of the newspaper barons, opinion-makers, talking heads and pundits on television.
But you say, the internet has changed everything... Technically yes, perhaps, but it is important to note when and how this came about. The revolution did not come with newsgroups, forums, webpages or chat channels; the technology that you credit for the revolution did not give birth to it, but merely provided a space for people with similar interests to engage with each other. It is the blog and the social internet that has given the masses a medium to participate, influence and set the direction of public discourse itself. This is an age where everyone now has the voice to speak to all and the ear to listen to everyone else, where public discourse is discursively formed by the public itself. It is also an age where the public exercise of this power, the public participation in public discourse, creates a situation where discourse is made impossible.
To wit: Yes, we have the technological conditions, but what are the social conditions, the habits of mind necessary to create a conducive environment where people want to share points and develop ideas with each other? It's not a silly question - I have pointed out the deterioration in the climate of discussions and annonymous comments on local blogs some time ago, as have other bloggers more recently (some of whom I understand have become ex-bloggers).
So yes. We are at an odd juncture of local blogosphere history. In one ring, we witness a power grab of the blogosphere by the whiteshirts and their keyboard commandoes, with dual central command posts at the P65 and ypap blogs, supported by mysterious anonymous posters who pop up seemingly everywhere. In the other ring, we witness a power grab of the blogosphere by the redshirts and their keyboard commandoes, with dual central command posts at a non-partisan blog fueled by reader contributions (the open secret is the editor meets up with his regular contributors every fortnight to discuss articles and editorial direction) and an unofficial redshirt supporters blog fueled by apparently the same editors and public contributors from the first blog, and of course supported by mysterious anonymous posters who pop up seemingly everywhere. A pox on both their houses! Or as someone else has put it, black sheep or white sheep, you are still sheep. And in yet another ring, a gang of wise men pontificate politely over whether the state has any obligation to subsidise healthcare for the aged poor...[1]
When you create an atmosphere of escalating incivility, turn polite discourse into a parody of itself by abdicating common sense and responsible analysis, offer commentary from an inauthentic "non-partisan" position, you poison the well of discourse. And through demonstration, prove that public participation in public discourse cannot be guaranteed by just technology alone.
And hence the slow evaporation of the political blogosphere, the gradual exit of bloggers, the sight of Gresham's Law running its course here - where the local blogosphere has been a venue for the exchange of ideas, bad blogging drives out good blogging. The warning signs have been here for at least a year, the alarms sounded at least half a year ago, and the rush to the exits beginning in earnest.
Don't call us when the dust settles, when you know which party has grabbed the blogosphere for what it's worth. Don't call us when you're done with the mass identical anonymous postings, the ratcheting of angry rhetoric and namecalling, the insincere and dishonest argumentation. Don't call us, because political bloggers aren't going to rebuild the credibility of this medium once you decide you need us once again.
To wit: Yes, we have the technological conditions, but what are the social conditions, the habits of mind necessary to create a conducive environment where people want to share points and develop ideas with each other? What will you gain if the only way to gain a foothold - and then some - in the blogosphere, will destroy its credibility outright, as well as its position as a safe haven for public discourse?
- [1]
- Surprisingly, the post questioning the public policy of state subsidised healthcare had no numbers - no breakdown of average healthcare costs for the aged, no breakdown of incomes. No shit, Sherlock! Isn't it obvious that healthcare has to be subsidised because most medical emergencies at that age cannot be afforded, even if the costs are shared by the family of the aged sick?! The farcial nature of the discussion was only added by the continuing commentary by the gang of wise commentors, who studiously ignored the big gaping flaw in front of their noses...
17 January 2007
Minilee's war on GST
Back in early November, during our hiatus, Minilee announced the next GST hike. Given that the new financial year always begins in April, and that the government traditionally reveals some of its Budget plans in February, several thoughts went through my head, like:
"It's too premature to spring this on Singaporeans. Ideally you want to spring this as late as possible so people won't have time to internalise this policy, mull over it obsessively, and begin to think of all sorts of objections to it."
Tactically, this early announcement is a mistake, and we did witness several rebuttals, with the blogosphere exclaiming... "Why such high taxes if we don't even have social welfare schemes to fund?", and Today's forum contributors pointing out what a regressive tax the GST is, and how much MORE it'll hurt the lower classes that the GST increase was supposed to help.
We predicted the early announcement would lead to more questions, which would lead to more bad justifications and reasonings, and come 2007, Minilee would have to beat a hasty retreat from his plans. I mean, even Tommy Lee's IPS seminar last week had several academics pointing out - presumably through hard statistics - that Singapore's middle classes have had stagnant wages during the previous 5 years, and that its lower income groups had actually experienced declining real wages. Yet all these academics at a state-sponsored think tank couldn't stop Minilee from proclaiming his resolve to stay the course with the GST hike.
Now, this kind of thing is troubling since the emperor's advisors are supposed to find a way to tell their sovereign to change courses, however subtly they need to do it. Although the IPS seminar divulged almost nothing new that average Singaporeans already know, their public revelations were noteworthy because IPS isn't known for being rabidly critical...
Yet one could also insist that the IPS seminar did not result in Minilee overturning the GST hike, because that single issue was never explicitly linked, never explicitly rebutted through the findings the academics released last week... Were the speakers perhaps constrained by fear of what might happen if they made too direct a challenge to Minilee's GST policy? Were they too subtle? Or did they just put up a very token resistance, appearing radical by pointing out the obvious, but refusing to link it to the not so obvious?
What's really wrong about the GST
(with thanks to the various individuals who helped in the making of this minor manifesto last November - you know who you are)
1. The GST is a regressive tax. Increasing it to help the poor - what Minilee claimed is the purpose of the hike - is like amputating somone's foot in order to give him a bionic leg, without anaesthesia
Rather straightforward. Most people caught it within a week, leading to more clarifications by Minilee and more nebulous promises of a vastly increased Workfare
2. Increasing the GST and decreasing the corporate tax means the burden of social welfare is shifted from the rich and the corporations to the poor. A very clear signal, if you will, to businesses on their responsibilities as corporate citizens.
No one caught that either.
2a. The shift of the burden of social welfare to the poor is exacerbated by the stagnant wages of the middle class and the falling real wages of the poor. Again, a very clear signal that the state of Singapore is enacting its its very own tax cuts for the rich and the corporations.
No one caught that.
2b. A deeper political question is raised in all this: who should pay for government programs? The rich? Corporations that have benefitted from the "economic recovery" far more in terms of profit than Labour, whose private wages, salary income, and labour compensation has been at record lows in this particular recovery?
(Again, refer to this graphic)
When you are given a graph like that, and asked "Who is in the best position to pay for government programmes", who would you choose? When Minilee's answer to this question is a GST hike and corporate tax cut - what sort of signal does it send to employers?
No one caught that either.
3. Existing programmes like workfare don't really reach all the people it should, or help the people in ways they really need. They have been in some form of existence for the past 5 years, and still the wage gap increases. The whole "tax increases for more social programmes" sounds like an admission of government wastage, and should be painted as an admission of government wastage and inefficiency of its existing programmes. Why should the people pay even more money for more workfare, if workfare doesn't even function properly?
No one caught that. Maybe Minilee did, though. On 16 Nov (or 15 Nov), the headlines went: Pensions not the way to go
Are we trying hard enough to derail the GST hike? Are our academics at IPS doing hard enough to derail the GST hike?
"It's too premature to spring this on Singaporeans. Ideally you want to spring this as late as possible so people won't have time to internalise this policy, mull over it obsessively, and begin to think of all sorts of objections to it."
Tactically, this early announcement is a mistake, and we did witness several rebuttals, with the blogosphere exclaiming... "Why such high taxes if we don't even have social welfare schemes to fund?", and Today's forum contributors pointing out what a regressive tax the GST is, and how much MORE it'll hurt the lower classes that the GST increase was supposed to help.
We predicted the early announcement would lead to more questions, which would lead to more bad justifications and reasonings, and come 2007, Minilee would have to beat a hasty retreat from his plans. I mean, even Tommy Lee's IPS seminar last week had several academics pointing out - presumably through hard statistics - that Singapore's middle classes have had stagnant wages during the previous 5 years, and that its lower income groups had actually experienced declining real wages. Yet all these academics at a state-sponsored think tank couldn't stop Minilee from proclaiming his resolve to stay the course with the GST hike.
Now, this kind of thing is troubling since the emperor's advisors are supposed to find a way to tell their sovereign to change courses, however subtly they need to do it. Although the IPS seminar divulged almost nothing new that average Singaporeans already know, their public revelations were noteworthy because IPS isn't known for being rabidly critical...
Yet one could also insist that the IPS seminar did not result in Minilee overturning the GST hike, because that single issue was never explicitly linked, never explicitly rebutted through the findings the academics released last week... Were the speakers perhaps constrained by fear of what might happen if they made too direct a challenge to Minilee's GST policy? Were they too subtle? Or did they just put up a very token resistance, appearing radical by pointing out the obvious, but refusing to link it to the not so obvious?
What's really wrong about the GST
(with thanks to the various individuals who helped in the making of this minor manifesto last November - you know who you are)
1. The GST is a regressive tax. Increasing it to help the poor - what Minilee claimed is the purpose of the hike - is like amputating somone's foot in order to give him a bionic leg, without anaesthesia
Rather straightforward. Most people caught it within a week, leading to more clarifications by Minilee and more nebulous promises of a vastly increased Workfare
2. Increasing the GST and decreasing the corporate tax means the burden of social welfare is shifted from the rich and the corporations to the poor. A very clear signal, if you will, to businesses on their responsibilities as corporate citizens.
No one caught that either.
2a. The shift of the burden of social welfare to the poor is exacerbated by the stagnant wages of the middle class and the falling real wages of the poor. Again, a very clear signal that the state of Singapore is enacting its its very own tax cuts for the rich and the corporations.
No one caught that.
2b. A deeper political question is raised in all this: who should pay for government programs? The rich? Corporations that have benefitted from the "economic recovery" far more in terms of profit than Labour, whose private wages, salary income, and labour compensation has been at record lows in this particular recovery?
(Again, refer to this graphic)
When you are given a graph like that, and asked "Who is in the best position to pay for government programmes", who would you choose? When Minilee's answer to this question is a GST hike and corporate tax cut - what sort of signal does it send to employers?
No one caught that either.
3. Existing programmes like workfare don't really reach all the people it should, or help the people in ways they really need. They have been in some form of existence for the past 5 years, and still the wage gap increases. The whole "tax increases for more social programmes" sounds like an admission of government wastage, and should be painted as an admission of government wastage and inefficiency of its existing programmes. Why should the people pay even more money for more workfare, if workfare doesn't even function properly?
No one caught that. Maybe Minilee did, though. On 16 Nov (or 15 Nov), the headlines went: Pensions not the way to go
An old age pension system is not the way to go as it will impose a very heavy burden on the next generation, cautioned PM Lee. A better solution was or each person to save for his own future needs. Hence there is the CPF savings and the home ownership scheme, which gives one an asset whose value can be unlocked in one's later years.Indeed, Minilee can be very charming if he wants to: He has this belief that despite Singaporeans living on $6.06 a day when they retire, the current CPF and home ownership systems are more than sufficient to see everyone through. Indeed, he's totally forgotten that the best solution is for each person to just sue the pants off their offspring, whose value can be unlocked for their own future needs. I mean, why bother with all those complicated pension schemes, welfare, and progressive taxes, when you can just ask the poor to rob their young, via the Maintenance of Parents Bill?
Are we trying hard enough to derail the GST hike? Are our academics at IPS doing hard enough to derail the GST hike?
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.
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)