12 May 2005

A Party Political Broadcast on Behalf of the Liberal Party (Part I)

Under the Film Act of Singapore (1998), this episode from season 4 of Monty Python's Flying Circus cannot be shown on local tv.

And now for the non-funny bits of today's blog (since yesterday's was all funny)...

The revision of the Film Act in 1998 by Singapore's parliamentarians turned an anti-obscenity and anti-porn film law into a piece of legislation empowering the police and the film censorship board to monitor and prosecute the makers and distributors of "party political films".

Since then, no one has been prosecuted under this act, so there is no climate of fear and repression in Singapore. In 2002, 4 lecturers from the film school in Ngee Ann Polytechnic (the equivalent of a US community college) submitted to the Singapore International Film Festival (SIFF), a documentary on the opposition politician J.B. Jeyaratnam. The four withdrew their film immediately when told by the festival organisors and the censorship board that it was a political film.

This year, filmmaker Martyn See is under the spotlight for submitting a documentary chronicling the political and civil disobedience career of another opposition politician Dr Chee Soon Juan, to the SIFF and was told by the festival's director that he may be jailed and fined if the censorship board feels the film contravened the Films Act. The film was dutifully withdrawn. Unlike the lecturers in 2002, Mr See submitted his documentary to the Amnesty International Film Festival and the New Zealand Human Rights Film Festival, and trailers for the documentary have appeared online.

The filmmaker has recently received polite calls up by police authorities here for an unspecified investigation on his political film.

It will be noted that:

1. The censorship board did not receive the documentary or political film for classification as Mr See withdrew it from the SIFF on the advice of its director, before they were required to submit it to the censors.

2. The film was withdrawn from the SIFF; it was not banned. Neither the censorship board or the SIFF have issued any comments on the film.

3. In the absence of any official announcement from the censorship board to classify the documentary, it is puzzling to see the state machinery police apparently taking the matter into their own hands conducting an interview with the filmmaker.

4. In the likely event that the documentary will be retroactively pronounced by the censorship authorities as a political film, it is puzzling why the machinery of the state have moved, even though the Film Act does not prohibit the same "party political films" to be distributed and shown outside of Singapore. (Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. There should be another ammendment soon, to close this loophole!)

(Updated)
5. As the filmmaker has no intention of releasing the documentary in Singapore, he is not legally obliged to seek a classification from the censorship board or the police.
(end of update)

Now, all this has happened barely 3 months since cabinet minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam spoke to more than 1,000 students in a youth and media conference, assuring them that nothing will happen even if one breaches an OB marker (like disagreeing with certain national policies and critiquing them).

The manager of the state propaganda machine broadcast company said the key to engaging youths lies in the packaging of political content. He pointed to how wacky political websites and show business figures such as film-maker Michael Moore led the way in encouraging turnout among young voters during last year's US presidential elections.

So much for that... Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 would've been classified as a political film and banned here, if he were a Singaporean.

11 May 2005

Why Oh Why Are We Ruled by These Public Figures?

Yet Another Government-linked Edition

We in the Great, Bountiful and Benevolent Empire of Singapore look on in horror at the sham legal systems in lesser nations.

Under current understanding of defamation law in the US for example,

In order for a public official to recover damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct, he must prove that the statement was made with actual malice; that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether or not it was false.

Yes, you need to prove malice. Apparently in the lawless West, people are allowed to offer balanced and fair criticisms of their leaders' policies. Shocking! Scandalous! You're going to make the whole economy go down, talent will leave, investments will not come - and the US will be sunk!

The US Supreme Court further defined the meaning of actual malice by stating: "And since '... erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate, and ... it must be protected if the freedoms of expression are to have the "breathing space" that they "need ... to survive" ...,'376 U.S., at 271-272, only those false statements made with the high degree of awareness of their probable falsity ...may be the subject of either civil or criminal sanctions. The test which we laid down in New York Times is not keyed to ordinary care; defeasance of the privilege is conditioned, not on mere negligence, but on reckless disregard for the truth."

Free debate is allowed? Criticism is not defamatory? The horrors! In the words of Sheng-ji Yang, "you must surely realize that Democracy is a menace to right-thinking people everywhere. Common citizens cannot be allowed to question the decisions of their rulers! I urge you to impose strict police control at once!"

An essential element of defamation by libel slander is that the statement published was false. Consequently, if the statement was, in fact true, there can be no defamation, regardless of defendant's motivation. Truth is an absolute defense to a claim of libel.

Further, it is even more difficult for a public figure to launch a defamation suit if say, they have been on record for making a series of controversial or inflammatory statements. In simple English, if you are a good and uncomplicated public figure, it's easier to sue people than opposed to if you were a politician with a motor mouth.

Now, someone like "Singapore's John Bolton", who is on public record for making remarks like these would never be able to launch any defamation suit, ever, in the lawless and decadent West:

"A basic science degree qualifies you to wash test tubes. A master's makes you an advanced washer. And a PhD makes you an ordinary worker."

And it is noted that much of pioneering research is done between a professor and their basic degree or even masters students.

"I don't want whining Singapore boys. They are not mature even though they have national service and are over 22 years old when they take up undergraduate studies. They give me so much trouble and waste our precious time."

Actually they give you trouble only when they are offered postgrad studies and premier research posts by their universities, and have to choose between being compelled to give up these postgrad studies because they aren't allowed to postpone their bonds, or to just simply break the bond in favor of their academic careers.

"That's not my job. My job is to create more jobs. Publishing scientific papers and Nobel Prizes do not create jobs."

And mind you, the "R" in A★★ stands for "Research" - which in common understanding implies scientific papers and Nobel Prizes, not "jobs".

Moral of the story: the world needs to import Singapore's legal system, where even a ham sandwhich can be sued for defamation.

The A★★ Clown Show Continues

Via Reuters,

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - A Singapore student said on Monday he has shut down his blog and apologised unreservedly after a government agency threatened to sue for defamation. Chen Jiahao, a 23-year-old graduate student in the United States, told Reuters he closed down his personal Web site after A*STAR, a Singapore government agency focusing on science and research, threatened legal action for what the agency said were untrue and serious accusations.

International freedom of speech and media advocates have criticised the agency's methods.

The U.S.-based Committee to Protect Journalists said last week it was alarmed that the threat of defamation lawsuits was being used to inhibit criticism of the government in cyberspace, much as it has in Singapore's traditional media.

Chen said he had removed all material from his site and posted an apology on April 26 after receiving e-mails from the agency's chief. He added that the agency told him last week his apology was insincere and that they wanted a new apology.

On Sunday he posted the new apology on his "Caustic Soda" blog, saying "I unreservedly apologise to A*STAR, its Chairman Mr. Philip Yeo, and its executive officers for the distress and embarrassment caused to them."

"They sent me an e-mail with these words," Chen told Reuters on Monday by telephone from the United States, where he studies chemical physics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

A*STAR's Yeo said in a statement on Monday he accepted Chen's apology and considered the matter closed. "We wish him well. My invitation to Mr. Chen to meet for tea in the fall still remains," Yeo said.

Paris-based Reporters without Borders said the case highlighted the lack of free expression in Singapore, which is among the 20 lowest-scoring countries in the organisation's worldwide press freedom index.

"Chen criticised some of A*Star's policies but there was nothing defamatory in what he wrote," Julien Pain, head of Reporters without Borders' Internet freedom desk, told Reuters.

A*STAR said in a statement that it recognised the value of a diversity of views and welcomed that in all media. "But the particular public blog had statements which went way beyond fair comment." It did not elaborate.

Bloggers are generally not journalists, but some of the thousands of private online blogs -- short for Web logs -- on the Internet have gained political relevance. The campaign for the May 5 election in Britain saw an explosion of blogs, much like in last year's U.S. presidential election.

"We are troubled that the (Singapore) government has raised the spectre of costly legal action to chill commentary on the Internet," Ann Cooper, Executive Director of the Committee to Protect Journalists, was quoted on a CPJ Web site as saying.

Singapore-based politicians as well as international media organisations have paid large amounts of damages in libel cases brought by senior government figures.

Singapore leaders have defended their use of defamation lawsuits, saying that such actions are necessary to safeguard their reputation.

09 May 2005

Our Very Own...

Seen and heard on the Australian, via SDFonline:

There's Chua Lee Hoong, the ST's most prominent political columnist. She might be Singapore's Maureen Dowd, except the New York Times's Dowd didn't work with the secret police for nine years.


ST headline tomorrow: Singapore has global culture?

There's the founding father of Singapore, the island republic's most prominent (and *still* not retiring) statesman. He might be Singapore's Qin Shi Huang, except the founding father of unified China didn't have the luck of getting an army of foreign geneticists and biopharmaceuticals to work on his immortality potion.

There's MiniLee, the island republic's most prominent son. He might be Singapore's Baby Doc Duvalier, except the son of Papa Doc didn't have a Newspeak tutor.

There's that controversial Philip Yeo, minister and head of a statutory board. He might be Singapore's John Bolton, except the nominee for ambassador to the United Nations didn't actually threaten to sue bloggers for unspecified defamation, or publicly blacklist ex-civil servants in the national propaganda press because they broke their scholarship bonds by pursuing higher degrees and research positions overseas.

06 May 2005

How did Singapore celebrate May Day?

This international holiday commemorates and celebrates the achievements of the historical labour movement, such as unionisation, a standardised work day, annual leave, and the minimum wage and unemployment insurance in some countries.

To celebrate May Day, MiniLee gave a speech on restructuring the Singapore economy and improving workers' lives. The government will help vulnerable workers cope with the changes, he declared, but he rejected going "down the welfare route by subsidising those who cannot find jobs".

Declared MiniLee: people will get lazy, and "eventually you're going to make the whole economy go down, talent will leave, investments will not come - and we will be sunk."

Yes, Singapore is as fragile as a Jenga tower.



Do anything (liberalise, have a multi-party democracy, legalise gay rights, let single mothers buy public housing) and everything will go down, we will be sunk, etc.

Bollocks.

We are "not" a welfare state and we do not intend to be a welfare state, but we have ridiculously huge and comprehensive subsidies on public housing, education (subsidising even foreign students), transport, and health care.

I repeat: we heavily subsidise all these things, sometimes even to the point of economic unviability (Singapore produces more university graduates than it needs) but we are not a welfare state? HAH!

01 May 2005

The GLC Clown Show Continues

At every train station, there are huge LCD screens scattered near the waiting bays, stating how much time left till your train arrives.

It seems the schedule system broke down recently.

They've replaced these auto-updating messages on the LCDs at the Northeast line with a static message: "Trains arrive every x minutes."

Well, thank you for that useless piece of information. Unless you tell me when the previous train arrived, I won't have a clue about how much longer I have to wait for the next one.

27 April 2005

The SAF Clown Show Continues

Clerk: When will you be coming down to collect your certificate?

Me: This Thursday or Friday.

Clerk: Our opening hours are 10 to 4. Friday's a half-day because of Labour Day.

Me: ????!!!

Okay. Monday = Public holiday, that much I can understand. How does that make Friday a half-day?! I'm not going to become shrill over this, but my civil service BS detector is going off.

The Japanese Do South Park

Kawaii ne? Ne?

21 April 2005

Habemus Papam!



Wail and gnash your teeth, ye liberals! Cardinal Ratzinger, the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - in plain English, the Head of the Inquisition - is now Pope Benedict XVI! In fact, this is the first time in history that the Chief Inquisitor has been elected as Pope...

The Holy Father appears at the balcony. He speaks in Latin, but I'll translate:

NOBODY expects the German Inquisition!
Our chief weapon is surprise - surprise and fear!
Roma, Roma über alles!

Benedict XVI is expected to order an inquisition against the liberals, using horrific instruments of torture such as the soft cushions and the COMFY CHAIR. Burning at the stake will reserved for the Mormons.

Liberals, feminists and gay rights people! BOW BEFORE THE POPE!!!
BOOOOOWWW NOOOWWWW!!!

(serious post is in the works - ETA 1 day or so. It will be on: Why are liberals so afraid of the new Pope? Dun scare scare lah!)

15 April 2005

Elected President Sweepstakes

SR Nathan hints that he prefers retirement.

Frankly, what's the difference? I've only seen him attend concerts and charity shows since 1999 - it's quite the serene retired life he leads anyway. Being non-activist, non-political, and generally staying out of real government, the jovial grandfather appears to have won the hearts of the people, if our Straits Times can be believed...

Who's the successor?

I predict, according to the rules of professional wrestling/entertainment, that the next president will be a political figure close to retirement, who has shown some 'independent thinking' to the point of perhaps disagreeing with some official policy recently. Disregarding that fact, he will still hail from the inner sanctum of the cabinet and has proven his loyalty to the regime.

My money's on Tony "I respectfully still feel the casino is wrong" Tan. He's been receiving too much press as a member of the semi-retired Old Guard.

14 April 2005

Teach

There was yet another article in the Straits Times yesterday about the beleagered profession, that manages to even further dilute and diminish the mindshare and general respect for MOE.

Teacher gets a loan from mum to break teaching bond to quit 6 months into teaching post because she couldn't control her unruly classes. This follows barely a month after ST's fantastic "Ex-teacher will take 20 years to pay off scholarship bond after failing teaching practicals".

What is the problem, exactly? Aside from blaming the failures, the quitters who serve out their 3 year bond, or the ministry? Here's my take.

On one hand, education is marketed in nauseatingly annoying and idealistic ads (The Teach series). On the other, the teaching environment in 99% of schools show that the advertisements are in complete contravention of reality.

Then, each prospective teacher feels - on the basis of the advertisements, their perception of the civil service, the reputation of the interviewers as ideological gatekeepers - that they have to give a sanitised Sound Of Music reason to the question "Why do you want to teach?" or "What do you think teaching is about?"

Add and stir. Major disaster!

MOE isn't reaching out to the teachers they really want to hire, because they are too scared to say what the x-factor they require in the teacher. And no, it has nothing to do with "wanting to help students"...

Groundwork for an alternative, more accurate ad campaign

Some call this the noblest profession - captains of industry, moulding the future of our nation...

Bonds have been broken
Ideals have been lost
Careers ended in an instant

Yes, this is education - but the hazards are real

01 April 2005

Job of the Year: Early Predictions for 2005

Continuing a recurring topic of this blog...

Here are your predictions on the state of the job market of 2005!

Prognosis: The economy has improved. The economy sucks, but is less sucky than last year =D

Engineering and accountancy students will be heartened to hear that they are the first beneficiaries of the minor revival of the economy (subject to further setbacks in the next quarter by pharmaceutical and manufacturing output).

Insurance companies are now facing tremendous pressures as all right-thinking graduates give a career as a Sales Agent a miss. In fact, they're so desperate that they'll give out free movie tickets for Spanglish if you just turn up for their recruitment drive!

Other than that, if you're a fresh graduate in any other discipline, you're still screwed as openings on the job market consist of either jobs for those with 5-8 years of experience, or telemarketing/callcentre temp jobs at banks.

Incidentally, the surprise winner of the most popular job for underemployed graduates in 2004 was actually the telemarketing/callcentre stuff at banks. A little bird tells me that a sizeable number of NUS graduates are stuck there, earning SGD$6-8/hr.

But the job of 2005?

Well, it seems with the economy booming and all that, many job placement agencies are recruiting graduates en masse as Headhunters or job placement officers, with commission rates.

Errr. Let's run that through again. The economy is booming! Yes, graduates, you are employable! We need you, the economy needs you in the invaluable role of helping others find a job!

I don't get the logic, though.

Shorter version of this post:
The job market has gone postmodern! Jobs are now simulacra!

31 March 2005

Age-old patterns

Applied for job with Shell. If anything, I felt my answer to their question on the global challenge on water might've lost it for me. Were they looking for some answer that pollyannish belief that Shell and R&DS would solve everything, and a lip service to sustainable resources, so that present-day consumption patterns needn't be changed?

Obviously I gave them what I knew: a treatise on the realities of climate change. We need to change our patterns of life. Even if it means de-industrialisation, painful changes to the global economy.

And then, 1 day after their rejection letter came, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment report broke out and was covered by the BBC and New Scientist.

Not the first time I knew what answer was expected, what I saw to be the right answer, and gave that instead of the expected answer - and lost the job. And like the previous occasion, a report gets published to vindicate my position.

29 March 2005

Names changed to protect the innocent

Overheard on the internet:

akikonomu> Oh dear... sounds like the pope is about to be mortal
gnu> I don't get why they don't let the poor man die in peace
akikonomu> Let's just hope bush doesn't nominate Donald Rumsfeld as the new pope =^_^=
gnu> He is too busy changing laws to please his Christian base
akikonomu> Well, Bush did nominate warmonger Wolfowitz to the world bank -_-
gnu> Yeah, he will use his Iraq war experience to give credit to the poor
akikonomu> Who cares about giving credit to the poor?
akikonomu> He shall give democracy and freedom to the poor! And liberate them of their lives as well -_-
gnu> Democracy = american troops ?
akikonomu> And American corporations. Preferably Haliburton
gnu> The best part is that they will export voting machines to the poor, just to be sure the election will be like in Florida
akikonomu> And we thought clinton was a bad president -_-
gnu> The only reason I can make fun of other governments is because the world media does not cover what politicians do here
akikonomu> So what do politicians do in Brazil?
gnu> One said employing half his family in public jobs was a service to the country
akikonomu> Oh, that's what our politicians do, too.

Tomorrow's headlines in the ST:
Singapore Exports Meritocratic System to Brazil

28 March 2005

Advice for Andy Ho: Don't write what you don't understand

Advice for Andy Ho of the Straits Times:
Don't write about what you don't understand


"Dr" Andy Ho is a "senior writer" of the Straits Times. He is apparently their science and ethics columnist. He has an MBA from Yale and a PhD from MIT and an undergrad medical degree, I think. Apparently all that education taught him nothing.

In this opinion piece, Ho weighs in on the case of Terry Schiavo. His usual dedication to in-depth research and literature review is displayed to the world once more...

Ho writes:

Let us be clear about Mrs Schiavo's condition.

She is not brain-dead. She is a living, breathing person in what doctors call the permanent vegetative state, a term first invented in 1972.

At the risk of stating the obvious, the assumptions of both the lack of awareness and its permanence are not medical facts but merely, by their very nature, unprovable guesses. That is, there are no scans, blood tests or any other technology that can confirm such a diagnosis.


Strike one: Much of Terri's brain is dead. If Dr Ho had gone one step further to check which portion of her brain is dead, he would've stumbled upon this:


For comparison's sake, this is what a normal brain looks like under a CT scan:



And once again, especially for "Dr" Ho, who thinks there is no scan that can confirm the lack of awareness and its permanence:



The dark blue bits in Mrs Schiavo's CT scan - in the centre and elsewhere - are spinal fluid. That is to say, after her heart attack, much of Terri's brain died and turned into gooey fluid. Repeat (with apologies to Mrs Schiavo): She has NO BRAIN.

For the medically-savvy, Terri has no cerebral cortex. I would appreciate if Dr Ho would occasionally do proper research and refer to his medical texts, which state from the vantage of accepted neuroscience, that the

cerebral cortex is the seat of all our higher brain functions. Without a cerebral cortex, it is impossible for a human being to experience thought, emotions, consciousness, pain, pleasure, or anything at all; nor, barring a miracle, is it possible for a patient lacking a cerebral cortex to recover.


In case we didn't notice, Dr Ho wrote: the assumptions of both the lack of awareness and its permanence are not medical facts but merely, by their very nature, unprovable guesses...

Strike Two

"Dr" Ho did do lots of research! He discloses that he got his information from www.Terrisfight.org. Amazing. There's a 4 minute video that shows how lucid and responsive she is. She laughs and smiles to stimuli. She opens and closes her eyes in response to commands issued by a doctor.

All very well. If only Ho actually did proper online research, instead of visiting a biased pro-lifer site that shrilly announces "Treating convicted murderers better than Terri"? I mean, there are much better medical resources on the internet that may provide the relevant information for his assertion that Terri is fully sensate.

Like the University of Miami website that's tracking all medical, legal, and ethical issues linked to the case.

If Dr Ho had bothered to do his research, he'd find that

1. The 4-minute video of an apparently responsive and sensate Terri was formerly submitted to the Florida court and rejected, because...

2. The video was heavily edited from a 4-hour recording.

3. Mrs Schiavo would respond to commands, only after more than 10 or 20 minutes after they were issued, and other commands had been given in the intervening period - and then she'd respond randomly and sometimes repeatedly. It's very bad science to claim that she's therefore aware of the commands and following them. It's intellectually dishonest to edit out the intervening time period and leave out these facts.

4. It is normal for patients in similar persistive vegetative states to laugh, sigh, moan, articulate vowels randomly.

Advice to "Dr" Andy Ho: you need to do better research before you write on medical issues. Other bloggers have caught your biased and uninformed articles on strokes, homosexuality and AIDS, drug prescriptions, and a whole host of other booboos.

In the beginning was the illusio...

Hi, I'm Aki.

For the good part of the past 3 years, I've been blogging elsewhere, but many readers complained that the blog service was terrible since it forced them to sign up before they could comment on any articles I write.

So here I am.

I'll be posting my articles here and there.

04 March 2005

Claims of Singapore's economic woes purely anecdotal

"For more accurate news, read the Straits Times" edition

Today morning, a position for a presenter for a small radio station drew more than 50 hopefuls.

Yours truly didn't get past the voice test.

However, I did talk to the girl beside me. She, an engineering graduate, had been working as a kitchen staff in a restaurant for months before she quit out of disgust for the low pay.

Singapore's students are the world's best in mathematics and science, but that still can't get them jobs.

Meanwhile, I'll say nothing - NOTHING - about the recently complete farce of a debate over the casino in Parliament, since MiniLee said the matter is not open to referendum, voting, or debate.

25 February 2005

Facing the incomprehensible: Lessons from Kafka's Trial

Kafka's The Trial is required reading at high school level in most societies, perhaps because Eng. Lit. teachers have found this the perfect text to confound their rebellious and angsty students.

Most readers, however, will go through lengths to insist that the character of Joseph K is so inaccessible they cannot empathise with his predicament. The entire book is incomprehensible, they say.

It's not too difficult to describe what occurs in Kafka's dark novella: a man is caught up in a legal prosecution, in which no one knows the precise charges against him, no one knows how the process should go, and no one knows for certain how it will end (if at all). But Joseph K's life is put on hold forever and he'll never know why, who, how, what, when and how...

The characters populating K's world have no idea either, but they are possessed by their confidence of the System: there's this big bureaucracy whose rules we don't know, but it's a coherent system (never mind we don't know HOW exactly it's coherent) and justice should be done because the system is fair.

Most literary critics adopt a similar view as well. Kafka CANNOT be saying that life is meaningless or absurd. He can't be saying that the state is corrupt, or by extension, "everything is meaningless". Hence the story is really about sin and redemption, nevermind that the judicial system described by Kafka is completely corrupt and obtuse. The Trial is actually a warming parable about God's forgiveness.

Stupid? Blinkered?

But how many people will want to consider that things don't happen for a reason, that there's no sense of morality in the world?

(Incidentally, this is why the problem of evil will be very easily solved by people of faith)

I wrote a post about a very strange interview experience few days ago. It was incomprehensible.

But like readers of Kafka, people will jump to the defense of the system (most notably my dad. Not meant to describe anyone who replied to my previous post). Maybe it was a weird psychological test, a breeching experiment. No, it CAN'T be that the company is run by nutcases or sadists. There HAS to be a good reason and purpose to what they were doing. It's not a bad company. The chairman, no matter that I don't know who he is, is a good man.

People of faith, arise!

I'm willing to play along, of course.

A. This was not a test, they were really being rude.
In which case, it doesn't matter... This is the kind of company that might just abuse you for really low pay if they give you the contract.

B. This was a test.
I'm willing to accept this possibility. But I'm willing to ask more questions into this, such as:

What kind of companies resort to these type of tests during hiring? Not every company deviates from the usual job interview. If some companies 'test' their applicants, it usually isn't to this extent of incivility.

But. Back to this: that a company is willing to resort to such incivility during a job interview, what does it show about the corporate culture?

Presumably, if the applicant overturns and rejects the experiment by refusing to play along (i.e. protests during the interview itself about the bad treatment), the company may just fall back to a "well, this was a test. Of course you understand this is just a test, and it looks like you don't have enough humour/wisdom to tolerate..."

In which case, the company wants to have eat its cake and have it at the same time. It's very convenient to say "you can't take a joke", because it protects them from the accusation that they meant to do it, that part of them relished in behaving badly anyway.

Now, this tells more about the culture within the company more than what I would want to know, so I'm ending this post.

23 February 2005

Most surreal interview. Ever

Okay, not the most surreal since the geezer wasn't bonking a camel at the table while interviewing me...

But still, what does it mean when the interview with the chairman of the company is conducted like this?

A HR flunky interviews me, with exactly the same set of questions he asked the first time round, a month ago;

While the Chairman is on the phone and reading his snail mail;

And less than 5 minutes into the interview, we're (the flunky and me) asked to move out into the lounge to continue the interview;

None of the 2 other applicants suffered the same ignominy (but presumably also got the same "reading mail, talking on the phone" treatment, judging from their PO looks).

21 February 2005

Lessons from Job

And we're back to God, his problem, and our problem with him...

The sole source of the Bible grappling with the problem of evil is in the Book of Job, which forms part of the Wisdom literature. Job, the most virtuous man of his age, is visited by a series of natural disasters: his children are struck down, his fields go fallow, his cattle die, and Job himself contracts a disfiguring skin disease. All because God allowed these disasters to happen.

Unlike the premoderns, Job refuses to opt for passive acceptance of his hand. He recognises that the disaster is unwarranted, meaningless. In a way, he questions God for allowing this to happen. If God is good and all, why this evil? Especially to a pious man like himself?

Job holds God to account. Actually, Job files a lawsuit against God, making him the first man to hold God accountable for His own action/inaction. Not even the philosophers would court karmic disaster by filing suit against the Almighty outside from their academic musings!

Like our 18th century philosophers, Job presents his case: the evil and suffering existing in this world is unjustified and out of proportion to normal human failing. Disasters happen by chance, striking evil and terror indiscriminately to everyone. By what right does a good God persecute or even allow this?

After Job's impassioned prosecution, God's defense is classic.

So, you want to know why? Little man, stand still and ponder:
Where were you when I made the world? Do you know how I made the earth, filled the seas?
Do you know how to call on the rain and the dew?
Can you send lightning? Move the stars?
Do you provide the birds with their food?
So does that answer your question, little man?

Of course, I'm paraphrasing here, but that's essentially what transpired. One might argue, as many atheists have, that this is essentially a cop-out: God refuses to answer Job's question, refuses to account for his actions, and instead makes what is technically an argument to force: "I'm more powerful than you, so I'm not required to defend myself to you."

Or, one might say that God reminds us of the mystical nature of the Divine Will, that the ways of God and even the nature of God is beyond the comprehension of humanity. God may be a personal saviour who intercedes, but do not mistake him for a human being, do not assume that He shares our idea of "good" and "evil".

Unluckily for the philosophers and their "free will" and "greater good" defenses, God doesn't seem to think much about humanity and its sufferings in Job 37-39. Is there a Divine Plan? Yes. Is there justice? Yes. But no, don't think the entire universe revolves around humanity, that divine justice must resemble human concepts. God mentions about the stars, animals, birds, the seasons and their places within his plan, but not a single word about humanity.

How humbling. And Job was so stunned, then humbled that he dropped his lawsuit against God.

And indeed, the only proper response for a person of faith during a time of disaster is not to demand an accounting from God, but to be awed by the extent of the disaster, to be humbled from it. And then, to accept it.

16 February 2005

Theodicy II

Theodicy was first coined in the 18th century by the philosopher Liebniz. While the field of philosophy loves to formulate problems as abstractly ahistorical, the problem of evil is a modern problem, and is only problematic for modern society.

Through their investigation of the problem of evil, Liebniz and his contemporaries shed more light on the sensibilities of their milleu. As far as the Divine Will is concerned, the disenchantment of the age and declining importance of religion manifest themselves in the logical formulation of God.

The Divine Will is boiled down into 3 attributes - and stripped of other qualities such as mercy, mystery, and awe. God, in theodicy, becomes the God of the philosophers, not the God of Isaac, Jacob and Abraham. The problem of evil accelerated the decline in the belief of a Divine Will for Liebniz's generation.

How did they deal with it? In the 18th and 19th centuries the solution to the problem resided in the "Clockmaker God" defense - God institutes the laws of nature during the Creation, then steps back and lets the laws of nature operate - which lead to the unfortunate but necessary disasters. As God is omnibenevolent, he cannot break his own laws...

But what about miracles? Protestant theology at that time believed that the age of miracles had ended. For the early moderns, the statement of the problem and its solution indicate the fading of God from the world, the disenchantment and increasing rationality of society.

What about us? Why did the Straitened Times devote at least 3 editorials to the problem of evil and the tsunami?

Singapore, like the US, has experienced a recent trend of religious resurgence - mostly evangelical and fundamentalist. The problem of evil poses a threat to these Christian sects - the God in their weekly sessions is a deeply personal being, a Great Communicator, and the world is literally filled with God...

It's not so much of believing that God speaks to us, as being convinced that a particular phrase in the Bible tells us directly and authoritatively that Harry Potter books are evil... Not so much of believing that God intercedes for us, but being convinced that he is actively working on OUR SIDE when we're trying to fight our way to the train, earning our first million, protesting for a pay rise... That we almost tripped while coming down the staircase but didn't, is a miracle, an intervention from the very Hand of God...

For people like this, a natural disaster wrecks havoc on their concept of God. "What, isn't he supposed to make me rich when I pray for it? How could he send a tsunami instead?" laments a Singaporean follower of the prosperity gospel. (Yes, those very strange people have a strong presence here in Singapore, or used to before 2001's recession)

The maleovence of disasters like this reflect badly on their God. The most popular response from these Christians appear to be the "for the greater good" defense: God must have allowed this to happen because either "free will" should be preserved through his inaction above all else, or "a better good will come out of this suffering".

Of course, the only Christians who believe in that kind of defense are comfortably middle class, bourgeois, and distanced enough from the actual disaster to distance themselves even further from it. No luck if you were personally affected by the tsunami - chances are you won't be spouting this particular defense.

15 February 2005

Theodicy: Tsunamis, the problem of evil, the problem for God

There was a tsunami in the region almost two months ago. Yes, it's a little late to start reporting it, but it isn't too late to examine what - if any - lasting impact it has on people here.

The Straitened Times had its Senior Writer Dr Andy Ho, normally a medical doctor, write about the tsunami and the problem of evil in an editorial, which I believe misses the point and relevance of the issue.

What is the problem of evil? We take the tsunami, the lost lives, livelihoods and general devastation in the wake of its trail as an illustration of evil. If there exists a Divine Will (hereafter known as 'God'), and assuming that God is perfectly good, all-knowing and all-powerful, why was such evil permitted to exist?

The real issue isn't about a philosophical solution to the problem of evil and theodicy (the justification for the existence of God). It's about how we as humans adjust to the unexpected, the 'evil', the unjust. And about what historical changes have taken place over the centuries, to change our responses to 'evil'.

To understand all that, we must get to the root of Theodicy. Not the premisses behind the argument of evil (already stated in para. 2), but the operating social assumptions that the problem and the attributes of God both build on.

For a problem of evil and theodicy to exist, there are two corresponding novel social assumptions:
1. God (or his nature) is perfectly understandable to the human mind - hence we can abstract his attributes and intentions.
2. God is fully accountable for his action or inaction. If his mind, intent and nature are known to us, then he is called to account when reality (evil tsunamis) clashes with our conception of Him.

07 February 2005

Hub around the world

or, NOT the starhub advertisement you know

EXT. ORCHARD RD – DAY

TWO rowdy young men step out of a mall. They look like they haven’t had enough fun and are off to another ‘happening’ place.

GLENN (mid-laugh)
(points to RON’s shoe)
Brother, you have something stuck on your shoe, man! Whoa, so big somemore!

ROD looks down. CLOSE-UP on the frown that develops. Wipes shoe on sidewalk in attempt to get rid of the WAD.

ROD
Hey brother, not cool to laugh at me, man! I’d like, appreciate some help from someone here...

GLENN
Okay, okay. Brother, you are one of a kind, cannot remove something like this yourself... Hold still.

GLENN proceeds to use his shoe to slide the WAD from ROD’s. He succeeds in removing the WAD without using his fingers, but...

ROD (laughing again)
Brother, now the wad is on the other shoe! (Sees GLENN struggle with it) Ah, so it’s not that easy, right, brother? You’re also another one of a kind! (pause) Hey hey, don’t you get mad at me! Let’s leave it alone for now, until we find someone else.

MONTAGE:

a) STILL PAN of Clarke Quay
b) CLOSE-UP of stiletto shoe trying to remove WAD from GLENN’s shoe. VO: “No, it’s fine, really. I just wanted to help out.”
c) STILL PAN of Chinatown
CLOSE-UP of a granny slipper, with similar dialogue in dialect.
d) STILL PAN of Little India
e) CLOSE-UP of jewelled or fancy sandal
f) STILL PAN of Singapore Skyline
g) CLOSE-UP of executive/working shoe (men’s)
h) CLOSE-UP of a shoe shoe
i) CLOSE-UP of a trendy canvass shoe
etc. with dialogs in various languages and different accents of Singaporean English

END MONTAGE

UNIDENTIFIED LOCAL
You look like you need help there...

TOURIST IN HAWAIIAN/ORCHID CLOTHING
Ah, sure! It’s tough to get this out.

LOCAL
You should try using your fingers. More practical.

LOCAL succeeds in removing WAD. It’s a green promotion stub bearing the logo of a company. However from his bewildered expression, we know the WAD is now stuck to his fingers.

ZOOM OUT to reveal the CHECKPOINT BUILDING at the CAUSEWAY, on the Malaysian side.

FLASH: "TO BE CONTINUED..."

04 February 2005

More Notes from a Very Small Island and Its Funny Proxy Technology

Few days ago, I described a workaround to Singnet's fluctuating proxy servers.

But how and why does it work?

Singapore's leaders decided early on that the nation had to be protected from undesirable content on the internets such as pr0n, www.playboy.com, pr0n, politically-sensitive (i.e. critical of Singapore's policies and leaders) writings, pr0n, viagra ads, pr0n, email spams, pr0n, William Safire, pr0n with eggs and ham, pr-n, pr_n and prawn.

The OTHER problem Singapore's leaders tried to solve at that time (and are still trying) is the nation's plummeting birth rates. And I blame Singapore's net nanny for censoring normal pr0n sites and not censoring something as dangerous as www.gay.com or www.sgboy.com. Hello, people!??

There were several censoring/proxy solutions:

1. Vet through every website in existence and create a blacklist. Rejected as the growth of webpages is exponential. What we do now is to create a blacklist of prominent sites.

2. Vet through what every Singaporean surfs online. Rejected. You'd require an ever-expanding bureacracy that would mestasize to include the entire population of Singapore, in order to keep tabs on what Singaporeans read online...

3. Have an intelligent program, in essense a True Proxy, that intercepts every url request your browser sends to the ISP. Your request will be blocked if matched with a site on the blacklist. Rejected as this will greatly slow down traffic on the internets. The degradation in surfing will be a warning sign to investors in the knowledge-based economy.

This is what Singapore now does: every ISP here has a program that checks if your browser is configured to have a proxy. It doesn't actually check which proxy you use: you can surf the internets as long as you have one configured. For them to do any more layers of censorship would severely degrade surfing.

If your IE/netscape has no proxy set, the new transparent proxy system (phased in about 4-5 years ago. Before that, you really had to configure your proxy settings) assigns the ISP's proxy server to you.

Hassle-free surfing: the people don't know their internet is being censored.

Now, what happens when you follow my guide and configure a foreign proxy server (such as the ones in Malaysia)? Singnet, Pacnet and Starhub's sniffing programs don't care. And you can now surf the entire internet, censorship-free.

The implications? Tremendous.

Websites that track your IP can only detect the proxy server you're using. That means I appear to be a Malaysian whenever I log into the Straitened Times Online. I can finally register, provide all the fake information, and search their articles without worrying about my privacy. Of course, the ST's search engine is still as craptastic as ever - searching for articles more than 3 days old does not work. With the free subscription-only searching, this means even google can't find the articles on ST that I know exist, and want to retrieve.

Google, the search engine that uses IP tracking to find out what country you're from (Gee, thanks!), frightens the hell out of my privacy-concerned friends. Let me just say that since I changed my proxy server, google now thinks I'm from Malaysia. Whoopie, privacy-enhanced surfing once again.

I'll let you know what more practical goodies can come out of this proxy substition in the future.

01 February 2005

More specialist blogs

Recently I've landed a freelance writing stint for a scientific trade magazine. After a few hiccups, I'm proud to report it's not too difficult to write.

Although, being sent to a conference where everyone was drawing presentations full of organic compounds brought back too many memories of JC chemistry. I feel like I just took an S paper for chemistry yesterday, in fact.

The neat thing about this job though, is the research is making me smarter! While most jobs in the Singaporean economy make people less smart or more lazy - all thanks to working for incompetent and uninspiring bosses, according to that separate studies by too many survey organisations like Watson Wyatt and Gallup...

So as part of my patriotic duty to fellow Singaporeans, I've decided to recommend a science blog, written by the most intelligent science writers and journalists. Please take some time to visit Corante.

28 January 2005

Singnet Service Outtage

or, More Funny Proxy Technology from Disneyland with the Speakers Corner

In plain English, Singapore Singnet's proxy servers to all foreign content went down around 5pm in the afternoon. BBC was inaccessible; so was wired.com, cnn.com, GOOGLE, all of blogspot (I pity Singaporean blogspot users, they get it every time our proxies go down!). Webmail is down, antivirus updates are down. HOWEVER, irc is up, Winmx is up, bittorrent has no problems connecting to US IP addresses.

In Singnet's English, "Please be informed there is a congestion in the Internet service to United States. We are currently investigating this and apologise for the inconvenience caused." (RIGHT. The BBC is located in the US, which is why it's also unavailable?)

Note to all: Singnet's communicade obfuscates.

"There is a congestion" suggests that it's NOT the fault of Singnet. It has nothing to do with Singnet's creaking, rusty, falling-apart proxy technology.

The typical English-hobbled Singaporean reader reads "to the United States" to suggest that the congestion is due to a failure in the United States. Not Singnet fault okay!

Well. I now come with great tidings for Singnet's users. The problem is with Singnet's proxy technology: it is their proxy servers that screwed up.

Ailing Singnet users, try this for size on your Mozilla/Firefox, IE or Opera. Under Internet proxy settings, change to one of the following:

202.157.192.130:3128
219.93.175.67:3128
219.93.181.3:3128
219.93.175.66:3128
219.93.174.195:3128 (fastest)

Tada. Internet surfing is now back to normal, thanks to free, alternate, proxy servers located in... Malaysia.

This is a list of fast, free, non-censoring, proxy servers available on the internet for Singaporean users wishing to cut their dependence on our silly ISPs' funny proxy technology.

ICQ will even work even with the new proxy settings. You just need to change the proxy stuff in ICQ manually...

27 January 2005

We feel so safe now

This is a lyrical adaptation of a previous blog entry.




Caption: A grim-faced semi-automatic machine-gunned policeman

Walking

Barely a month had passed
since squadrons of grim-faced semi-automatic machine-gunned policemen
descended on our streets.

I decide to walk down Orchard, not to shop -
but merely to warm my blue fingers
while trekking under the megawatt lights.

I could out-walk any bus here in Orchard
nearer to Christmas:
Perhaps the frowning commuters on their buses
think this while they stare out of the windows -
but they do not get off, do not start walking.

It confuses me this time, to see the
costumed carnivallers, stiltwalkers, jugglers, acrobats even,
and the dolled-up women or men scattered throughout.
Perhaps the tourism board wanted to celebrate
both Mardi Gras and Christmas.

A crowd stared, immobile, at an empty taped-off space
as if something would magically appear at the right time.
Across the street, another crowd looking on,
perhaps waiting for the moment
they'd know what this crowd was looking at.

Shrugging, I move on into the swarm
and realise I haven't seen any grim-faced squad carrying machine guns
and feel, for a moment, secure. Perhaps.

26 January 2005

On Blogging (rework of old post)

Perhaps you are eager to start a blog. But perhaps, like most people, you are uncomfortable with writing a diary that can be read by anyone online: Where is the privacy? Aren't journals meant to be sacred communications with oneself? I'm not really a natural exhibitionist, you think. And yet finally, with mind steeled and fingers poised on the keyboard, you are at a loss on what to write.

Long before Samuel Pepys begins his candid – but still private – diary in 1660, long before the modern phenomenon of online blogging, Asian writers had already mastered the public diary.

Murasaki Shikibu is better known as the author of the Genji Monogatari. Murasaki began writing what is now regarded as the world's first 'true novel' around 1007 on the escapades of the eponymous character, covering (and anticipating the Modern) themes of ennui, sense of self, fashion and fashionability, love and commitment, romance and satire.

More importantly, Murasaki Shikibu wrote a diary of her service in the Japanese court as a lady-in-waiting to the Empress from 1008-10. Diaries written by noblewomen in the Heian period were simply not meant to be private writings: they were shown to fellow writers, friends and colleagues; copies were made and distributed, due to the ready availability of paper.

Murasaki's diary is predominantly interested in high culture, fashion and art. She also pokes gentle fun of her patron, the Empress, and her immediate circle of ladies-in-waiting, as well as court bureaucracy in general – and was loved all the more for it, as readers waited for each new installment of the diary. Picture, if you will, a medieval Dilbert!

Her detail and sharpness of observation, of penetrating human nature, is surprising. This caustic yet mature view of the world continues to inspire bloggers and diarists even today. Murasaki even ponders on the subject of self-improvement: “What is good character for a lady-in-waiting?”, “What talents would be good to have?”, and muses on the gap between public persona and private self – questions that still plague modern-day writers and thinkers.

Or you could consider Sei Shonagon, writing her Pillow Book a few years before her rival's masterpieces. Shonagon's entries are witty, even gossipy conversations that run from a plethora of lists of items (“Nice things that inspire on a spring day”, “Things I hate in people”); entries describing daily life; musings on the beauty of nature, the meaning of life, the pettiness of rivals in the workplace...

The intensely personal or narcissistic “me-blog”, on the trials and tribulations of the author, may chronicle a fight against cancer, an epic search for the ideal job, the journey towards that academic degree. Yet all this pales in comparison to the Gossamer Diary by a lady known only as “Mitchitsuna's Mother”, detailing the breakdown of her marriage over the years. We do not know what her husband, the regent Fujiwara Kaneie, thought of the disclosure of his philandering ways, although the public (and popular) diary might have bolstered his reputation as a ladies' man. It is not unlikely that he even appreciated his wife's efforts.

You could even invent an entertaining or controversial persona your blog. In Ki no Tsurayuki's Tosa Diary of 935, the court poet and governor of Tosa province in Kyoto writes as a fictitious lady in his entourage, describing the voyage back to the capitol from Shikoku island. Singlehandedly, Tsurayuki invented the genre of public diary writing for Murasaki Shikibu, Sei Shonagon, Mitchitsuna's mother, and many others, centuries later.

And the modern blogger? Blogging is in our blood. You could even say it's part of the Asian heritage.

18 January 2005

It had to happen sooner or later!

filed under: Department of the Exasperated

Finally, our MPs proclaim in Parliament that the tsunami disaster bonded Singaporeans together.

It does seem that any trivial incident (young child wanders from home for less than 2 days), huge disaster, major triumph (Sunday's football victory), or withering defeat (table tennis and badminton imports fail to win medals) - in short, just about ANYTHING - will inevitably lead to one or more of our enlightened leaders proclaiming increased social cohesion among Singaporeans.

Is that what we're paying our taxes for? Insincere pithy plaitudes that seem to be crafted from a template?

10 January 2005

01 January 2005

On Twiddledee and Twiddledum

First, I shall attempt a summary of the previous post.

"While the official line was that MediaworksTV was a commercially unviable venture, the forced merger came about due to deliberate choices made by both parties to make each other's operations commercially unviable."

While the last post attacked the official explanation on the "rational" portion of its "rational economics" spiel, this post will attack the "economics" portion.

The interesting question raised from the 2x2 matrix of the Dee/Dum game is: if the lose-lose outcome is *the* Nash Equilibrium, why aren't every company in the global media market rushing to bankrupt themselves and their competitors?

Perhaps a way to solve the conundrum is to ask: what were the circumstances that actually allowed Mediaworks and Mediacorp to adopt the beggar-thy-neighbour strategy as a legitimate and legal strategy in the Singapore media market?

Let's put ourselves in their shoes.

"Now here's a great plan: we cut off our own flesh and force them to do the same. Whoever blinks first, loses. Of course, revenue will hurt in the meantime and we'll have negative profits. Who's game for this brilliant idea?"

Indeed, who would say no?

The shareholders, perhaps? But Mediacorp is completely owned by the government, it's not even a listed company. No protests by angry shareholders at the Annual General Meeting for them. And Mediaworks? The govnerment has substantial shares there, through its parent SPH. For there to be zero protests, for the plan to go through, suggests the shareholders and the owners of Twiddledum and Twiddledee, knew about it and approved it...

Senior management, perhaps? But... we all know all the senior positions are in effect government appointments, in which case management = shareholders. In existing cases in the US where management of certain companies defraud their shareholders (Enron et. al.), it was only because management had inside information not privvy to shareholders, and exercised power over the monopoly of information.

Regulatory framework, perhaps? Ah, but from 2000 to early 2004, there was "no legal controlling authority", no antitrust or anti-competition law!

And most importantly, both companies were able to play the beggar-thy-neighbour strategy because they were betting that the government would intervene in the worst case scenario. Because the government still owns both companies (in one way or another).

I will leave it to you, to decide how much of a theatrical production, a charade, an act, this short-lived "media competition" was.

30 December 2004

Twiddledum and Twiddledee are now one!

As 2004 ends, the Singapore media market enters into a phase of rationalisation.

The orthodox line, as proclaimed by the authorities and the media players, is that there is too little space in this tiny city of 4 million for even 2 media/news networks. The decision to remerge Twiddledum and Twiddledee is a rational, economically-justified one. In other words, it's yet another one of Singapore's "done deals" that the authorities hope the populace won't analyse too deeply and start picking on the flaws.

Instead of asking whether the merger was inevitable, we should be questioning: under what circumstances and actions would this outcome be considered inevitable?

I will forgo the details of the Prisoner's Dilemma, and instead treat the Twiddledum and Twiddledee situation as a similar game.

Picture, if you will, the situation in June 2000. Dum and Dee, the state-owned monopolists of the print and tv media, have been granted licenses to operate in each other's domains. There are two strategies open to both players, namely, S1: Beggar thy neighbour by lowering advertising prices in your papers, magazines and broadcasts below fair prices, in order to bankrupt the competitor out of the market; and S2: Grow the pie by innovating and introducing new, different programmes and formats.

Here's the table of outcomes:



Dee (S1)

Dee (S2)

Dum (S1)

-50, -50

100, -50

Dum (S2)

-50, 100

50, 50



Evidently, if one player adopts the nice-guy strategy, he'll be competed out of the market (and possibly his previous dominant position) if the competitor plays the beggar thy neighbour cards. The "win-win" outcome is achieved if both players in the media market had adopted S2. Both would have some gains, as advertisers would buy airtime in two tv networks with very different programming.

And if both players adopt S1? Both of them might go bust. There would be a mediated outcome, courtesy of the government, to return both players to their previous monopoly decisions, rescind the market liberalisation, and declare the experiment a failure.. And it's not the most optimum outcome, given the wastage of resources from both sides when they employ the beggar-thy-neighbour strategy.

However, this is the most likely outcome. The Nash Equilibrium. Both players, not knowing the strategy of the other, will rationally pick the strategy that pays off the most for itself (S1). Nash Equilibrium refers to the strategies where "no
player can benefit any more by changing her strategy while the other players keep their strategies unchanged", and the corresponding outcomes or payoffs. And here, the Nash Equilibrium is the lose-lose outcome, as with the Prisoner's Dilemma, where both players get heavy jail sentences because they both choose to confess.

We should note that mutual cooperation (S2, S2) is not an equilibrium point: a player can obtain better results for himself by playing mean while the other still cooperates...

Sometimes rational decisions aren't sensible.

Notes: it is a fact that is acknowledged, but rarely discussed - Twiddledum and Twiddledee had record year-on-year increases in advertising volume in the period June 2000 - present, yet their advertising revenue had plumetted completely in the same period. Beggar thy neighbour indeed.

If they had been less rational, both media players could've walked away with spanking profits, just that they wouldn't be the sole players on the hill.

28 December 2004

华人华语?

A national survey in China reveals that barely half of the population can communicate in Mandarin Chinese.

So much for Singapore's Speak Mandarin Campaign slogan, "Chinese language for Chinese people"?

The China Daily even says:

"A standard, commonly used spoken language is also in the interests of the country as it helps promote national identity and cohesion..."

"Promotion of putonghua should not necessarily mean stifling other spoken languages. We must respect dialects. This is the unswerving policy of the country. Dialects carry culture."

And so much for Singapore's "Chinese language carry Chinese Culture" or even its "More Chinese, less dialects" slogans as well.

In fact, Singaporean businessmen will find that dialects and local knowledge would go a longer way to seal a deal than speaking Mandarin and having an understanding of elite Chinese customs.

23 December 2004

Where oh where is the honest debate?

The final post

Singapore inches inexorably towards the casino. Don't let the 'thorough deliberation' in Parliament fool you.

Let those who have eyes, see. Let those who have ears, hear. And those who have patience, read.

The casino debate is anything but honest. We have mentioned that the only 2 sides, the only 2 mentionable positions sanctioned for public consumption, are the economic pro-casino and the moral anti-casino views. There is no reconciliation between the two (and would be very dangerous if a researcher manages to reconcile both considerations logically, like the NTU economic professors), and that just suits the theatricity of the debate fine.

What happens when you have two irreconcilable sides to a dilemma? You argue the hell out of each other, drive everyone to sleep while repeating the same points and making no concessions or improvements to the debate. Then everyone who the casino affects will lose attention and stop thinking about it. And that just serves the theatricity of the debate fine.

The decision's been made anyway

It's plain for people to see. Which side has to make a case for its views? Which side has to defend its assertions?

I don't see the economic pro-casino side having to give actual figures to justify the "positive economic returns" of the casino. They've been given a free pass. It's the anti-casino side that has to prove its case that the outcome is negative on the balance, that the social costs outweigh the social benefits. And of course, commentors in the press and media are muzzled from pointing out that it's possible to object to the casino on econometric calculations instead of pure morality.

Which side is so guaranteed of victory that it's making (lame) promises and concessions (that won't be upheld) as part of the normal debate, instead of arguing on the merits of the casino?

Let's look at the promises and concessions and laugh at them

1. "We'll just let the top 10% of Singaporeans enter the casino. It'll be for the rich and the foreigners."

The recognition here is that almost all casinos are bad for the lower classes; they are a tax on the poor. It is the poor and the middle classes that are more easily hooked and lose more (as a proportion of their earnings) at the gambling table.

Hence the concession: make the casino ultra-exclusive.

We predict the concession will be dropped the moment the casino is approved. It's a no-brainer that the majority of casino revenues come from the everyday low/middle classes who have the compulsion to spend 3 nights of every week just gambling.

Take away the bottom 90% earners. You have a nearly empty casino, devoid of the hustle and bustle. And who would go there?

2. "We'll run a referendum on the issue"

We predict they never will. A very slim majority of the Singaporean public is against the casino, and the only way to push it through is in Parliament.

But it creates a believable illusion of choice, doesn't it? A freedom to choose for the casino (of course, not against it, preferably).

It's as palpable as the lifting of the party whip so the 97% PAP-dominated Parliament is free to vote their conscience instead of pushing it through using sheer numbers.

Behind all this freedom is this implication: the casino deal can be forced down the throats, against the will of Singaporeans. However it will be so unpopular that it may jeapordise the ruling party.

Hence the need to let this be a 'free debate'. What we should look out for is whether the pro-economic side will take the hardline stand that this casino concerns the economic survival of Singapore, therefore making the vote subject to the party whip. While the cabinet realises the self-defeating essence of this strategy, it is nonetheless inching towards it, with its refusal to justify the economic returns and insistence to just say the casino is economically necessary.

All bets are off if there is a referendum at all. The last time we had one, the issue was a union with Malaysia, and the wise pro-merger leaders decided to count all blank and spoilt votes as Yes votes.

3. "We'll make the casino as inconspicuous as possible."

No kidding. In his National Day Rally speech, MiniLee said it would be possible to develop Sentosa as a family-focused destination with all kinds of educational, leisure and entertainment activities and installations... just that in the middle of it will be, well, you know... that inconspicuous thing that really, is just a small, tiny part of the overall family-oriented Sentosa.

Right.

An inconspicuous casino! Trust Singapore's leaders to seriously consider that, and trust Singaporeans not to snigger or call him out on that one. It's a no-brainer, but the free pass the media and the public gave MiniLee on that lamest excuse is worse than a no-brainer.

Our prediction

The casino idea will just - and only just pass with a tiny majority, with a 'strong' dissenting vote from PAP's backbenchers.

Taking the dissenters into consideration, Parliament approves the plan, but authorises Temasek to take a substantial or even controlling stake in the casino (which of course will be a monopoly. You think they'd want 2 or more casinos?).

MiniLee will swear it's all so Temasek can exercise social control and oversight to rein in possible excesses of the casino. It's not in it for the money, really.

Right.

21 December 2004

After one too many walks down Orchard Rd

've been to Orchard Rd five times this month already. And that means walking down the entire stretch, from Plaza Singapura to Borders or Tanglin Mall.

I see lots of traffic jams on the road, and wonder why the passengers won't get off their buses and walk - they look pissed enough staring out of their windows, to think "I can walk faster than this bus goes!"

I also see the very weird street performers our wise, arts-supporting civil servants have approved this year to grace our streets. Lots of stiltwalkers, carnivallers, heavily-made-up women (or men - it's hard to tell), acrobats... It just looks like our Very Wise Civil Servants were thinking more of "Mardi Gras" than "Christmas" when they selected all these people? I don't see any Santas around, surprisingly.

I see lots of human jams on the walkways of Orchard Rd, and wonder why some crowds gather at certain spots and just stand there, staring at spaces that are cordoned off by tape... in the totally opposite direction from the performer/street person walking past them. Pathetic.

Directly across the road, some crowds gather and stare at the people here who are staring at nothing, thinking if they stayed long enough, they'd find out what the other people were staring at. Even more pathetic.

It must be my rotten luck: I don't see any squads of grim-faced, semiautomatic machinegun-wielding policemen ("elite squads") marching down Orchard Rd at all. I'd feel much safer in the crowds if they're here...

Question: aside from that very famous photograph in the newspapers and the news on TV, has ANYONE seen these squads of grim-faced, heavily-armed policemen anywhere on Orchard Rd this month?

20 December 2004

A different type of test

Yes, the gweilos always complain that we Asians - Chinese, Japanese, Korean - all look the same.

Sometimes that comes across as racism, arrogance, or pure indifference. However, I urge all of you to take this test to find out if it's true.

Can Asians tell the difference between themselves?

18 December 2004

We interrupt this series on God with a breaking announcement

From the Associated Press:
Secret Iraqi Prisoner Died of Torture

SAN DIEGO - An Iraqi whose corpse was photographed with grinning U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib died under CIA (news - web sites) interrogation while in a position condemned by human rights groups as torture — suspended by his wrists, with his hands cuffed behind his back, according to reports reviewed by The Associated Press

The death of the prisoner, Manadel al-Jamadi, became known last year when the Abu Ghraib prison scandal broke. The U.S. military said back then that the death had been ruled a homicide. But the exact circumstances under which the man died were not disclosed at the time.

The prisoner died in a position known as "Palestinian hanging," the documents reviewed by The AP show. It is unclear whether that position was approved by the Bush administration for use in CIA interrogations.

The spy agency, which faces congressional scrutiny over its detention and interrogation of terror suspects at the Baghdad prison and elsewhere, declined to comment for this story, as did the Justice Department (news - web sites).

Al-Jamadi was one of the CIA's "ghost" detainees at Abu Ghraib — prisoners being held secretly by the agency.

His death in November 2003 became public with the release of photos of Abu Ghraib guards giving a thumbs-up over his bruised and puffy-faced corpse, which had been packed in ice. One of those guards was Pvt. Charles Graner, who last month received 10 years in a military prison for abusing detainees.

Al-Jamadi died in a prison shower room during about a half-hour of questioning, before interrogators could extract any information, according to the documents, which consist of statements from Army prison guards to investigators with the military and the CIA's Inspector General's office.

One Army guard, Sgt. Jeffery Frost, said the prisoner's arms were stretched behind him in a way he had never before seen. Frost told investigators he was surprised al-Jamadi's arms "didn't pop out of their sockets," according to a summary of his interview.

Frost and other guards had been summoned to reposition al-Jamadi, who an interrogator said was not cooperating. As the guards released the shackles and lowered al-Jamadi, blood gushed from his mouth "as if a faucet had been turned on," according to the interview summary.

The military pathologist who ruled the case a homicide found several broken ribs and concluded al-Jamadi died from pressure to the chest and difficulty breathing.

Dr. Michael Baden, a distinguished civilian pathologist who reviewed the autopsy for a defense attorney in the case, agreed in an interview that the position in which al-Jamadi was suspended could have contributed to his death.

Dr. Vincent Iacopino, director of research for Physicians for Human Rights, called the hyper-extension of the arms behind the back "clear and simple torture." The European Court of Human Rights found Turkey guilty of torture in 1996 in a case of Palestinian hanging — a technique Iacopino said is used worldwide but named for its alleged use by Israel in the Palestinian territories.

The Washington Post reported last year that after the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, the CIA suspended the use of its "enhanced interrogation techniques," including stress positions, because of fears that the agency could be accused of unsanctioned and illegal activity. The newspaper said the White House had approved the tactics.

Navy SEALs apprehended al-Jamadi as a suspect in the Oct. 27, 2003, bombing of Red Cross offices in Baghdad that killed 12 people. His alleged role in the bombing is unclear. According to court documents and testimony, the SEALs punched, kicked and struck al-Jamadi with their rifles before handing him over to the CIA early on Nov. 4. By 7 a.m., al-Jamadi was dead.

Navy prosecutors in San Diego have charged nine SEALs and one sailor with abusing al-Jamadi and others. All but two lieutenants have received nonjudicial punishment; one lieutenant is scheduled for court-martial in March, the other is awaiting a hearing before the Navy's top SEAL.

The statements from five of Abu Ghraib's Army guards were shown to The AP by an attorney for one of the SEALs, who said they offered a more balanced picture of what happened. The lawyer asked not to be identified, saying he feared repercussions for his client.

According to the statements:

Al-Jamadi was brought naked below the waist to the prison with a CIA interrogator and translator. A green plastic bag covered his head, and plastic cuffs tightly bound his wrists. Guards dressed al-Jamadi in an orange jumpsuit, slapped on metal handcuffs and escorted him to the shower room, a common CIA interrogation spot.

There, the interrogator instructed guards to attach shackles from the prisoner's handcuffs to a barred window. That would let al-Jamadi stand without pain, but if he tried to lower himself, his arms would be stretched above and behind him.

The documents do not make clear what happened after guards left. After about a half-hour, the interrogator called for the guards to reposition the prisoner, who was slouching with his arms stretched behind him.

The interrogator told guards that al-Jamadi was "playing possum" — faking it — and then watched as guards struggled to get him on his feet. But the guards realized it was useless.

"After we found out he was dead, they were nervous," Spc. Dennis E. Stevanus said of the CIA interrogator and translator. "They didn't know what the hell to do."

10 December 2004

Casino Royale

It's hard work compiling logs of icq conversations between Alvarny and myself. And very tiring to read the pseudo-debate rage in the Singaporean press and so-called media, where they skip around the issue.

Part III, where we bitch about the absence of actual analysis in the debate

A public violation of an unstated rule goes a long way in establishing or reiterating to spectators the existence of the rule and the deviant status of the act and the person performing the act. In short, this is what happens when someone speaks out of his place.

Exhibit A: NTU adjunct economics professor, as reported in the Today newspaper and the Business Times on 2 December.

2 NTU professors release an abstract or a literature review saying US studies that show casinos will bring more costs than benefits. And quantified it in concrete terms as well: for every dollar of tax revenue gained from the casino, 3 dollars of state or community programmes were required to address the negative social problems from the casino.

There's something about NTU economics professors. They don't play by the rules of responsible academia as typified by NUS dons: never present evidence that contradicts policy directions of the government.

But the statement from the NTU professors really show what's missing from the entire pseudo-debate on the casinos. If there are economic benefits and social costs that cannot be separated at all from a casino, then where are the studies showing that there is a positive balance? And better yet, showing that in monetary terms?

Now in order to present a figure that will close the casino debate, you have to calculate the estimated economic benefit from the casino. Somehow, the MiniLee cabinet has neglected to provide the figures, or even commission unbiased studies to produce the figures. Yet we read in the papers about the gaggle of casino operators preparing papers or presenting preliminary plans to the Government...

Exhibit B: The fait accompli

In any pseudo-debate, there are facts that must be taken for granted as a matter of faith. There are questions that should be left alone, issues that a responsible critic should pass over.

In this case, the fait accompli is the economic success of setting up the casino in Singapore. No voice in the debate has asked for proof, because its success is a foregone conclusion.

Yet responsible economists in the US and UK show that several things have to be considered.

Does the casino draw its main customers from the locality or from abroad?
Does it divert revenue from competing overseas casinos or does it divert from domestic spending?
Does it make the economy grow, or will people just end up substituting normal economic consumption with gambling?

It is not a foregone conclusion, and we are very much in peril for thinking it so.

And of course, it does bring home the question: Where are the grown-up researchers? Where is the responsible debate?

03 December 2004

Co-blogging

This time round, I'll be trying something different. The following entry is co-written with Alvarny in a series of discussions over the week.

Casino Royale

Part the First, where I bitch about the responsibilities of intellectuals; or
Where are the grown-up philosophers?


There's this debate going on for several weeks now in Singapore's policymaking circles about the wisdom of granting a casino license. The positions are getting entrenched between the Economic pro-casino legislators apparently headed by the Prime Minister and his cabinet, and the Moralistic anti-gambling coalition of some backbenchers and the general public.

On 18 November, just months after Mini-Lee tried to float the casino idea in his National Day address and subsequent flogging (or yes-manning) of the issue on the pro-side by the Straits Times and then debates in parliament, finally an academic spoke out on the issue. And it was the head of the Philosophy department in NUS too.

At the Institute of Policy Studies forum, Prof. Ten Chin Liew said:

"Individuals freely choose to gamble, it is no business of others to interfere with how they spend their legitimately acquired money."

"Freedom to gamble can thus be seen like freedom to engage in religious practices - as in a tolerant society, a majority does not impose its practices on a minority."

"Otherwise, many public projects of great value, such as expressways, would have been condemned right from the start because they affect some people adversely."

That's the head of philosophy from Singapore's national university for you, channelling the ghost of John Stuart Mill.

And e-props to all of you who went "WTF" reading the don's third paragraph.

Yes, someone along the line, the professor switches from an argument on absolute freedom to... public projects??? We are unable to discern the logic here, since the defense of public projects (for the greater good, but will inconvenience some people) is clearly a utilitarian argument.

It's an inept, toss everything into the salad bowl and mix and hope no-one notices the ingredients don't go together argument. From the head of the Philosophy department, nonetheless. And since the don hasn't bothered to write to the press demanding corrections, it's not a case of a paper hastily truncating a reasonable argument into something very incoherent (which it does occasionally).

Part the Second, where we bitch about the usefulness of intellectuals

What is galls us so is the complete irrelevance of this don and his argument. For starters, the issue is not about gambling. Gambling is already a legal activity via Singapore Pools, the Stock Exchange, and the donate to a TV charity show and stand to win prizes scheme).

No, the issue is about whether there should be a casino. And Prof Ten's "freedom to gamble" argument doesn't even address it. Although he does serve the function of a state-sponsored intellectual doing the noble service of public miseducation (or disinformation) for his masters.

The real issue is whether having a casino would generate greater negative externalities than Singapore Pools.

The concept of externalities is simple enough: any activity generates externalities. A conversation with my friend over the cellphone drives other passengers in the same train compartment nuts even though the social transaction is solely between my friend and me. Laying cables to expand the national cable TV grid generates externalities by depriving drivers of an optimal road, for instance.

In a casino where individuals 'freely choose to gamble', their actions have knock-on effects on their family budgets should they lose more than what they can really afford. That's just one of the tamer negative externalities for you.

Again: the real issue is whether having a casino would generate greater negative externalities than Singapore Pools. Where are the grown-up intellectuals who will actually discuss it?

24 November 2004

Not Quite the Reading from Psalms

My undeclared 2-week vacation has come to an end (I don't know if the readers would actually want to hear about my private life) and before regular programming resumes, here's your moment of Zen, via some evil creative posters at DFA. Language purists, don't flog me or them on the mangling of Middle English.

The 23rd Sigh

Bush is my shepherd; I dwell in want.
He maketh logs to be cut down in national forests.
He leadeth trucks into the still wilderness.
He restoreth my fears.
He leadeth me in the paths of international disgrace for his ego's sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of pollution and war,
I will find no exit, for thou art in office.
Thy tax cuts for the rich and thy media control, they discomfort me.
Thou preparest an agenda of deception in the presence of thy religion.
Thou anointest my head with foreign oil.
My health insurance runneth out.
Surely megalomania and false patriotism shall follow me all the days of thy term,
And my jobless child shall dwell in my basement forever.

10 November 2004

As it was in 1967...

Chomsky denounces Washington policy consultants in think tanks as abrogating the responsibility of intellectuals.

It's nicely written, combining the best of Pol. Sci. and historical analysis.

Scary how the lies, justifications and modus operandi of 1967 New Frontiersmen and the 2001 Neoconservatives are so identical.

05 November 2004

What I Want to Know

Is how it's possible that the major newspaper in Singapore, the Straits Times, can jovially report that the unemployment rate in Singapore has fallen to from 4.5% to 3.4%, yet hide the fact that there is a rising trend of graduates below age 30 remaining unemployed?

In fact, the only mention of it is in an obscure website here.

And how is it possible that no media outlet here dares to report the numbers of young graduates who are now underemployed?

What is our Labour Minister going to do about this unemployment problem?

Our War in Iraq is Going Well

Yes, the Republicans have won the election. President Bush was legitimately elected this time by a huge turnout of gay-bashers, bible-thumpers, and people who apparently believe that the war in Iraq is going well.

Here are more signs to strengthen their belief:

1. Human Rights Watch has just released a report pointing out that crucial evidence for the trial of Saddam has been either lost or seriously tainted.

Evidence that could easily be used to convict Saddam Hussein of human rights abuses and crimes against humanity have been LOST, no thanks to clueless American troops who failed to secure not just Iraqi museums, research facilities, weapons depots, and also... mass graves.

Seriously, people! Saddam butchered so many people and left mass graves all over the country. There are as many mass graves as oil wells in Iraq and you tell me that the mass graves were not secured? The troops actually lost evidence that was scattered all over Iraq?

Wonderful. Of course if Saddam is convicted in the end, it'll be because the court's decision (whether run by the US or its Iraqi puppets) is faith-based rather than evidence-based. Nice precedent for conducting trials in the post 9/11 era, eh?

2. An elementary school in New Jersey was bombed with 25 rounds of ammunition yesterday by a National Guard fighter.

Colin Powell claims that irrefutable evidence has been found that the traitorous state of New Jersey is either developing WMD, harboring Zarqawi, or voted for the terrorist John Kerry.

The General said in his speech to the UN Security Council that the elementary school wasn't really an elementary school, but either a terrorist training camp or a bomb factory.

Powell also denied reports that the fighter plane bombed the school when a wedding was under way.

27 October 2004

Not at the top of the world

or, we love polls that show Singapore is number one!

The 3rd annual worldwide press freedom index from Reporters Without Borders ranks Singapore at 147 out of a total of 167 countries.

Small consolation: Iraq comes in at 148th place.
Sore points (for some readers): Malaysia has a freer press at 122 and Indonesia at 117. The hell, even RUSSIA (140) has a freer press than Singapore...

That should be some food for thought or cannon fodder for students taking their GP exams soon. I don't even think our national newspapers will dare report this finding...

Like any other responsible study or poll (and you'd be surprised there are MANY irresponsible studies - mostly the ones that put Singapore as no 1 in something or another), Reporters Without Borders releases an explanation of how the data was compiled.

Note the final clarification on that page: "The index should in no way be taken as an indication of the quality of the press in the countries concerned." That means you still can have a press that reports what is (mostly) factually true, but is still unfree.

22 October 2004

Poetry as Criticism of Life

Istana Park

so much depends
upon

how fast you walk
along

this short green carpet
within

a little red
dot.



Observations

If you live in Singapore long enough,
you start noticing strange details.
Like the trees.
You can't escape
the trees in the Garden City.

Looking at them
you start to wonder how people here think.

Notice the less shade a tree gives
the higher its status and prestige.
Palm trees, coconut trees, shrubs -
Our architects fall over themselves to plant them outside the holy sites:
embassies, state buildings, malls and condos.

Trees serve a decorative function.
For shade, please use a sheltered walkway
or an underground tunnel.



Green Plan

Docile, domesticated
garden is nature denatured
colonised for human living.

Come, let us draw lines
to fence in nature.
Let us tear up the forests
pave the ground with concrete
then plant midget shrubs between the cracks!

For this is our green plan:
"We will keep nature as long as possible,
even as we cater to a growing population."*


* quote from Ms Juliet Hang, Asst Dir Public Affairs for Ministry of National Development and Ms Angeline Yap, Asst Dir Corporate Communications for Ministry of the Environment, in a letter to the Straits Times forum page on 10 May 2003.

20 October 2004

Republicans for Stem-cell Research

or, Boycott the Salvation Army Now!

The Salvation Army will NOT be getting any donations from me this year, next year, or any year. It is not a Christian organisation when it refuses to support life-saving scientific research, when it shuns people who have good reason to speak for life-saving research, when it deceives the public about its true stand on stem-cell research, and when it cancels contracts without due recompense.

From the New York Times:

Patti Davis, an author and the daughter of President Ronald Reagan, has filed a lawsuit against the Salvation Army accusing it of backing out of a speaking agreement because it objects to her support for embryonic stem cell research.

Like her mother, Nancy Reagan, Ms. Davis supports research on stem cells taken from human embryos because it may lead to a cure for neurological diseases like Alzheimer's, which afflicted Mr. Reagan. Antiabortion groups oppose such research because the cells are harvested from fetuses.

But the lawyer for the Santa Rosa, Calif., chapter of the Salvation Army, which initially expressed interest in hiring Ms. Davis to speak at a dinner next month, said its change of heart was not related to such research.

The lawyer, Michael G. Watters, said, "There was not a binding agreement, and it just didn't work out for a variety of reasons." The Santa Rosa chapter, Mr. Watters said, "categorically denies that the fact that this thing didn't work out had anything to do with stem cell research or her position on stem cell research."

The Salvation Army's position on the therapeutic use of embryonic stem cells is unclear. A spokesman, Maj. George Hood, at the national headquarters of the organization, in Alexandria, Va., did not return calls seeking comment yesterday. A search of news articles failed to reveal a public position by the organization, an international Christian charity based in London.

In the suit, filed Oct. 4 in State Supreme Court in Manhattan and made public yesterday, Ms. Davis asserts that the Salvation Army "breached" an agreement for her to speak in Santa Rosa on Nov. 19 at the Annual Dream Big Dinner for the Kids.

Ms. Davis seeks a $7,500 cancellation fee and punitive damages of $22,500 to be paid to the Greater Talent Network, her booking agent.

Mr. Watters implied that the deal killer was Ms. Davis's abilities as a speaker. The Greater Talent Network, Mr. Watters said, "sent out a demo tape or a copy of one of her TV shows or something, and people here said that we're not sure she's for us."

Lawrence Fabian, the lawyer for Ms. Davis and her booking agent, said Salvation Army officials in Santa Rosa "saw some television program - whether it was 'Primetime' or 'Dateline' I just don't remember - back in August, and Patti Davis talked about stem cell research."

Officials then told the Greater Talent Network that such a position was "not acceptable to them and that they would have to cancel the contract," Mr. Fabian said.

The booking agent is "not naming names at this time but they know the names, obviously," Mr. Fabian said.

Mr. Fabian emphasized that Ms. Davis's planned speech was about "The Long Goodbye," her book on her father's struggle with Alzheimer's disease, set to be released next month.

"We've tried to make this a very simple matter that they breached the agreement with her and that this is the cause of it," Mr. Fabian said. Ms. Davis is "not trying to make a cause célèbre of this particular lawsuit."

In August, Ms. Davis appeared on ABC's "Primetime Live." She said: "My family watched as Alzheimer's conquered my father. Thousands of families deal with Parkinson's, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injuries and diabetes. Stem cell treatment could be the miracle we've been waiting for."

19 October 2004

Global Limits

Oil production is nearly at its peak. Yet that shouldn't worry most readers today: the more pressing problem is the US military, which has clearly peaked and reached its limit.

Item 1: US military persuades UK troops in the south of Iraq to move up to the north, where most of the action is. Parliament will debate on this issue during the week (and I'll be updating on it).

Item 2: The elite force of the US army has just been despatched to Iraq. It's a little like sending your Top Henchman into battle after all your goons are slaughtered by some gung-ho fighter. Or sending Captain Freedom to finish off Arnold Schwarzenegger in the Running Man, because the entire cast of heroes have been killed...

As the Los Angeles Times puts it,

For years, The Box has been a stage for the Army's elite "opposition force" — soldiers expert at assuming the roles of enemy fighters, be they the Taliban or Iraqi insurgents. Their mission is to toughen new soldiers with elaborate simulations — staging sniper fire, riots, suicide car bombings and potentially dangerous culture clashes.

Staging such scenes has long been the work of the fabled 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, or Black Horse Regiment. But starting next month, the 3,500-member unit will begin shipping out to Iraq from the Ft. Irwin National Training Center, near Barstow. Deployments are nothing new in the Army, of course, but there is a special sense of urgency about dispatching the Black Horse to tackle situations that it has trained roughly 500,000 soldiers to handle since 1994. Now the bombs and bullets they encounter will be all too real.

"No one ever thought the Black Horse would be taken out of the National Training Center; they are just too valuable here," said Maj. John Clearwater. "But the Army is stretched too thin, and Iraq is a big mission."


The bottomline: a draft is imminent in America. It will happen regardless of who wins on 2 Nov. But maybe Kerry would have the decency to beg the United Nations and the Arab League to send in their soldiers.