Only those people who have been to Little India, or lived in the Northeast in late 1999, would know what's going on... But I'm interested to know what others might think when they read this too.
Notes: final revision.
Lines composed on a bus in Little India, during a traffic jam on my way home, October 1999
i.
Is the city an architectural space
or an afterimage of our constant motion?
We recognise urbanity only in a traffic jam.
ii.
We dragged Little India into modernity.
Its settlements hastily torn down,
the residents labelled squatters and redistributed.
Today, a commercial space of ethnic products
for the Indian community.
iii.
The traffic jam is a totally random
yet regular feature.
A persistent epiphenomenon.
iv.
Little India is a one-way street.
Migrant workers alight at Jalan Besar
whose Chinese-run motor parts and home decor stores
neither invite or entice.
The visitor crosses the road
into the no-man's land of the red-light district
and magically appears in Little India.
v.
Once, being a pedestrian was a subversive act.
Migrant workers disregard the 'do nots' of walking:
They jaywalk, creep into the bus lane, ignore traffic signals;
stop at road junctions, on the pavements, in the open fields.
Little India is a true pedestrian mall. Unlike Orchard Road.
vi.
Because they loiter, or maybe because they wander,
migrant workers are dangerous and vaguely criminal:
Bright fluorescent lights and security cameras
shall drive them away from the jewellery shops.
vii.
No matter, we will curb them:
fences to keep them off the road
hired coaches to keep them out of public buses.
viii.
This is all history erased.
There are no migrant workers in Little India.
They are transported safely, 20 to a truck
from their quarters to work and back again.
Nevermind it violates their basic safety,
we now have a world-class traffic system.
23 October 2003
20 October 2003
Organisational Culture
Last Friday, a ridiculous scene played out in Parliament, when it was revealed by the Minister for Defense, that a commando died in a routine exercise in camp. The farcial elements seem to outshine the tragedy of the situation; I do not use the word "ridiculous" lightly here.
To humanise the situation, let us call this commando a mere boy, since he was 19 years when he died. That was, of course, two months ago. The wheels of justice must turn exceedingly slow in Singapore, since he died almost two months ago. That's Ridiculous Fact no. 1.
How did he die? Well, the commandoes are a very different sub-species in the army. They apparently have very interesting exercises, such as: "simulating a POW experience" as part of the training needed for this elite branch of the Singapore Army to properly defend the country. To put strip that phrase of its clinical and self-serving rhetoric, we'll call it "simulating conditions of torture", because that's what it boils down to. This includes dunking the victim (or "Trainee", in the military parlance of this "simluation exercise"), head-first, into cold water. It is not known how long the head is submerged in water, or whether this constitutes only a part of a much larger regime of similar simulations. Hence, Ridiculous Fact no. 2: the kid died in peacetime, in an exercise that served no positive purpose. It was, of course, a realistic simulation: people do die from torture, or die from exhaustion and minor injuries from the torture. The Minister has denounced the practice and ordered a halt to all simulation exercises of this sort.
Of course, just about everyone who's been to National Service in this country would know, or have heard of such practices, mostly through second-hand knowledge: someone's bound to have a classmate or a friend who served time with the Commandoes. Even if one didn't step into an army camp, one would already know from second-hand knowledge of what goes on in military training in Elite army schools. I'll try not to mention Demi Moore's G.I. Jane here, but it's such a taken-for-granted 'fact' that everyone 'knows' even without needing to see the truth for themselves. Ridiculous Fact no. 3: Our Minister of Defense, a Brigadier-General, was unaware of this practice, which had been going on and on for years. Ever since Singapore's army was started in the 50s. And of course, so was Mini-Lee, another Brigadier-General, and Teo Chee Hean, a Rear-Admiral of the navy (and some say, the NEXT PM, after Mini-Lee!). All 3 figures are, of course, Ministers in the cabinet.
I would give them the benefit of the doubt, and insist that the 2 BGs and the RAdm should be taken at their word (I mean to say this without cracking up in laughter of course). They really are unaware of what's going on in the army. Which brings us to Ridiculous Fact no. 4: Our army is administered by scholar-generals who are not involved in daily operations and training, who have worked in the confines of an office for 90% of their period of service to the armed forces. The elite managers and stewards of the army... are glorified bean counters and office bugs. This isn't peculiar to Singapore, and I'm disappointed at not being able to gloat at our claims to be the weirdest nation on Earth. Most of the elite generals at the Pentagon are office bugs too.
Ridiculous Fact no. 5: the people who really run the army on a daily basis, who make the real decisions that affect the people they command, are the middle managers - the Commanding Officers of the camps. These are the most corrupt elements of the army. They're "on ground zero" of all military operations. Every infringement of rules that take place, occur with their approval. It is the commanding officers who insist on subverting 'rules' guaranteeing the safety of their charges. It's common knowledge that there are certain managers who prevent their soldiers from reporting sick before any exercise or test, as it would jeapordise the RANKING of the camp or unit or formation. That's how the Commandoes managed to clinch the "Best Formation" award almost every year, until a few years ago, when its luck ran out.
Ridiculous Fact no. 6: The army is required to brief all soldiers of safety procedures before every exercise. According to a fellow writer who had just came back from reservist training just before the announcement of the death of the boy, "During my recent stint, officers were smirking about how safety videos had to be shown and re-shown just for everyone to cover their own backsides, and had no relation to training whatsoever; and all those with various back/leg/arm problems were still made to go to field camp, dig trenches, lift heavy loads, etc." You can read the rest of his testimony at http://www.qlrs.com/issues/oct2003/editorial/ev3n1.html.
I suppose, in any other country, the Minister of Defense would've been forced by popular pressure, to step down, and the Commanding Officer to be saked. Ridiculous Fact no. 7: The minister, as well as Mini-Lee and the Rear Admiral... stress that the army, as an institution, is not diseased. It's just an unfortunate and unpardonable mistake. Which does not warrant the sacking of the CO of the Commando camp, who was merely transferred to another post.
Ridiculous Fact no. 8: Some Singaporeans defend the idea that casualties in the army should be tolerated. What, if people stopped dying, if the flagrant abuses in the system stop... does it mean we're becoming a soft people?
Ridiculous Fact no. 9: just as it happened with an earlier case of a psycho teacher abusing her student... the ex-students and graduates of the camp commander came to his rescue and insisted to the press that he's an upright guy.
Ridiculous Fact no. 10: The camp commander makes some lame announcement that he's sorry. And that, as a good soldier, "I'll go down with my men." Right. The kid is dead, you just got transferred to a different post in the army.
To humanise the situation, let us call this commando a mere boy, since he was 19 years when he died. That was, of course, two months ago. The wheels of justice must turn exceedingly slow in Singapore, since he died almost two months ago. That's Ridiculous Fact no. 1.
How did he die? Well, the commandoes are a very different sub-species in the army. They apparently have very interesting exercises, such as: "simulating a POW experience" as part of the training needed for this elite branch of the Singapore Army to properly defend the country. To put strip that phrase of its clinical and self-serving rhetoric, we'll call it "simulating conditions of torture", because that's what it boils down to. This includes dunking the victim (or "Trainee", in the military parlance of this "simluation exercise"), head-first, into cold water. It is not known how long the head is submerged in water, or whether this constitutes only a part of a much larger regime of similar simulations. Hence, Ridiculous Fact no. 2: the kid died in peacetime, in an exercise that served no positive purpose. It was, of course, a realistic simulation: people do die from torture, or die from exhaustion and minor injuries from the torture. The Minister has denounced the practice and ordered a halt to all simulation exercises of this sort.
Of course, just about everyone who's been to National Service in this country would know, or have heard of such practices, mostly through second-hand knowledge: someone's bound to have a classmate or a friend who served time with the Commandoes. Even if one didn't step into an army camp, one would already know from second-hand knowledge of what goes on in military training in Elite army schools. I'll try not to mention Demi Moore's G.I. Jane here, but it's such a taken-for-granted 'fact' that everyone 'knows' even without needing to see the truth for themselves. Ridiculous Fact no. 3: Our Minister of Defense, a Brigadier-General, was unaware of this practice, which had been going on and on for years. Ever since Singapore's army was started in the 50s. And of course, so was Mini-Lee, another Brigadier-General, and Teo Chee Hean, a Rear-Admiral of the navy (and some say, the NEXT PM, after Mini-Lee!). All 3 figures are, of course, Ministers in the cabinet.
I would give them the benefit of the doubt, and insist that the 2 BGs and the RAdm should be taken at their word (I mean to say this without cracking up in laughter of course). They really are unaware of what's going on in the army. Which brings us to Ridiculous Fact no. 4: Our army is administered by scholar-generals who are not involved in daily operations and training, who have worked in the confines of an office for 90% of their period of service to the armed forces. The elite managers and stewards of the army... are glorified bean counters and office bugs. This isn't peculiar to Singapore, and I'm disappointed at not being able to gloat at our claims to be the weirdest nation on Earth. Most of the elite generals at the Pentagon are office bugs too.
Ridiculous Fact no. 5: the people who really run the army on a daily basis, who make the real decisions that affect the people they command, are the middle managers - the Commanding Officers of the camps. These are the most corrupt elements of the army. They're "on ground zero" of all military operations. Every infringement of rules that take place, occur with their approval. It is the commanding officers who insist on subverting 'rules' guaranteeing the safety of their charges. It's common knowledge that there are certain managers who prevent their soldiers from reporting sick before any exercise or test, as it would jeapordise the RANKING of the camp or unit or formation. That's how the Commandoes managed to clinch the "Best Formation" award almost every year, until a few years ago, when its luck ran out.
Ridiculous Fact no. 6: The army is required to brief all soldiers of safety procedures before every exercise. According to a fellow writer who had just came back from reservist training just before the announcement of the death of the boy, "During my recent stint, officers were smirking about how safety videos had to be shown and re-shown just for everyone to cover their own backsides, and had no relation to training whatsoever; and all those with various back/leg/arm problems were still made to go to field camp, dig trenches, lift heavy loads, etc." You can read the rest of his testimony at http://www.qlrs.com/issues/oct2003/editorial/ev3n1.html.
I suppose, in any other country, the Minister of Defense would've been forced by popular pressure, to step down, and the Commanding Officer to be saked. Ridiculous Fact no. 7: The minister, as well as Mini-Lee and the Rear Admiral... stress that the army, as an institution, is not diseased. It's just an unfortunate and unpardonable mistake. Which does not warrant the sacking of the CO of the Commando camp, who was merely transferred to another post.
Ridiculous Fact no. 8: Some Singaporeans defend the idea that casualties in the army should be tolerated. What, if people stopped dying, if the flagrant abuses in the system stop... does it mean we're becoming a soft people?
Ridiculous Fact no. 9: just as it happened with an earlier case of a psycho teacher abusing her student... the ex-students and graduates of the camp commander came to his rescue and insisted to the press that he's an upright guy.
Ridiculous Fact no. 10: The camp commander makes some lame announcement that he's sorry. And that, as a good soldier, "I'll go down with my men." Right. The kid is dead, you just got transferred to a different post in the army.
15 October 2003
White Uniforms
The leaders of this country have a fascination with wearing an all-white "uniform" in every public, official or national appearance. Some say this all-white apparel symbolises - or tries to give an impression of - the value of "purity", "incorruptibility", and "trustworthiness".
Others say, it's just the secondary school uniform that most of our leaders used to wear (Raffles Institution uniform...), and it is really a mark of how elitist Singapore society has become, for 80% of the nation's leaders to have studied in a pool of 5 top schools.
I say, the only thing an all-white uniform shows clearly, is the colour of the underwear beneath the white pants... Next time you RI boys feel a pair of female eyes behind you, you'll know why
Others say, it's just the secondary school uniform that most of our leaders used to wear (Raffles Institution uniform...), and it is really a mark of how elitist Singapore society has become, for 80% of the nation's leaders to have studied in a pool of 5 top schools.
I say, the only thing an all-white uniform shows clearly, is the colour of the underwear beneath the white pants... Next time you RI boys feel a pair of female eyes behind you, you'll know why
04 October 2003
Great Classics
The Romance of the Three Kingdoms (三国演义) counts as one of the 3 great Chinese literary epics, the others being Journey to the West (西游记) and Outlaws of the Marsh (水浒传), all written in the Ming era. I term these epics and not novels. Strictly speaking, the first (or first great) modern Chinese novel was the Qing dynasty Dream of the Red Mansions (红楼梦).
The Romance of the Three Kingdoms is of unknown authorship, and the earliest surviving print copy dates from 1522. The great sequence of stories in Romance detail the interregnum between the Han dynasty and the Jin dynasty, in a brief period where China was divided into 3 warring nations, each bent on reunifying the old empire under its own banner.
In this period of strife, the Romance sequence focusses on the "Great Actors" of history, the relationships between leaders and their loyal (or treacherous) followers, and their claims to legitimate power and sole rulership of China.
Yet, it troubles me, this Romance. Through all its 120 chapters, much is made of the brilliant military strategies, the shifting alliances, the heroic battles, the little crises of self-doubt that leaders occasionally fall to. War is brutal, yet the novel's heroes and villians (poor, misunderstood Cao Cao!) must soldier on towards that manifest destiny of reuniting their sundered nation. The phrase "blood flowed like running rivers", figures in every alternate battle sequence. Which is just about every chapter. 3 nations fought a 60-year war that probably killed millions. More than half the "peacetime" chapters describe the devastating famines and poverty that the war brought on.
And yet... the novel's heroes, Liu Bei and his 2 sworn brothers, soldier on to fight their battles, and to lead more men to fight. In the novel, the trio lose their wives and families in more than one occasion, when their cities fell to maurading armies of Cao Cao, Lu Bu and Yuan Shao. And yet... the trio proclaim several times that these wives and family... are of less importance to them then their brotherly ties. And presumably, the war.
How would the Romance look like, if it was written from the view of the random slain soldiers whose blood often stain the battlefield "like a river", instead of from the view of the Hero-generals? How would the Romance look like, if it was written from the view of the peasants who were either forcibly conscripted, had their food produce "taxed for the war effort", aside from the famine and droughts? How would the Romance of the long war look like, written by the women? Would it be just as "Romantic"?
The Romance of the Three Kingdoms is of unknown authorship, and the earliest surviving print copy dates from 1522. The great sequence of stories in Romance detail the interregnum between the Han dynasty and the Jin dynasty, in a brief period where China was divided into 3 warring nations, each bent on reunifying the old empire under its own banner.
In this period of strife, the Romance sequence focusses on the "Great Actors" of history, the relationships between leaders and their loyal (or treacherous) followers, and their claims to legitimate power and sole rulership of China.
Yet, it troubles me, this Romance. Through all its 120 chapters, much is made of the brilliant military strategies, the shifting alliances, the heroic battles, the little crises of self-doubt that leaders occasionally fall to. War is brutal, yet the novel's heroes and villians (poor, misunderstood Cao Cao!) must soldier on towards that manifest destiny of reuniting their sundered nation. The phrase "blood flowed like running rivers", figures in every alternate battle sequence. Which is just about every chapter. 3 nations fought a 60-year war that probably killed millions. More than half the "peacetime" chapters describe the devastating famines and poverty that the war brought on.
And yet... the novel's heroes, Liu Bei and his 2 sworn brothers, soldier on to fight their battles, and to lead more men to fight. In the novel, the trio lose their wives and families in more than one occasion, when their cities fell to maurading armies of Cao Cao, Lu Bu and Yuan Shao. And yet... the trio proclaim several times that these wives and family... are of less importance to them then their brotherly ties. And presumably, the war.
How would the Romance look like, if it was written from the view of the random slain soldiers whose blood often stain the battlefield "like a river", instead of from the view of the Hero-generals? How would the Romance look like, if it was written from the view of the peasants who were either forcibly conscripted, had their food produce "taxed for the war effort", aside from the famine and droughts? How would the Romance of the long war look like, written by the women? Would it be just as "Romantic"?
29 September 2003
Have you killed your father today?
Regardless of the amount of siblings one has, the first and more primordial conflict within the family is always with the Father. One rebels against authority in the maturing process. It is inevitable, as one attempts to establish an independent personality in their teenage years, away from the Self that had been coccooned and nurtured previously within the confines of the family. And who better to rebel, to kill, than the father figure?
Mythology is a kind of truth-telling; it is timeless and ahistorical, precisely because it expresses a general or eternal truth about human society and behaviour.
The Greeks had several myths to express the dynamics within the family. We've all heard of Oedipus Rex and how he (unwittingly) killed his father and usurped the king's authority. More fundamental than the Oedipus mythos, is the entire mythology of the creation of the universe...
Zeus (in Roman, Jupiter), the self-proclaimed father of gods", ascended to his current supremacy when he rebelled against his father, Cronos. Cronos (or Saturn), was an elder God who, out of fear of losing his power and authority, ate his own offspring. Fortunately for Zeus, his mother and grandmother tricked Cronos into eating a large stone, while allowing the child to survive and slay the father later.
Cronos himself had come to power as an elder god through slaying his father, Uranus, who had similarly sought to prevent rebellion by eating his children.
Inherent to this pattern of father-killing, is the idea that change and progress can only come about by questioning authority, even to the extent of disagreeing with our greatest authority figures. Time - meaningful time - comes about because there is change and revolution. Creativity and Creation can only come about when we stop eating our children, and allow them to flourish, and question us.
Otherwise, the world stagnates in a timeless limbo, an "End of History", where the age of oratory, spectacle, and challenge, is declared over, and there only remains the task of preserving the legacy of the Senior Minister, and occasionally Remaking Singapore (there, you didn't think I'd write a purely academic piece, did you?).
Coming back to Greek mythology, Zeus the father of the Olympian gods, sucessfully repels all challenges to his authority. Why is he sucessful? Well... he doesn't eat his children, unlike Cronus and Uranus. He allows them to grow, to rebel, and question his authority without punishment, or pre-emptive action. In a strange coda to Greek mythology, their bards and poets write about the grave of Zeus in Crete, and about the death of the Olympian gods, who become mortal after the passing of Zeus. Even the current rulers must make way for the next generation... Only to ensure that the world doesn't stagnate.
Consider this: have you ever heard of any Chinese myth or folklore about sons killing off or rebelling against their fathers?
There's an old story, set during the Warring Nations era, of a man who went off to fight for his country, leaving behind his wife and young son. A decade later, the warrior returns to his village, and behold: outside his hut are the sandals of his wife, and those of a grown man. The sounds of laughter wafts out of the hut. Enraged at his wife's betrayal, the warrior steps in, chops off the head of the stranger. Who is, of course, his now adult son.
Or take the various legends of Nezha or Nataku, who didn't exactly have a great relationship with his father either. The Ming dynasty account of "The Creation of the Gods" sets the family feud in the mythical Shang dynasty of China. The magical son Nezha tests his growing powers by killing off or offending some powerful dieties like the Dragon Kings... who bear upon his father to punish him. By death. Since magical sons always have the power of resurrection (see Osiris, the Fisher King, Odin, Jesus), Nezha returns to life and pursues his father in revenge. Of course the son is suitably punished and imprisoned, and all is well when he repents, and joins forces with the father in the war against the Shang dynasty.
The moral?
From the first myth: No matter how grown up you are, it is guaranteed that your father will come right up and smack your head if you do something wrong. You can't see him now, perhaps... but like the Senior Minister, your father can rise up from the grave or come back from a faraway place to set things right.
From the second myth? Do not rebel against authority. You always lose.
Mythology is a kind of truth-telling; it is timeless and ahistorical, precisely because it expresses a general or eternal truth about human society and behaviour.
The Greeks had several myths to express the dynamics within the family. We've all heard of Oedipus Rex and how he (unwittingly) killed his father and usurped the king's authority. More fundamental than the Oedipus mythos, is the entire mythology of the creation of the universe...
Zeus (in Roman, Jupiter), the self-proclaimed father of gods", ascended to his current supremacy when he rebelled against his father, Cronos. Cronos (or Saturn), was an elder God who, out of fear of losing his power and authority, ate his own offspring. Fortunately for Zeus, his mother and grandmother tricked Cronos into eating a large stone, while allowing the child to survive and slay the father later.
Cronos himself had come to power as an elder god through slaying his father, Uranus, who had similarly sought to prevent rebellion by eating his children.
Inherent to this pattern of father-killing, is the idea that change and progress can only come about by questioning authority, even to the extent of disagreeing with our greatest authority figures. Time - meaningful time - comes about because there is change and revolution. Creativity and Creation can only come about when we stop eating our children, and allow them to flourish, and question us.
Otherwise, the world stagnates in a timeless limbo, an "End of History", where the age of oratory, spectacle, and challenge, is declared over, and there only remains the task of preserving the legacy of the Senior Minister, and occasionally Remaking Singapore (there, you didn't think I'd write a purely academic piece, did you?).
Coming back to Greek mythology, Zeus the father of the Olympian gods, sucessfully repels all challenges to his authority. Why is he sucessful? Well... he doesn't eat his children, unlike Cronus and Uranus. He allows them to grow, to rebel, and question his authority without punishment, or pre-emptive action. In a strange coda to Greek mythology, their bards and poets write about the grave of Zeus in Crete, and about the death of the Olympian gods, who become mortal after the passing of Zeus. Even the current rulers must make way for the next generation... Only to ensure that the world doesn't stagnate.
Consider this: have you ever heard of any Chinese myth or folklore about sons killing off or rebelling against their fathers?
There's an old story, set during the Warring Nations era, of a man who went off to fight for his country, leaving behind his wife and young son. A decade later, the warrior returns to his village, and behold: outside his hut are the sandals of his wife, and those of a grown man. The sounds of laughter wafts out of the hut. Enraged at his wife's betrayal, the warrior steps in, chops off the head of the stranger. Who is, of course, his now adult son.
Or take the various legends of Nezha or Nataku, who didn't exactly have a great relationship with his father either. The Ming dynasty account of "The Creation of the Gods" sets the family feud in the mythical Shang dynasty of China. The magical son Nezha tests his growing powers by killing off or offending some powerful dieties like the Dragon Kings... who bear upon his father to punish him. By death. Since magical sons always have the power of resurrection (see Osiris, the Fisher King, Odin, Jesus), Nezha returns to life and pursues his father in revenge. Of course the son is suitably punished and imprisoned, and all is well when he repents, and joins forces with the father in the war against the Shang dynasty.
The moral?
From the first myth: No matter how grown up you are, it is guaranteed that your father will come right up and smack your head if you do something wrong. You can't see him now, perhaps... but like the Senior Minister, your father can rise up from the grave or come back from a faraway place to set things right.
From the second myth? Do not rebel against authority. You always lose.
26 September 2003
Minister Says Sorry But Denies Mistake
Only in Singapore, folks! The team of experts from the World Health Organisation came to the conclusion on 24 Sept, after a week of exhaustive investigation, that the Singapore SARS Man contracted the disease directly from the Environmental Health Institute (EHI) in NUS, where he was working.
Among the damning details of the report:
The postgraduate student was studying the West Nile virus in the lab. Somehow, all the samples of the virus were contaminated with the SARS virus. The hell no one noticed it till now.
The postgraduate student, as well as his supervisor, did not wear the protective suit on the last visit to the lab before the student came down with SARS.
The student last worked at the lab 3 days before he fell sick, and NOT the 6 days as the EHI had originally claimed in their efforts to shift the blame away from themselves.
Lab personnel often did not follow safety procedures, and record-keeping was poor.
The WHO panel visited other local biological laboratories and concluded that Singapore does not have a national safety standard for labs.
The EHI lab was originally built and designed for Biological Safety Level 2 research, and was converted to BSL-3 to combat SARS. However the infrastructure and safety procedures have not been modified to ensure the higher safety standards required.
Our SGH laboratories mix BSL-2 and BSL-3 research in the same labs, and "prejudice good safety practices".
The NUS labs are overcrowded and have limited space, and there is no "practical culture of safety".
A while back, a nasty Straits Times reporter wrote an editorial damning Canadian authorities and suggesting a cover-up regarding the "false alarm SARS cases". Immediately after the WHO report on Singapore, this same reporter advised everyone to move on, that no heads should roll at the EHI, that there was no cover-up. Amazing double standards.
And isn't it particularly shocking? For the past 5 years, Singapore's leaders have attempted to brand the country as an Asian hub for the life-sciences, and bio-sciences industries, pouring in millions of dollars in R&D, as well as attracting superstar researchers to work here. And for 5 years, this deplorable lack of standards has continued, without our knowledge! And yes, the acting Minister for Health, Khaw Boon Wan, and the Minister for the Environment, Lim Swee Say, refused to acknowledge that there was a serious mistake, only saying that "this is a learning experience", and no heads should roll for this unfortunate incident.
Riiiiight. This comes from the same ministry that was very swift to fire an international researcher a few months back for violating patients' privacy rights by conducting gene testing without their approval. But when it comes to a system wide failure to adhere to safety standards, to the extent of threatening lives.... "this is a learning experience, and no one should be fired."
http://www.moh.gov.sg/sars/pdf/Report_SARS_Biosafety.pdf is the link to the official report by the panel, just in case anyone complains that such important information is either withheld or secreted in obscure places out of reach from prying citizens.
Among the damning details of the report:
The postgraduate student was studying the West Nile virus in the lab. Somehow, all the samples of the virus were contaminated with the SARS virus. The hell no one noticed it till now.
The postgraduate student, as well as his supervisor, did not wear the protective suit on the last visit to the lab before the student came down with SARS.
The student last worked at the lab 3 days before he fell sick, and NOT the 6 days as the EHI had originally claimed in their efforts to shift the blame away from themselves.
Lab personnel often did not follow safety procedures, and record-keeping was poor.
The WHO panel visited other local biological laboratories and concluded that Singapore does not have a national safety standard for labs.
The EHI lab was originally built and designed for Biological Safety Level 2 research, and was converted to BSL-3 to combat SARS. However the infrastructure and safety procedures have not been modified to ensure the higher safety standards required.
Our SGH laboratories mix BSL-2 and BSL-3 research in the same labs, and "prejudice good safety practices".
The NUS labs are overcrowded and have limited space, and there is no "practical culture of safety".
A while back, a nasty Straits Times reporter wrote an editorial damning Canadian authorities and suggesting a cover-up regarding the "false alarm SARS cases". Immediately after the WHO report on Singapore, this same reporter advised everyone to move on, that no heads should roll at the EHI, that there was no cover-up. Amazing double standards.
And isn't it particularly shocking? For the past 5 years, Singapore's leaders have attempted to brand the country as an Asian hub for the life-sciences, and bio-sciences industries, pouring in millions of dollars in R&D, as well as attracting superstar researchers to work here. And for 5 years, this deplorable lack of standards has continued, without our knowledge! And yes, the acting Minister for Health, Khaw Boon Wan, and the Minister for the Environment, Lim Swee Say, refused to acknowledge that there was a serious mistake, only saying that "this is a learning experience", and no heads should roll for this unfortunate incident.
Riiiiight. This comes from the same ministry that was very swift to fire an international researcher a few months back for violating patients' privacy rights by conducting gene testing without their approval. But when it comes to a system wide failure to adhere to safety standards, to the extent of threatening lives.... "this is a learning experience, and no one should be fired."
http://www.moh.gov.sg/sars/pdf/Report_SARS_Biosafety.pdf is the link to the official report by the panel, just in case anyone complains that such important information is either withheld or secreted in obscure places out of reach from prying citizens.
21 September 2003
New School of Public Policy Announced
On 16 September, the Prime Minister announced at the Senior Minister's 80th birthday banquet, the opening of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at NUS. The SM "is synonymous with Singapore", and the public policy school is named in recognition of the leader's role in "achieving First World status for Singapore".
I had the chance to speak to the newly appointed Dean of the public policy school yesterday, and Professor T. Sarkar was able to provide more details, which I will share with my readers.
"As Singapore's prime minister for three deacdes, the SM is the architect of the nation, and posesses rich personal expertise on crafting public policy," said the jubilant Prof. Sarkar, who had just been transfered over from his Brigadier-General post in the Singapore Armed Forces. "Of course, this postgraduate school will tie up with the venerable American institution, the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, but the SM and I will design the course to reflect and propagate democracy and capitalism with Singaporean characteristics, and draw on his unique political career."
A preliminary course list was shown to me, and it does look like a very well-thought-out syllabus which centres on the Singapore story and the SM's unique contributions to it.
Autumn 2004
LKY 1101 Managing State-Labour Relations I: Rationalising the Unions
"Singapore's early unions were fragmented, chaotic, and infested with Communists. SM will lecture on how to streamline the structure of the unions, including drafting laws to ban the right to form unions, and setting up a single state-approved union."
LKY 1102 Corruption and the State
"SM will personally lecture on how to create a clean, graft-free society. Drawing on the experience of the PAP Old Guard and his more recent experiences, he will also explain how to avoid the temptations of personal corruption."
LKY 1103 The Meritocratic Society
"Guest Lecturers DPM Lee, BG Lee Hsien Yang, and Madam Ho Ching will explain how to create a society where, in addtition to being corruption-free, only the best and the brightest can succeed in a level-playing field."
LKY 1104 Technology and the State
"Guest Lecturer Ronald Reagan, a personal friend of SM, will address the issue of committing the State to technological advances and R&D, using his famous Star Wars Programme and his son's SWII as examples."
Spring 2005
LKY 1201 Managing State-Labour Relations II
"SM will co-chair this course with Lim Boon Heng, continuing the issues of the previous semester. Now that you have a single union, how do you control the workers and ensure their compliance in your nation's economic development?"
LKY 1202 Elections and the State
"In any democratic state, elections are a necessary evil. SM will explain how to get over elections as fast as possible, and get back on track to the real business of managing the State.
LKY 1203 Economic Policy and the State
"Guest Lecturers and personal friends of the SM, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, will expound on Reaganomics (aka Voodoo Economics or Supply-Side Economics) and Thatcherism as a capitalist philosophy, and their implications on making your nation richer, as well as widening the gap between the rich and poor. Greed is good! Only when some people are filthy rich can a nation prosper!"
LKY 1204 Continuing your Legacy
"On his expected retirement in 2005, the current PM Goh Chok Tong will join SM to lecture on protecting political legacies, and handing over power in a meritocratic and open manner."
I had the chance to speak to the newly appointed Dean of the public policy school yesterday, and Professor T. Sarkar was able to provide more details, which I will share with my readers.
"As Singapore's prime minister for three deacdes, the SM is the architect of the nation, and posesses rich personal expertise on crafting public policy," said the jubilant Prof. Sarkar, who had just been transfered over from his Brigadier-General post in the Singapore Armed Forces. "Of course, this postgraduate school will tie up with the venerable American institution, the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, but the SM and I will design the course to reflect and propagate democracy and capitalism with Singaporean characteristics, and draw on his unique political career."
A preliminary course list was shown to me, and it does look like a very well-thought-out syllabus which centres on the Singapore story and the SM's unique contributions to it.
Autumn 2004
LKY 1101 Managing State-Labour Relations I: Rationalising the Unions
"Singapore's early unions were fragmented, chaotic, and infested with Communists. SM will lecture on how to streamline the structure of the unions, including drafting laws to ban the right to form unions, and setting up a single state-approved union."
LKY 1102 Corruption and the State
"SM will personally lecture on how to create a clean, graft-free society. Drawing on the experience of the PAP Old Guard and his more recent experiences, he will also explain how to avoid the temptations of personal corruption."
LKY 1103 The Meritocratic Society
"Guest Lecturers DPM Lee, BG Lee Hsien Yang, and Madam Ho Ching will explain how to create a society where, in addtition to being corruption-free, only the best and the brightest can succeed in a level-playing field."
LKY 1104 Technology and the State
"Guest Lecturer Ronald Reagan, a personal friend of SM, will address the issue of committing the State to technological advances and R&D, using his famous Star Wars Programme and his son's SWII as examples."
Spring 2005
LKY 1201 Managing State-Labour Relations II
"SM will co-chair this course with Lim Boon Heng, continuing the issues of the previous semester. Now that you have a single union, how do you control the workers and ensure their compliance in your nation's economic development?"
LKY 1202 Elections and the State
"In any democratic state, elections are a necessary evil. SM will explain how to get over elections as fast as possible, and get back on track to the real business of managing the State.
LKY 1203 Economic Policy and the State
"Guest Lecturers and personal friends of the SM, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, will expound on Reaganomics (aka Voodoo Economics or Supply-Side Economics) and Thatcherism as a capitalist philosophy, and their implications on making your nation richer, as well as widening the gap between the rich and poor. Greed is good! Only when some people are filthy rich can a nation prosper!"
LKY 1204 Continuing your Legacy
"On his expected retirement in 2005, the current PM Goh Chok Tong will join SM to lecture on protecting political legacies, and handing over power in a meritocratic and open manner."
19 September 2003
Singapore's Qin Shihuang
Merlion turns 80; scribbers, biographers, hired pens mythologise; flags wave, hymns are sung, and there was a voice from the heavens saying, "This is my son, in whom I am well pleased". Well, this might as well be the headlines concerning a minor event that transpired earlier this week.
You might've thought that the mythologising of leaders died out with Stalin, Lenin, Mao, and Kim Il Sung (who can hardly forget the North Korean myth that says the mountains burst out in song during the birth of the Great Leader?). In our little democratic and capitalist island at least, this wonderful tradition of deifying god-kings and philosopher-kings is still very much alive.
To commemorate the eightieth birthday of the abovementioned Merlion, the living person was instantly transmogrified into an icon and a myth by the fawning press and members of the "international business community" - which mostly consisted of Hongkong businessmen who long for a strong leader.
One local journalist even went to the extent of saying that Singapore would be nothing if not for this great Merlion; if we had any other leader as our first post-independence Prime Minister, Singapore would either end up as "a nation of sake drinkers" since Lim Yew Hock would've probably sold Singapore as easily as he sold Christmas Island to a foreign nation, or "a nation of wine-guzzling idealists espousing liberal views" if the liberal David Marshall had been at the helm... i.e. incompetent and drunken and so unlike the Pragmatic Singaporean that we have all learnt to stop fearing, and love. Now, this journalist is lower than a snake's belly, by insulting the memories and denigrating the leadership, capability, and honesty of two of Singapore's pre-independence Chief Ministers. Do we really need to villify and diminish previous leaders so that we can recognise the worth of one leader?
Now, the Merlion has been credited for leaving his mark in history by being 'indispensable' to Singapore's development. Let us take a look at a few of these claims.
1. The Communist Issue. Mostly formulated as "The Merlion slew the Communist Tiger and saved Singapore in the 50s and 60s. Without him, we'd be a Red Nation, and democracy would've been poorer in the region".
Wrong. The British undertook strong, violent, and often dirty Anti-Communist efforts in all their colonies and ex-colonies during the 50s and 60s. In Canada, India, Burma, Hongkong, and Malaya... the British waged a de facto "take no prisoners" war against the Communist threat. In all occasions, the Communists were imprisoned, killed, and their credibility completely destroyed.
Singapore would've ended up beating the Communists without the Merlion, and would've employed the same strong-arm tactics that the Merlion used.
2. Independence as a separate nation. Formulated as "Without the Merlion, Singapore would be either part of the Indian Administration, or the Federation of Malaya".
Wrong. The British had a clear pattern for partitioning their ex-colonies before granting independence. The US and Canada used to be a single British Colony. So were Iraq and Kuwait. Israel and Palestine. India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Malaysia and Brunei. Most of the time, the terms of independence set by the British would ensure a speedy split within the original single colonial posession.
3. Industrialisation. "Without the Merlion, Singapore would never have been a truly urban, industrialised, first-world-wannabe nation."
Wrong.
Firstly, Singapore has NEVER been a rural place during its modern history (aka After Raffles). Singapore was a strongly urban area, and was increasingly so with the massive influx of immigrants. As an independent nation, industrialisation would've 1. been the natural fate of a highly urban population, and 2. would've been the only way out.
Secondly, Singapore was granted independence in the 1960s, a period when Asian and African colonial posessions were quickly and ignominously divested by their former European masters. The United Nations, IMF, and the World Bank, were instrumental in the international project to help these new nations industrialise. Singapore received financial assistance from the US, technology transfer from Taiwan and Japan, and teams of UN experts were instrumental in drawing up the first Singapore Urban Plan, of which all future Urban Plans in our country rested on.
Was Singapore the creation of one central, indispensable man? The biographers, mythologisers, and hired pens would have you believe so. Please don't.
You might've thought that the mythologising of leaders died out with Stalin, Lenin, Mao, and Kim Il Sung (who can hardly forget the North Korean myth that says the mountains burst out in song during the birth of the Great Leader?). In our little democratic and capitalist island at least, this wonderful tradition of deifying god-kings and philosopher-kings is still very much alive.
To commemorate the eightieth birthday of the abovementioned Merlion, the living person was instantly transmogrified into an icon and a myth by the fawning press and members of the "international business community" - which mostly consisted of Hongkong businessmen who long for a strong leader.
One local journalist even went to the extent of saying that Singapore would be nothing if not for this great Merlion; if we had any other leader as our first post-independence Prime Minister, Singapore would either end up as "a nation of sake drinkers" since Lim Yew Hock would've probably sold Singapore as easily as he sold Christmas Island to a foreign nation, or "a nation of wine-guzzling idealists espousing liberal views" if the liberal David Marshall had been at the helm... i.e. incompetent and drunken and so unlike the Pragmatic Singaporean that we have all learnt to stop fearing, and love. Now, this journalist is lower than a snake's belly, by insulting the memories and denigrating the leadership, capability, and honesty of two of Singapore's pre-independence Chief Ministers. Do we really need to villify and diminish previous leaders so that we can recognise the worth of one leader?
Now, the Merlion has been credited for leaving his mark in history by being 'indispensable' to Singapore's development. Let us take a look at a few of these claims.
1. The Communist Issue. Mostly formulated as "The Merlion slew the Communist Tiger and saved Singapore in the 50s and 60s. Without him, we'd be a Red Nation, and democracy would've been poorer in the region".
Wrong. The British undertook strong, violent, and often dirty Anti-Communist efforts in all their colonies and ex-colonies during the 50s and 60s. In Canada, India, Burma, Hongkong, and Malaya... the British waged a de facto "take no prisoners" war against the Communist threat. In all occasions, the Communists were imprisoned, killed, and their credibility completely destroyed.
Singapore would've ended up beating the Communists without the Merlion, and would've employed the same strong-arm tactics that the Merlion used.
2. Independence as a separate nation. Formulated as "Without the Merlion, Singapore would be either part of the Indian Administration, or the Federation of Malaya".
Wrong. The British had a clear pattern for partitioning their ex-colonies before granting independence. The US and Canada used to be a single British Colony. So were Iraq and Kuwait. Israel and Palestine. India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Malaysia and Brunei. Most of the time, the terms of independence set by the British would ensure a speedy split within the original single colonial posession.
3. Industrialisation. "Without the Merlion, Singapore would never have been a truly urban, industrialised, first-world-wannabe nation."
Wrong.
Firstly, Singapore has NEVER been a rural place during its modern history (aka After Raffles). Singapore was a strongly urban area, and was increasingly so with the massive influx of immigrants. As an independent nation, industrialisation would've 1. been the natural fate of a highly urban population, and 2. would've been the only way out.
Secondly, Singapore was granted independence in the 1960s, a period when Asian and African colonial posessions were quickly and ignominously divested by their former European masters. The United Nations, IMF, and the World Bank, were instrumental in the international project to help these new nations industrialise. Singapore received financial assistance from the US, technology transfer from Taiwan and Japan, and teams of UN experts were instrumental in drawing up the first Singapore Urban Plan, of which all future Urban Plans in our country rested on.
Was Singapore the creation of one central, indispensable man? The biographers, mythologisers, and hired pens would have you believe so. Please don't.
16 September 2003
Performance art no longer banned in Singapore
Oh, the enlightened folks at the Censorship Review Committee decided to give everyone a break, so from next month onwards, performance art and forum theatre are no longer banned, and will be considered for arts funding from the National Arts Council. In addition, there will be more film categories so that Singaporeans can watch more films without a trigger-happy censor butchering kissing scenes. Let us all bow down to the Ministry of Information and the Arts, which continues to lead Singapore into its vision of a Renaissance City, and throws little scraps to placate an increasingly liberal population every 10 years!
Now, time for me to sink my daggers into this target =D
Firstly, I lied in my entry title. Forum theatre is not banned in Singapore, it just wasn't eligible for arts funding since 22 February 1994. Performance art, or conceptual art, has indeed been banned from the same day onwards.
The reason? On 31 December 1993, local artist Joseph Ng and other artists were involved in various performance art pieces where they drank their urine, and Joseph snipped his pubic hair in protest against the press' sensationalisation and demonisation of homsexuality. Oooh, what a long time ago it was, since the Singapore media is nowadays very pro-gay, or at least alot more sympathetic to the issue.
Things to note: Joseph Ng's outrageous performance had nothing to do with forum theatre. Unfortunately, it was caught in the cross-fire, probably because it was deemed subversive to our anal-retentive authorities. According to their official statement on 21 January 1994, the Government...
None of this was apparently acknowleged in the announcement to reinstate Performance Art and Forum Theatre last week. Not a "We Did A Stupid Thing", not a "We're Sorry", and definitely, as most Singaporeans will swear, the Government is still very allergic to admitting any wrongdoing.
Also, note that Joseph Ng and his collaborator Shannon Tham were banned from performing ALL art in Singapore. Ng has since become a successful museum curator/administrator in Thailand, at the forefront of Asian Art. Nonetheless, nothing was ever mentioned last week about rescinding the life-time ban on Ng. Less was even said about how the removal of funding caused the Artists Village and Fifth Passage to close down. The arts cannot survive without funding, so a neat way to destroy art without banning it would be to stop funding it.
So, what's the big deal about Performance/Conceptual Art? It's a freaking big deal, since it is now one of the most profitable, notorious, and critically acclaimed wings of modern art. Last millennium, some artists won both fame, notoriety, awards, and probably money, for exhibiting preserved cow carcasses in museums. And, posing as mannequins in store displays. And so on. Forum theatre? Audience interaction and intervention in plays is still a valid performance practice in avant-garde and modernist theatres around the world. So, Singapore missed its boat at being the forefront of exciting global art just from the banning.
Now, if you attended school in 1994, chances are your wonderful teachers and "guides of future generations of Singaporeans" would have done their patriotic duty, by insisting that "Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad."
Ooops, wrong book. But at least in my junior college, my teachers had the compulsive urge to stress in every lesson, especially to us Unruly, Subversive, and Useless Arts Students that "Performance Art is NOT ART. What Joseph Ng did is NOT ART." And so on.
Of course they were just taking their cue from our great leaders, the National Arts Council, and the Judge presiding over the case to prosecute Ng and Tham for indecent conduct.
Now, the National Arts Council should know better than this. Both Performance Art and Forum Theatre, where the artist integrates the audience into the action, have an honourable history. When the grandparents of the bureaucrats running the NAC were still in diapers, Performance Art was born in the 1920s, inspired by the Dadaists, Absurdists, and the post-WWI modern art movements. Originally conceived as a protest against the apolitical and purely aesthetic ideology of pre-WWI art, performance art and forum theatre aimed to
1. offend aesthetic sensibilities (as in art must be "beautiful" and "pleasing")
2. provoke and involve the audience into thinking, and engaging in debate with the art as it unfolds.
3. engage the audience in social commentary, on social issues that are not often raised, or deemed safe to raise.
Performance Art was already OLD STUFF when Yoko Ono went to New York and became involved in cutting-edge arts groups. Performance Art was when Yoko Ono staged a "Love-In" to protest against the Vietnam War; when Yoko Ono started calling up random numbers from the phone directory as a guest on a talk show, to tell the lucky (?) receipients "I Love you. There can be peace in the world."
So we have a bunch of uninformed, philistine bureaucrats running the National Arts Council, who have nothing on the history of art, and probably can't tell a Warhol from a Lichtenstein. Oh, why am I still mad at them, after the assholes graciously decide to un-ban stuff?
Oh, the devil is always in the details. Artists will be tolerated and scripts do not need to be vetted if they do not raise sensitive issues. Now, if the bureaucrats knew ANYTHING at all about Performance Art and Forum Theatre, they would rather have either retained the ban, or removed the silly controls completely.
Now, time for me to sink my daggers into this target =D
Firstly, I lied in my entry title. Forum theatre is not banned in Singapore, it just wasn't eligible for arts funding since 22 February 1994. Performance art, or conceptual art, has indeed been banned from the same day onwards.
The reason? On 31 December 1993, local artist Joseph Ng and other artists were involved in various performance art pieces where they drank their urine, and Joseph snipped his pubic hair in protest against the press' sensationalisation and demonisation of homsexuality. Oooh, what a long time ago it was, since the Singapore media is nowadays very pro-gay, or at least alot more sympathetic to the issue.
Things to note: Joseph Ng's outrageous performance had nothing to do with forum theatre. Unfortunately, it was caught in the cross-fire, probably because it was deemed subversive to our anal-retentive authorities. According to their official statement on 21 January 1994, the Government...
"is concerned that new art forms such as 'performance art' and 'forum theatre' which have no script and encourage spontaneous audience participation pose dangers to public order, security and decency, and much greater difficulty to the licensing authority.
"The performances may be exploited to agitate the audience on volatile social issues, or to propagate the beliefs and messages of deviant social or religious groups, or as a means of subversion"
None of this was apparently acknowleged in the announcement to reinstate Performance Art and Forum Theatre last week. Not a "We Did A Stupid Thing", not a "We're Sorry", and definitely, as most Singaporeans will swear, the Government is still very allergic to admitting any wrongdoing.
Also, note that Joseph Ng and his collaborator Shannon Tham were banned from performing ALL art in Singapore. Ng has since become a successful museum curator/administrator in Thailand, at the forefront of Asian Art. Nonetheless, nothing was ever mentioned last week about rescinding the life-time ban on Ng. Less was even said about how the removal of funding caused the Artists Village and Fifth Passage to close down. The arts cannot survive without funding, so a neat way to destroy art without banning it would be to stop funding it.
So, what's the big deal about Performance/Conceptual Art? It's a freaking big deal, since it is now one of the most profitable, notorious, and critically acclaimed wings of modern art. Last millennium, some artists won both fame, notoriety, awards, and probably money, for exhibiting preserved cow carcasses in museums. And, posing as mannequins in store displays. And so on. Forum theatre? Audience interaction and intervention in plays is still a valid performance practice in avant-garde and modernist theatres around the world. So, Singapore missed its boat at being the forefront of exciting global art just from the banning.
Now, if you attended school in 1994, chances are your wonderful teachers and "guides of future generations of Singaporeans" would have done their patriotic duty, by insisting that "Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad."
Ooops, wrong book. But at least in my junior college, my teachers had the compulsive urge to stress in every lesson, especially to us Unruly, Subversive, and Useless Arts Students that "Performance Art is NOT ART. What Joseph Ng did is NOT ART." And so on.
Of course they were just taking their cue from our great leaders, the National Arts Council, and the Judge presiding over the case to prosecute Ng and Tham for indecent conduct.
Now, the National Arts Council should know better than this. Both Performance Art and Forum Theatre, where the artist integrates the audience into the action, have an honourable history. When the grandparents of the bureaucrats running the NAC were still in diapers, Performance Art was born in the 1920s, inspired by the Dadaists, Absurdists, and the post-WWI modern art movements. Originally conceived as a protest against the apolitical and purely aesthetic ideology of pre-WWI art, performance art and forum theatre aimed to
1. offend aesthetic sensibilities (as in art must be "beautiful" and "pleasing")
2. provoke and involve the audience into thinking, and engaging in debate with the art as it unfolds.
3. engage the audience in social commentary, on social issues that are not often raised, or deemed safe to raise.
Performance Art was already OLD STUFF when Yoko Ono went to New York and became involved in cutting-edge arts groups. Performance Art was when Yoko Ono staged a "Love-In" to protest against the Vietnam War; when Yoko Ono started calling up random numbers from the phone directory as a guest on a talk show, to tell the lucky (?) receipients "I Love you. There can be peace in the world."
So we have a bunch of uninformed, philistine bureaucrats running the National Arts Council, who have nothing on the history of art, and probably can't tell a Warhol from a Lichtenstein. Oh, why am I still mad at them, after the assholes graciously decide to un-ban stuff?
Oh, the devil is always in the details. Artists will be tolerated and scripts do not need to be vetted if they do not raise sensitive issues. Now, if the bureaucrats knew ANYTHING at all about Performance Art and Forum Theatre, they would rather have either retained the ban, or removed the silly controls completely.
12 September 2003
Siamese Twins, a retrospective
Singapore is such a high-tech city, the only types of accidents that happen can never happen elsewhere.
Such as, a researcher in a virological lab contracting a deadly virus. May I say that I'm thankful NUS does not work with Ebola and other more important and deadly viruses? "Outbreak" and "21 Days" are not just far-fetched summer movies, but potentially Singaporean scenarios.
Such as, a woman falling into a gap in the train platform and then run over by a train on one of our driverless, un-manned high-tech train stations.
Such as, a never before done operation that relies on equal parts high technology, pure desperation, and a lust for glory. Online tech magazine Wired News has a 5 page leader article on the twins operation.
The tagline? "Laleh and Ladan Bijani wanted separate lives. Doctors wanted to make history. The inside story of what went wrong." Read the details here at Wired News.
An advice from the magazine to tech-savvy doctors: "Image guidance makes some surgeons better, but it can make others braver."
An advice to everyone else: Technology never guarantees improvement.
Such as, a researcher in a virological lab contracting a deadly virus. May I say that I'm thankful NUS does not work with Ebola and other more important and deadly viruses? "Outbreak" and "21 Days" are not just far-fetched summer movies, but potentially Singaporean scenarios.
Such as, a woman falling into a gap in the train platform and then run over by a train on one of our driverless, un-manned high-tech train stations.
Such as, a never before done operation that relies on equal parts high technology, pure desperation, and a lust for glory. Online tech magazine Wired News has a 5 page leader article on the twins operation.
The tagline? "Laleh and Ladan Bijani wanted separate lives. Doctors wanted to make history. The inside story of what went wrong." Read the details here at Wired News.
An advice from the magazine to tech-savvy doctors: "Image guidance makes some surgeons better, but it can make others braver."
An advice to everyone else: Technology never guarantees improvement.
10 September 2003
Singapore is SARS-Land once again! Such a lovely place...
Well, it's an interesting situation we've got ourselves in. Someone was tentatively suspected of being a "probable SARS case", since he did not display all the classic symptoms, and did not go abroad in the previous months. Then, we were hoping that the results of the first virus test used to diagnose him would be a false positive. Except, that would mean Singapore's reputation for developing reliable SARS-testing kits would go down the drain. Luckily for our bio-sciences industry, the first test proved to be correct.
We are neither in Hell nor out of it, to quote Milton. Today's announcement revealed that the researcher who contracted SARS is now suspected of getting infected from the virological laboratory he was working in. That means, poor environmental controls and safety measures in our fledgling bio-sciences industry. And so, the waves of bad news keep on coming...
Did I mention that just ONE day before the SARS outbreak occured, our Great Leader GCT and Dear Leader Mini-Lee announced that "Enough help has been done for the middle classes"? Please keep this etched in your minds, gentle readers, together with another recent nugget of wisdom from our Prime Minister that "Cutting the wages of ministers won't help the economy".
Yes, from the most highly paid leader of any country, the man who earns a higher salary than the US President, manages a population and an economy that's a fraction, an iota, of the US giant - this man claims that he is NOT overpaid.
We are neither in Hell nor out of it, to quote Milton. Today's announcement revealed that the researcher who contracted SARS is now suspected of getting infected from the virological laboratory he was working in. That means, poor environmental controls and safety measures in our fledgling bio-sciences industry. And so, the waves of bad news keep on coming...
Did I mention that just ONE day before the SARS outbreak occured, our Great Leader GCT and Dear Leader Mini-Lee announced that "Enough help has been done for the middle classes"? Please keep this etched in your minds, gentle readers, together with another recent nugget of wisdom from our Prime Minister that "Cutting the wages of ministers won't help the economy".
Yes, from the most highly paid leader of any country, the man who earns a higher salary than the US President, manages a population and an economy that's a fraction, an iota, of the US giant - this man claims that he is NOT overpaid.
03 September 2003
Emotional blackmail and other bad things nice people do to their close ones
One of the nicer perks of getting into a relationship is the ability to emotionally blackmail your partner; the deeper the relationship, the more abuse is dished out on each other. This is the reason why, although I'm not an anti-social person, I'll never want to get married.
The whole point of 'emotional blackmail' is that the person who is being blackmailed is assumed to be so stuck in the relationship and hence, unable and unwilling to walk away from the abuse - a point that is completely lost on yours truly. The moment I sense a mindfuck coming on, I will terminate the relationship and walk away. Regardless of whether it's a long-time friend, or an acquaintance, or a working partner. It helps to have a built-in BS detector, and read between the lines...
"To be brutally honest...."
An interesting mix of the desire to cause hurt and the desire to help. In all cases, the speaker generally prefers to inflict pain. Whatever 'honesty' is tempered by the need to be brutal.
"I don't enjoy doing/saying this, but..."
The speaker obviously enjoys saying this, and has probably rehearsed this phrase several times in their head beforehand, in order to sound sagely, helpful, and reluctant.
"I thought that as a friend, you should be able to..."
Here, an attempt is made to criticise the errant party for not acting in a manner expected of "friends" (i.e. submit to occasional emotional blackmail). Although of course, the speaker has already excluded the said errant party from the definition of 'friends'.
How do we treat people we consider as friends? Perhaps one needs to reformulate and question current thinking of friends as "people whom you occasionally take advantage of, abuse, throw tantrums at..."
The whole point of 'emotional blackmail' is that the person who is being blackmailed is assumed to be so stuck in the relationship and hence, unable and unwilling to walk away from the abuse - a point that is completely lost on yours truly. The moment I sense a mindfuck coming on, I will terminate the relationship and walk away. Regardless of whether it's a long-time friend, or an acquaintance, or a working partner. It helps to have a built-in BS detector, and read between the lines...
"To be brutally honest...."
An interesting mix of the desire to cause hurt and the desire to help. In all cases, the speaker generally prefers to inflict pain. Whatever 'honesty' is tempered by the need to be brutal.
"I don't enjoy doing/saying this, but..."
The speaker obviously enjoys saying this, and has probably rehearsed this phrase several times in their head beforehand, in order to sound sagely, helpful, and reluctant.
"I thought that as a friend, you should be able to..."
Here, an attempt is made to criticise the errant party for not acting in a manner expected of "friends" (i.e. submit to occasional emotional blackmail). Although of course, the speaker has already excluded the said errant party from the definition of 'friends'.
How do we treat people we consider as friends? Perhaps one needs to reformulate and question current thinking of friends as "people whom you occasionally take advantage of, abuse, throw tantrums at..."
27 August 2003
Flashbacks of the Potato Famine
For those who boycott the Straits Times (and rightly so), today's headline screams out "Wage cost burden heavier than in US: Quoting a Perc global survey, Deputy PM Tony Tan tells why it is urgent that costs are brought down through CPF rate cuts".
Everyone knows that Political and Economic Risk Consultancy, Ltd (PERC, for short), is a respected think-tank whose reports are quoted by governments, Alan Greenspan, the International Monetary Fund, and Transparency International. I will prove that this survey should be dismissed with more than a pinch of salt, together with the ministers' mantra about cutting social security.
About Perc
Perc is more known for its studies on international corruption/graft. The organisation conducts surveys on expatriate businesspeople in East and Southeast Asia, and publishes its findings and rankings of countries every half-yearly.
So it's just a survey, you ask? Well, it always looks very scientific and credible if you display the results in numerical form, such as "We give Singapore a 4.2 grade out of 5 on xx aspect of its economy/corruption, etc". Then, everyone gets the impression that there was some quantitative, fact-based measure of corruption in the study, whereas in reality, the study measures the subjective perceptions of a very specific bunch of people.
The right method for the right measure
A perception-based study, i.e. a survey, is appropriate for some measures and not others. Measuring corruption based on 'hard facts' is notoriously difficult. Reports of corruption that has been unearthed are dependent on the resolve of the state to investigate and prosecute corrupt officials. So, relatively 'clean' countries might have more reported cases of corruption than really corrupt countries where graft is already accepted as part of the landscape, and nothing can be done about it...
Hence, corruption is a measure that is best gauged by surveying perceptions of businessmen, especially expatriates, who are alien to the local 'culture of corruption'.
Let's turn to the issue of wage costs. Singapore ranks as 4th highest in 14 countries, in terms of wage costs. Higher than the US and Australia, and only less expensive than Japan, South Korea, and Hong Kong. The nations with the lowest wage cost are India, the Philippines, and China.
Something stinks in the report
It's the appropriateness of using a survey to rank 'wage costs'. Why bother with perceptions when there is concrete, reality-based economic data that is easily available? If we want to ask "Are wage costs too high?", or "Can we rank these countries with respect to wage costs?", the most logical way of finding the answer would be to check the published statistics of each country. What Perc has really found out in their survey, is that Singapore ranks fourth in perception of being a country with high wage costs. NOT that it really has high wage costs.
Let's not get into the issue of whether Perc used expat businessmen from Southeast and East Asia to generate its values for the US and Australia, although it's a legtitimate point to throw at them. If expats in Southeast and East Asia are used to evaluate the region, then the US and Au regions should be evaluated by expats there. Was it done? We have no idea, since unlike other responsible and scholarly think-tanks and journals, Perc does not reveal its methodology or the specifics of its surveys. Hell, even the Straits Times has to reveal some details of its own surveys to look credible!
Getting back on track... While the use of expatriates for a survey on corruption is justiable and logical, we must remember that using them for a survey on wage costs is not reasonable, and it's got to do with the SAME point: being alien to the local culture.
Regardless of the local culture (in the form of the 'culture of corruption), corruption is always wrong. However, the local culture is very important to understanding and properly evaluating wage cost. I suspect Perc has forgotten to take into account the LOCAL cost of living. Wage costs must be adjusted to the cost of living in order to get a true picture of how overpaid a nation's workers are. Not only that, but a respectable cross-national study on wage cost will have to factor in exchange rates and purchasing power parity.
Obviously, Hongkong, Japan, South Korea and Singapore have the highest costs of living in the region. Definitely, the absolute wages will be high. The reverse holds true for China, et al. The question that was NEVER asked was: What is the average wages, expressed in terms of the average cost of living? Yet another question never asked: How do wage costs compare to other costs, like office rent, administration, inventory, investment?
Then, the other question that was NEVER asked was: Is there any currency undervaluation that causes some countries to offer comparatively cheaper wages than others?
Will an expat businessman, an alien, factor all these in, during a simplistic survey? Which, by the way, the question asked was simply "Do you think the wage costs of X country are high?".
Wrong survey, wrong conclusion, wrong remedy
Other economists are starting to complain about the yuan, which they judge to be fixed at 20-40% under its true exchange value.
So, Singapore's ministers want to compete with the low wage costs of China? Adopt an exchange rate devaluation.
Everyone knows that Political and Economic Risk Consultancy, Ltd (PERC, for short), is a respected think-tank whose reports are quoted by governments, Alan Greenspan, the International Monetary Fund, and Transparency International. I will prove that this survey should be dismissed with more than a pinch of salt, together with the ministers' mantra about cutting social security.
About Perc
Perc is more known for its studies on international corruption/graft. The organisation conducts surveys on expatriate businesspeople in East and Southeast Asia, and publishes its findings and rankings of countries every half-yearly.
So it's just a survey, you ask? Well, it always looks very scientific and credible if you display the results in numerical form, such as "We give Singapore a 4.2 grade out of 5 on xx aspect of its economy/corruption, etc". Then, everyone gets the impression that there was some quantitative, fact-based measure of corruption in the study, whereas in reality, the study measures the subjective perceptions of a very specific bunch of people.
The right method for the right measure
A perception-based study, i.e. a survey, is appropriate for some measures and not others. Measuring corruption based on 'hard facts' is notoriously difficult. Reports of corruption that has been unearthed are dependent on the resolve of the state to investigate and prosecute corrupt officials. So, relatively 'clean' countries might have more reported cases of corruption than really corrupt countries where graft is already accepted as part of the landscape, and nothing can be done about it...
Hence, corruption is a measure that is best gauged by surveying perceptions of businessmen, especially expatriates, who are alien to the local 'culture of corruption'.
Let's turn to the issue of wage costs. Singapore ranks as 4th highest in 14 countries, in terms of wage costs. Higher than the US and Australia, and only less expensive than Japan, South Korea, and Hong Kong. The nations with the lowest wage cost are India, the Philippines, and China.
Something stinks in the report
It's the appropriateness of using a survey to rank 'wage costs'. Why bother with perceptions when there is concrete, reality-based economic data that is easily available? If we want to ask "Are wage costs too high?", or "Can we rank these countries with respect to wage costs?", the most logical way of finding the answer would be to check the published statistics of each country. What Perc has really found out in their survey, is that Singapore ranks fourth in perception of being a country with high wage costs. NOT that it really has high wage costs.
Let's not get into the issue of whether Perc used expat businessmen from Southeast and East Asia to generate its values for the US and Australia, although it's a legtitimate point to throw at them. If expats in Southeast and East Asia are used to evaluate the region, then the US and Au regions should be evaluated by expats there. Was it done? We have no idea, since unlike other responsible and scholarly think-tanks and journals, Perc does not reveal its methodology or the specifics of its surveys. Hell, even the Straits Times has to reveal some details of its own surveys to look credible!
Getting back on track... While the use of expatriates for a survey on corruption is justiable and logical, we must remember that using them for a survey on wage costs is not reasonable, and it's got to do with the SAME point: being alien to the local culture.
Regardless of the local culture (in the form of the 'culture of corruption), corruption is always wrong. However, the local culture is very important to understanding and properly evaluating wage cost. I suspect Perc has forgotten to take into account the LOCAL cost of living. Wage costs must be adjusted to the cost of living in order to get a true picture of how overpaid a nation's workers are. Not only that, but a respectable cross-national study on wage cost will have to factor in exchange rates and purchasing power parity.
Obviously, Hongkong, Japan, South Korea and Singapore have the highest costs of living in the region. Definitely, the absolute wages will be high. The reverse holds true for China, et al. The question that was NEVER asked was: What is the average wages, expressed in terms of the average cost of living? Yet another question never asked: How do wage costs compare to other costs, like office rent, administration, inventory, investment?
Then, the other question that was NEVER asked was: Is there any currency undervaluation that causes some countries to offer comparatively cheaper wages than others?
Will an expat businessman, an alien, factor all these in, during a simplistic survey? Which, by the way, the question asked was simply "Do you think the wage costs of X country are high?".
Wrong survey, wrong conclusion, wrong remedy
Other economists are starting to complain about the yuan, which they judge to be fixed at 20-40% under its true exchange value.
So, Singapore's ministers want to compete with the low wage costs of China? Adopt an exchange rate devaluation.
24 August 2003
Denoument
Today is the anniversary of Martin Luther King's historic "I have a dream" speech. 40 years ago, the good reverend spoke out against discrimination and poverty.
Of course, our national newspaper posts nothing about the anniversary, or the commemorative events and speeches in the Lincoln Memorial, in Washington today. Perhaps our journalists think that there is no poverty and no racial prejudice in our beloved Singapore?
Instead, we have 4 pages devoted to the "Singapore Succession System" and the Heir Apparent, Mini-Lee.
I quote from Pascal:
We do not choose as captain of a ship the most highly born of those aboard.
Of course, our national newspaper posts nothing about the anniversary, or the commemorative events and speeches in the Lincoln Memorial, in Washington today. Perhaps our journalists think that there is no poverty and no racial prejudice in our beloved Singapore?
Instead, we have 4 pages devoted to the "Singapore Succession System" and the Heir Apparent, Mini-Lee.
I quote from Pascal:
We do not choose as captain of a ship the most highly born of those aboard.
23 August 2003
The coming crisis of capitalism
Sometimes I wake to the feeling that the world is going to the dogs, and I have a front seat to the ensuing spectacle.
Yesterday's economic figures show France joining Germany and Italy in the League of Nations in Recession (or lurching into recession). Today, we read that South Korea, the economic powerhouse least affected by 1997, is in technical recession this quarter. In a desperate attempt to grow out of its own recession, Singapore's leaders take the extraordinary step of cutting the pension rate of its citizens.
Compounded to all this: reports that regardless of skills, efficiency, specialisation... all kinds of jobs are haemorraging from the developed world to China and India. To me, this is the biggest and most prominent sign that capitalism is once again in crisis.
Let me explain: the 'rationale' for international capitalism is 'free trade', leveraging on supposed efficiencies of production and specialisation of skilled labour. In theory, developed countries should lose low-skilled jobs to developing countries who are more efficient, cost-wise. Developing nations should technically lose out to the skill-efficient labour and higher-order services of developed nations. What should not happen is for low cost to trump over skills and technical specialisation. But it is happening.
The theory and rationale for international capitalism and free trade is unravelling before our very eyes. It is impossible for developed countries to compete on cost alone. That's why our economic leaders have always stressed that going higher-skilled will create more jobs... but the facts show their advice is wrong. We're haemorraging both unskilled and skilled labour.
Let's take a step back. Capitalism is a long tradition; it has seen several crises and remade itself several times over the course of 4-5 centuries. There was Mercantile Capitalism in the 16th century, run on equal parts free trade and the expansion of empires.
The most recent form of capitalism, "Industrial Capitalism", started during the Industrial Revolution. For a short while, it brought some progress to people. However, it soon came to a crisis: Capital had too much power over labour. Workers everywhere were genuinely exploited, with low pay, long hours, and poor, hazardous conditions. Confrontation looked imminent, and Marx became the prophet of the Communist Revolution.
Thankfully, Marx saved Industrial Capitalism. Realisation of the dangerous trends within capitalism forced everyone to reform it. Unionised labour was legalised. Minimum wage and other employment laws were drafted.
Both Capital and Labour were corporatised into the State, so much so that almost all modern democracies are actually Socialist. The state's major duty is the education of the population - so that they are employable for Capital. At the same time, it guarantees the safety of Labour in employment laws. There is Social Security, to ensure that unemployment is a temporary yet non-threatening state.
While Industrial Capitalism faced the problem of unfettered Capital, International Capitalism faces a similar crisis: unfettered free trade. 1997 was caused by the unfettered currency and investment flows. The reform? World Band and IMF agreed eventually that Malaysia's currency controls was the right step to take. However, the greatest problem still plagues us: the unfettered flow of jobs that goes against the "mutual specialisation" rationale of International Capitalism. Now that cost appears to be the ONLY factor, it makes mutual specialisation a joke.
I have no doubt that there will be an eventual crisis. I look forward to the next prophet, and the resulting reforms to the system, and the birth of a new kind of Capitalism.
Yesterday's economic figures show France joining Germany and Italy in the League of Nations in Recession (or lurching into recession). Today, we read that South Korea, the economic powerhouse least affected by 1997, is in technical recession this quarter. In a desperate attempt to grow out of its own recession, Singapore's leaders take the extraordinary step of cutting the pension rate of its citizens.
Compounded to all this: reports that regardless of skills, efficiency, specialisation... all kinds of jobs are haemorraging from the developed world to China and India. To me, this is the biggest and most prominent sign that capitalism is once again in crisis.
Let me explain: the 'rationale' for international capitalism is 'free trade', leveraging on supposed efficiencies of production and specialisation of skilled labour. In theory, developed countries should lose low-skilled jobs to developing countries who are more efficient, cost-wise. Developing nations should technically lose out to the skill-efficient labour and higher-order services of developed nations. What should not happen is for low cost to trump over skills and technical specialisation. But it is happening.
The theory and rationale for international capitalism and free trade is unravelling before our very eyes. It is impossible for developed countries to compete on cost alone. That's why our economic leaders have always stressed that going higher-skilled will create more jobs... but the facts show their advice is wrong. We're haemorraging both unskilled and skilled labour.
Let's take a step back. Capitalism is a long tradition; it has seen several crises and remade itself several times over the course of 4-5 centuries. There was Mercantile Capitalism in the 16th century, run on equal parts free trade and the expansion of empires.
The most recent form of capitalism, "Industrial Capitalism", started during the Industrial Revolution. For a short while, it brought some progress to people. However, it soon came to a crisis: Capital had too much power over labour. Workers everywhere were genuinely exploited, with low pay, long hours, and poor, hazardous conditions. Confrontation looked imminent, and Marx became the prophet of the Communist Revolution.
Thankfully, Marx saved Industrial Capitalism. Realisation of the dangerous trends within capitalism forced everyone to reform it. Unionised labour was legalised. Minimum wage and other employment laws were drafted.
Both Capital and Labour were corporatised into the State, so much so that almost all modern democracies are actually Socialist. The state's major duty is the education of the population - so that they are employable for Capital. At the same time, it guarantees the safety of Labour in employment laws. There is Social Security, to ensure that unemployment is a temporary yet non-threatening state.
While Industrial Capitalism faced the problem of unfettered Capital, International Capitalism faces a similar crisis: unfettered free trade. 1997 was caused by the unfettered currency and investment flows. The reform? World Band and IMF agreed eventually that Malaysia's currency controls was the right step to take. However, the greatest problem still plagues us: the unfettered flow of jobs that goes against the "mutual specialisation" rationale of International Capitalism. Now that cost appears to be the ONLY factor, it makes mutual specialisation a joke.
I have no doubt that there will be an eventual crisis. I look forward to the next prophet, and the resulting reforms to the system, and the birth of a new kind of Capitalism.
21 August 2003
Kill the Thirtysomethings!
How do we evaluate the role people play in history? I present you the case study of the 30something generation of Singaporeans.
Following accepted historical procedures, one might begin by looking at the Singapore they inherited when that generation came of age and first started out work, and compare that to the Singapore our quarter-life crisis generation has inherited from them, when it's our turn to start out...
Wasn't it not so long ago that Our Generation was predicted to screw up Singapore with our wishy-washy liberal leanings? (Old Man Lee's theory that the 3rd generation will undo what the founders and the 2nd generation built up) Well, whaddaya know... the country didn't last long enough for us to ruin it ourselves. Thanks alot, 30somethings!
You disappoint me deeply. Let's see: our 30somethings were the first SG generation to be
1. highly educated
2. experience upward social mobility never seen before by their parents generation
3. exposed to cosmopolitan forces
Unfortunately, they didn't pick up anything but an unbridled lust for pleasure and money. Ah, the allure of the 1990s! Upgrade mania, conspicuous consumption, and the Singapore Dream of the 6Cs. Politically, the 30somethings truly deserved their "leadership of Singapore", with its bloated policies pandering to greed and a penchant for reducing every issue into a referendum for "4 more good years" - aka more upgrading.
I'm sure you had a good run, 30somethings. Wasn't it such an experience to be able to buy, upgrade and sell flats once every 3 years during the economic bubble? Well, WE can't even afford new housing nowadays, unless we want to remain in debt for more than half of our working lives, thanks to the property inflation that you single-handed caused.
Way to go, 30somethings. You occasionally complain that this recession has cost you your whitecollar, middle management jobs and sometimes lower pay. Well. WE can't even get decently employed because companies would rather hire experienced 30somethings instead of fresh grads. You've stolen our jobs.
If I had a big hammer now...
Following accepted historical procedures, one might begin by looking at the Singapore they inherited when that generation came of age and first started out work, and compare that to the Singapore our quarter-life crisis generation has inherited from them, when it's our turn to start out...
Wasn't it not so long ago that Our Generation was predicted to screw up Singapore with our wishy-washy liberal leanings? (Old Man Lee's theory that the 3rd generation will undo what the founders and the 2nd generation built up) Well, whaddaya know... the country didn't last long enough for us to ruin it ourselves. Thanks alot, 30somethings!
You disappoint me deeply. Let's see: our 30somethings were the first SG generation to be
1. highly educated
2. experience upward social mobility never seen before by their parents generation
3. exposed to cosmopolitan forces
Unfortunately, they didn't pick up anything but an unbridled lust for pleasure and money. Ah, the allure of the 1990s! Upgrade mania, conspicuous consumption, and the Singapore Dream of the 6Cs. Politically, the 30somethings truly deserved their "leadership of Singapore", with its bloated policies pandering to greed and a penchant for reducing every issue into a referendum for "4 more good years" - aka more upgrading.
I'm sure you had a good run, 30somethings. Wasn't it such an experience to be able to buy, upgrade and sell flats once every 3 years during the economic bubble? Well, WE can't even afford new housing nowadays, unless we want to remain in debt for more than half of our working lives, thanks to the property inflation that you single-handed caused.
Way to go, 30somethings. You occasionally complain that this recession has cost you your whitecollar, middle management jobs and sometimes lower pay. Well. WE can't even get decently employed because companies would rather hire experienced 30somethings instead of fresh grads. You've stolen our jobs.
If I had a big hammer now...
18 August 2003
The meaning of words
Ko.yaa.nis.qatsi (from the Hopi language), n.
1. Crazy life
2. Life in turmoil
3. Life disintegrating
4. Life out of balance
5. A state of life that calls for another way of living.
This should be a Singaporean word, it's so fitting.
Also, according to my O Level tuition kids, our local English examinors leaked the news to their teachers that "Don't" is officially banned from the oral examination (because the kids pronounce it as donch. My my, just when I thought education reform in Singapore was crazy enough.
1. Crazy life
2. Life in turmoil
3. Life disintegrating
4. Life out of balance
5. A state of life that calls for another way of living.
This should be a Singaporean word, it's so fitting.
Also, according to my O Level tuition kids, our local English examinors leaked the news to their teachers that "Don't" is officially banned from the oral examination (because the kids pronounce it as donch. My my, just when I thought education reform in Singapore was crazy enough.
07 August 2003
Love Song for a Merlion
I was born in kk hospital and delivered
through the singapore mill
the standard life cycle of a clone
(the limited presidents scholars edition is now available)
reproduced in strict quality control
allowing, of course, for a touch
of personal creativity.
in my years in kindergarten, hao kong ming, social studies,
and now the national education module in university
i have bowed to the icons of singaporeanista
drawn the courtesy lion the orchid
and crude representations of the singapore flag
(this is not a singaporean flag
but it really is, since i'm not a
countercultural american liberal artist)
never have i heard
the name of merlion
uttered in the same breath as the courtesy lion
singlish or garden city
i was lied to.
all tourist brouchures compress this nation
to an icon the size smaller than a postage stamp
but placed in the same upper right-hand corner
a fish-lion in the posture of a sea-horse.
another singapore first:
proud product of our life sciences industry.
when the merlion turns 80
perhaps there will rise
from the concrete ground of this manicured garden
scribes, biographers, each hired pen mythologising.
for them, the merlion did not just exist
and was created by the wild imaginings
of a tourist promotion board
but had stood since time immemorial
a singaporean - OUR VERY OWN!!!! - colossus of rhodes
benign guardian of the singapore harbour
that has seen this country rise from the sea-foam
small fishing town to the aphrodite of the knowledge economy.
the missionaries of our urban redevelopment gospel,
the excavation tractor and the demolition pile
shall boldly put to death the real
transmogrify place to memory
replace it with a million ornamental plaques
and a merlion:
We can learn to remember.
through the singapore mill
the standard life cycle of a clone
(the limited presidents scholars edition is now available)
reproduced in strict quality control
allowing, of course, for a touch
of personal creativity.
in my years in kindergarten, hao kong ming, social studies,
and now the national education module in university
i have bowed to the icons of singaporeanista
drawn the courtesy lion the orchid
and crude representations of the singapore flag
(this is not a singaporean flag
but it really is, since i'm not a
countercultural american liberal artist)
never have i heard
the name of merlion
uttered in the same breath as the courtesy lion
singlish or garden city
i was lied to.
all tourist brouchures compress this nation
to an icon the size smaller than a postage stamp
but placed in the same upper right-hand corner
a fish-lion in the posture of a sea-horse.
another singapore first:
proud product of our life sciences industry.
when the merlion turns 80
perhaps there will rise
from the concrete ground of this manicured garden
scribes, biographers, each hired pen mythologising.
for them, the merlion did not just exist
and was created by the wild imaginings
of a tourist promotion board
but had stood since time immemorial
a singaporean - OUR VERY OWN!!!! - colossus of rhodes
benign guardian of the singapore harbour
that has seen this country rise from the sea-foam
small fishing town to the aphrodite of the knowledge economy.
the missionaries of our urban redevelopment gospel,
the excavation tractor and the demolition pile
shall boldly put to death the real
transmogrify place to memory
replace it with a million ornamental plaques
and a merlion:
We can learn to remember.
03 August 2003
United Nations to Recruit Singaporean Graduates Next Year
Well, don't blame me for being cynical about this.
The New New Colossus
(poem inscribed on the Statue of Bureaucracy)
Give me your tired, your poor,
your huddled graduates yearning to find jobs,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these potential agitators for democracy to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
The New New Colossus
(poem inscribed on the Statue of Bureaucracy)
Give me your tired, your poor,
your huddled graduates yearning to find jobs,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these potential agitators for democracy to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
24 July 2003
Colonial Postcolonial II
I talked about colonial history and the story of the white man last week. However, it's not wise to overrate the role of White man in the greater scheme of things, and let them run away with "the most important (good or evil) civilisation" prize!
Asians too, have been very sucessful colonisers. More than 1200 years ago, China imposed its imperial system of government, bureaucracy, writing system and language, and festival holidays on Korea and Japan. For quite some time, Korea was regarded as a Chinese protectarate, and sometimes ruled as such. Even today, enforced migrations of Han Chinese populations to Tibet constitute a silent 'ethnic cleansing' policy that would be familiar to the Spanish colonialists in the New World.
Japan has a 150 year history as a colonial power, controlling Korea, Taiwan, Manchuria, parts of China, before conquering most of Southeast Asia in WW2. The Thai kingdom's historic domination over Cambodia and Burma that still continues in the present-day, and was a contributing factor to the mass riots in Cambodia late last year.
Singaporeans have come into their own in recent decades as the neo-colonialists of Southeast Asia, exploiting cheap labour from Indonesia and the Philippines as "domestic helps", from the Indian subcontinent as construction workers and manual labour to build our homes, our monuments, to pave our roads and plant trees in this beautified city, to clean up the garbage that we leave behind... Hundreds of thousands of people are transported in this disgusting and poorly-disguised slave trade to work in appalling, cheap, and sometimes fatal work conditions. And I'm talking about the death of maids at the hands of their Singaporean employers!
I haven't even begun to talk about Singapore's role in the decade-old 'trilateral trade pact' or "Growth Triangle" with Malaysia and Indonesia. We provide the management, supervision, and capital to set up factories and equipment. Malaysia provides the physical equipment. Indonesia hosts the factories, and hires its natives, to provide the cheap labour.
That's a really neat way of ensuring that the poor will poor, working in factories and producing goods that they can't afford (i.e. "exports"). It ensures that a country cannot produce the goods and services that it needs, but produces goods and services to people living in First World countries (which Singapore has pretensions to). If this isn't colonialism, what is? And all in the name of capitalism too...
Asians too, have been very sucessful colonisers. More than 1200 years ago, China imposed its imperial system of government, bureaucracy, writing system and language, and festival holidays on Korea and Japan. For quite some time, Korea was regarded as a Chinese protectarate, and sometimes ruled as such. Even today, enforced migrations of Han Chinese populations to Tibet constitute a silent 'ethnic cleansing' policy that would be familiar to the Spanish colonialists in the New World.
Japan has a 150 year history as a colonial power, controlling Korea, Taiwan, Manchuria, parts of China, before conquering most of Southeast Asia in WW2. The Thai kingdom's historic domination over Cambodia and Burma that still continues in the present-day, and was a contributing factor to the mass riots in Cambodia late last year.
Singaporeans have come into their own in recent decades as the neo-colonialists of Southeast Asia, exploiting cheap labour from Indonesia and the Philippines as "domestic helps", from the Indian subcontinent as construction workers and manual labour to build our homes, our monuments, to pave our roads and plant trees in this beautified city, to clean up the garbage that we leave behind... Hundreds of thousands of people are transported in this disgusting and poorly-disguised slave trade to work in appalling, cheap, and sometimes fatal work conditions. And I'm talking about the death of maids at the hands of their Singaporean employers!
I haven't even begun to talk about Singapore's role in the decade-old 'trilateral trade pact' or "Growth Triangle" with Malaysia and Indonesia. We provide the management, supervision, and capital to set up factories and equipment. Malaysia provides the physical equipment. Indonesia hosts the factories, and hires its natives, to provide the cheap labour.
That's a really neat way of ensuring that the poor will poor, working in factories and producing goods that they can't afford (i.e. "exports"). It ensures that a country cannot produce the goods and services that it needs, but produces goods and services to people living in First World countries (which Singapore has pretensions to). If this isn't colonialism, what is? And all in the name of capitalism too...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)