To Fix a Mocking Peasant

Evil Kitten Blogs Irresponsibly

-Void-



web site hit counter

What Singaporeans think about Molestation
MEEK
[info]mollymeek
- Woman molested (or so it is said) at Sentosa Siloso Beach Countdown Party
- Someone recorded the incident on video
- RazorTV reporters go around asking people for their opinions

I'm not sure if RazorTV is deliberately generating a stereotypical spin or if most of the men interviewed seem to be blaming molested woman. Nevertheless, amongst the views expressed are:

1. You deserve to be molested if you go to parties.

“She deserved it lah because she going to the party.”


2. If you choose to go somewhere, and there happens to be molesters there, you are choosing to be molested. (AKA: Be a good girl or be a walking sex toy.)

“She chose to be there. It’s a choice that she made.”


3. Women going to countdown parties should expect to be molested.

“She should know. . . .I mean, before she go there she should know the consequences.”


4. It’s normal to be molested. Especially if you are “wild”.


“It’s interesting. If she was drunk or anything, I think it’s normal . . . It’s a countdown party, . . . there’s alcohol and stuff and maybe she’s a wild girl.”


5. Many cases of molestation makes molestation OK.

“It’s a club lah. I think this kind of behavior is expected.” “It’s actually quite common.”

[Try starting a mass homicide then. If it's common enough, it's fine.]


6. Erm . . . maybe molest women in private instead?

“Disgusting. The guys are just plain disgusting. To be doing this in public area, it’s really disgusting. Illicit.”


7. It's your fault that you did not sufficiently protect yourself.

“I guess if you want to go to that kind of party, she should bring along some others friends [in order] not to be an easy target. . . .It’s just wrong.”


Disclaimer: Although everyone knows that Molly is a wild bimbo who parties in bikini all the time, she is not the victim of the Siloso Beach molestation. She is also relieved that no one took a video of her molesting the drunk hunks in Speedos at the party. They totally deserved it for their partying ways.

I say I'm putting you first (so stop your f****** whining)
MEEK
[info]mollymeek
From PM Lee's New Year Message:


1) "Workers will need to up-skill, re-skill and multi-skill. They must be flexible, willing to adapt to changed conditions, and take on new jobs as conditions change."

= Improve your skills (up-skill) and do more kinds of work (multi-skill). Work longer hours with lower expectations (be flexible) and adapt to harsher and harsher conditions without any real workers' rights.


2) "Earlier this year, when job prospects were uncertain, workers took skills upgrading seriously. Now that job prospects have improved, workers must not think that this is no longer urgent."

=> There is always this danger that Singaporeans become complacent and adopt the wrong attitudes. Terrible people.


3) "Older workers should also carry on working for as long as they can; one encouraging sign through this crisis is that employment rates for older workers stayed high."

= Erase the word "retirement" from your dictionary. Erase the word "retirement" from your dictionary. Erase the word "retirement" from your dictionary. Erase the word "retirement" from your dictionary. Erase the word "retirement" from your dictionary. . . .

+

I'm happy that old folks are competing with young PRC foreigners for cleaning jobs (one encouraging sign) while my father accuses them of not being hardworking enough.




4) "[T]he best way to protect workers is to give them the right skills to remain productive and employable, and ensure that their companies stay competitive internationally."

= Workers should not be protected by stupid things like rights. We protect them by helping their companies stay competitive internationally. Let's start with depressing wages so that the companies will always remain competitive. Competitive companies are always beneficial for workers, aren't they?

5) "The Government’s first responsibility is to Singaporeans.

= I say lah. No harm saying.


6) We will manage and moderate the inflow of foreign workers, so that Singa-poreans are not overwhelmed by the sheer numbers. But we must continue to welcome hardworking, enterprising people to our shores. We need them both to expand our talent pool and help Singa-pore to prosper, as well as to top up our own population and make up for our low birth rates.

= When I say you are not overwhelmed by the number of foreigners thanks to my management, you are NOT overwhelmed. My word is truth, as always.


7) "Our history has been one of overcoming difficult odds to survive and prosper."

= Of course, there will be those who can overcome difficulty and there will be those who can't. Let's only remember the former. Let the latter die off naturally and be forgotten.

8) "Singapore’s prospects are good. . . . Our policies are sound and we have the courage to do the right things."

= Yes, you may hate what I'm doing, but trust me, it is the right thing. Because I say so.

 
*****

In a nutshell:

Singaporeans, continue to faithfully vote for the PAP, believing that it will do you good no matter what the reality of your plight tells you! =)

Fresh Year, STale Propaganda
MEEK
[info]mollymeek
Oh hi hi hi! Happy New Year everyone! It's the New Year and everyone's favorite newspaper must start the new year on the right note—by publishing the model ST (ET?) Forum letter. This time, exemplary citizen Loke Kong shares with us how wonderful the government is. :)

[If you are unable to see the image, click on the title of this post to view just this entry. Alternatively, click on the image and be redirected to Photobucket where you can zoom in.]

STale Times Big

Molly helps Janet Wee Fix TOC
MEEK
[info]mollymeek
 Dear Molly,

I have found out that a certain righteous Ms Janet Wee is trying to protect the reputation our leaders and has written to the Singapore Police to complain about
The Online Citizen for being seditious. I am worried that her email does not get the point across clearly enough. Will you please help her out so that she can lodge a better complaint?

Mr. Lee See Nao


Dear See Nao,

Ah yes, finally someone is complaining about those terrible people who criticize a government that can do no wrong. I will try to help.

Yours,
Molly

Photobucket

Download pdf here.


ST Snapshot
MEEK
[info]mollymeek
Girls Gone Bad

HK Bad, Therefore SG Not Bad
MEEK
[info]mollymeek
The Straits Times either enjoys publishing ridiculously silly letters or obsessively edits them into stupidity.

In a letter, "Don't beat Singapore with Hong Kong stick", Ms Priscilla Pey tells us that she has had encountered bad service in Hong Kong and goes on telling us about how ungracious the people there are (which has nothing to do with customer service), and reasons: "In conclusion, Singapore is not far off target on customer service. Keep it up, Singapore."

Singaporeans should hold the press responsible if the average national IQ falls below 80.

Finally, a piece of good news (I hope)
MEEK
[info]mollymeek
MediaCorp to discontinue TV Mobile from next year

"A statement released Tuesday said MediaCorp has decided to terminate the service upon expiry of its current agreement with SBS Transit on January 1."

Although the termination is due to the unprofitability of the venture for MediaCorp rather than from all the complaints and petitions the public have sent (i.e. MediaCorp would likely have no qualms continuing with the intrusive trash if it were profitable), there will at least be one source of trauma less.

Hopefully, there will be no other attempts to invade my world with speakers louder than the already noisy engines.

(Though do I see SBS coming up with a sob story about how it has lost a source of revenue and hence needs to raise fares?)


Gender, Sexuality & What Attitudes to Peepholes Reveal
MEEK
[info]mollymeek
( You are about to view content that may not be appropriate for minors. )

Exchanges With See Nao I
MEEK
[info]mollymeek
Dear Molly,

It’s nice to see that you are blogging again even though you are as trashy as always. And you really shouldn’t move from Livejournal. How could you be so disloyal. I fear for the fate of Singapore if young Singaporeans are as whimsical as you. But please do a good deed and help me publicize the following letter I wrote for the Straits Times Forum. Thanks.

Yours coldly,
See Nao

*****



Make Cooling Day a Public Holiday

It is very encouraging that the PAP Government is thinking of having a cooling day prior to polling day for Singaporeans to consider if they want to vote the PAP out. This shows the PAP's magnanimity and is proof that elections in Singapore are fully democratic. While is is clear that all cool, level-headed Singaporeans will vote for the right party, that is the PAP, allow me to suggest that Cooling Day should be made a public holiday.

There are absolutely rational reasons to make Cooling Day a public holiday. Given that Cooling Day is meant to let people cool down so that the innocent party will not be scorched, the Government should help to facilitate the cooling down so that people can sit down and rationalize voting for the PAP. The rationale behind Cooling Day is that people should be given time to calm down and think rationally. However, if people have to go to work (and be reminded of how they could have been their foreign talent superiors, for instance), if they have to travel in overcrowded buses in overcrowded roads with overburdened loads on their shoulders, if they are—that is to say—allowed to be as they are on a normal day, their fiery irrationality will not have a chance to cool down. This will defeat the purpose of Cooling Day itself.

Hence, I strongly urge the Government to consider making Cooling Day a public holiday. The LTA and the PTC should also ensure that minimum public transport service standards are more stringent on Cooling Day to ensure that people can cool down properly.

Lee See Nao (Mr.)
*****

Dear See Nao,

Long time no see. The idea of a Cooling Day already chills people's bones. The concept ensures its own effective implementation and Singaporeans require no additional retard(ant)s. But for the sake of one extra public holiday, I support your cool suggestion. I hope the President makes it a public holiday even though no voters had to think about whether to vote for him or not.

Yours bimbotically,
Molly

Another Space
MEEK
[info]mollymeek
Molly is now blogging elsewhere.

Apologies to Zaqy and Today
MEEK
[info]mollymeek

I would like to apologize the Zaqy Mohamad and the mainstream media for satirizing their nonsensical and mutually contradicting rhetoric about press freedom—half a decade before they spewed them out recently.

In December 2004, Molly wrote in the spirit of parody, "A wide-scale survey conducted on countries around the world reveals that Singapore's Press Freedom has increased on a year-to-year basis. The nation state has been placed positions ahead of its neighbors like Malaysia . . . ."

About a year later, in October 2005, Today reported that "Singapore has inched up seven spots in the 2005 World Press Freedom Index". And it was parodied by Molly once again.

Molly feels obliged to offer her deepest apologies. If Molly had known that some people are utterly incapable of coming with new scents to mask the stench of old shit, she wouldn't have made fun of them.

Now Today wants us to think that Singapore's press freedom ranking has "rebounded" (as if it had dropped for a while after being quite high for a long period). But before you can start celebrating, Today quotes Zaqy Mohamad who wants us to believe that the low ranking (of course neither he nor Today calls it low) means that the local media is "credible" despite all those heretical bloggers who do not side with the PAP. (Huh?!)

From the phrasing of the Today article, one might think that he means that the 144th to 133rd "improvement" is something positive and means that Singapore's media have become more credible. On the contrary, he seems to think that the media has become a little less credible (because those crazy free press fanatics aren’t ranking it so low now). I believe the ever-reliable media might have misunderstood him somewhat. I think he really means that (insert sigh) the higher ranking isn’t something to celebrate, but is simply saying that at least the local media has (thankfully, phew) not gone too much in the way of those disgusting media in the West that do not know how to lick their governments' asses. Look at the Today article:

Mr Zaqy Mohamad, chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Information, Communications and the Arts, said the improved ranking "underlines that our press remains credible especially in the face of challenges like the new media".

He says that the press remains credible (i.e. it’s still credible), not that it has become more credible. He seems to be suggesting that the better Singapore's media is ranked (better according to Reporters Without Borders, I mean), the less credible it is.

Admittedly, I can't really accuse anyone of misquoting him. This is all too ridiculously twisted to be properly articulated. One moment, you have to pretend to buy into Reporters Without Borders' ranking (or so it seems) and spin something positive out of the dismal ranking by calling Singapore's position this year an "improvement". The next moment, you are expected to do the usual nonsense of saying that the better Reporters Without Frontiers ranks the local media, the less credible the local media is, because (insert collective PAP gasp) surely the new ranking shows that the media is not as sycophantic as was a year ago . . .

I should refrain from accusing Zaqy Mohamad of bad rhetoric. Perhaps he wasn’t being rhetorical. I think he has simply internalized the idea that good ranking = bad press. (Any double entendre should be noted.) 

I wonder if he would see Today's failure to coherently adopt his ideological standpoint (but unwittingly contradict him instead) as a sign of the potential for a more disturbing (better? Worse?) ranking next year.


Harmony and Difference
MEEK
[info]mollymeek

Once upon a time, there was a storyteller. The moral of his stories were invariably about harmony. One day, someone regurgitated his plots and spun them, perhaps unintentionally, into tales of equality. This enraged the veteran storyteller who threw a hissy fit and yelled, “You are telling my stories wrongly!”


 

“But these stories are not yours.” one wishes the second storyteller had retorted. “You are just another storyteller.”


As though the staleness of PM Lee’s National Day Rally about harmony (the racial and religious species, what else?) is not enough, many contribute their reverberations, adding stench to staleness. But suddenly, MM Lee seems strangely agitated about an NMP’s advocacy of equal treatment of all races.


Now, it might have seemed to many people to be quite politically correct to want all races to be treated equally. Surely, one might ask, the PAP which is so obsessed with racial harmony would have no problems with racial equality? As such, MM Lee’s strong reaction to Viswa Sadasivan’s view might seem rather odd at first. Is MM Lee against racial equality? Yes, if we assume that racial equality involves the equal treatment of all races. In a nutshell, MM Lee’s view is that the different races cannot be treated equally because the government has be sensitive towards minority races and take action or have policies that will reassure minorities that they will not be discriminated against.


And if we go on, we will be going in circles for the strength of Viswa Sadasivan’s point is precisely that if the government persists in the stance MM Lee has elucidated, racial categories will become further entrenched. And Sadasivan probably has a problem with this because the emphasis on racial categories will ensure that the consciousness of race and of the perceived differences will always be present. Understandably, for a government that has played the race card for its strategic political benefit, any call to eliminate the need for racial categories is a travesty.


What we have are simply two positions but an uncannily common standpoint at their core. While Sadasivan talks about equality, MM Lee talks about non-discrimination, which in fact draws from discourses of equality. One says that there is no true equality if race continues to be visible, if the walls of race continue to be painted and repainted. The other says that, in practice, we cannot simply pretend that we have attained the ideal situation in which no one is bothered by what they consider to be race.


Perhaps it is not the difference in the two men’s positions that is significant. Perhaps the issue of equality as articulated by Sadasivan threatens to hit a sensitive spot in the discourse of harmony as propagated by the government. Suddenly, Singaporeans might be reminded that harmony is different from equality. It is possible for me live harmoniously with you even if I am (or you are) suffering social injustices. At the same time, you and I might be equals but we squabble from time to time. Which do you find preferable? (I do not mean that any racial group in Singapore is suffering injustices. This is just an illustration to distinguish the ideas of harmony and equality.)


Difference is an essential precondition of harmony. We can harmonize because there is you and I, because there is an other. With harmony is always the possibility of discordance; there is always a threat of sorts. If no one perceives difference, then the notion of harmony has to go. How painful that would be for someone who has built an entire city on that notion, who has made skyscrapers from the bricks of difference! More tragically, what would happen if people living in these glittery skyscrapers suddenly reject the buildings, the apartment-compartments, that have been built for them and in which they have been placed with a heavy hand. Worse, what if the inhabitants of the harmonious city decide to hire architects of their own?


Never throw away a child’s Lego set. It is devastating.

But is harmony not just harmony? Of course, but perhaps not. Perhaps harmony is not even harmony. The moment harmony is divided into types, with most types being invisible, there is silent disharmony. Or silenced disharmony. Racial harmony. Religious harmony. Why not gender harmony, for instance? Because, as a storyteller explains, many years ago, there were racial riots. And people died! So racial issues must be handled sensitively. Someone ought to send that storyteller to jail for sedition. For surely he is inciting riots on the basis of gender. What else? If we accord “racial harmony” importance because of racial riots, what is there to stop people from starting gender (or any other kinds of riots resulting in violence and deaths, something we fear so much? 


 

The MM-NMP argument is ultimately not a racial issue. It is a political issue (as always). I feel as if I’m contributing staleness too. (But what else one have to offer?) When PM Lee warns of the danger of playing the racial/religious card (such as in the case of a group of Christians taking over AWARE), is he not playing the racial/religious card in a different way, not in the sense of being affiliated to any race or religion but in the sense of deploying race and religion to exact political benefits such as the restrictions on free expression on the part of the people. (Oh, but of course there is freedom of expression in Singapore, if you dare say this. Oh, but you are just been taken in by those Western ideals that simply don’t apply, if you persist in saying this. Of course we are democratic! .  . . We are not democratic because we are different from the West!)


I wonder if MM Lee remembered that he was telling someone from a minority race that he knew better what minority races need.


Reflections
MEEK
[info]mollymeek
Watching that thing shown on every channel is like being forced to watch a recording of yourself being raped -- while being raped another time round.

Surreal Realism
MEEK
[info]mollymeek
1. "The simulation of a terrorist strike was surreal and profiled such an attack realistically." (Mr. Benny Cheok, ST Forum)

Hmm... Surreal and realistic. The Straits Times Forum is a surreal anthology of nonsense from real nitwits.

2. From
Today

Some Singaporeans are sore that they do not know enough about how "their money" is being invested by Temasek Holdings, acknowledged Singapore's first female Cabinet minister, Mrs Lim Hwee Hua.

"We have to ask ourselves if transparency is an end in itself, or if it is the means to an end," said the Minister in the Prime Minister's Office to Petir. "If all our cards are revealed in pursuit of complete transparency, does that serve the purpose of having Temasek and the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation manage the reserves well?

In other words: Don't demand for transparency when the system is designed to be opaque.

"It is reasonable for people to ask questions, but ultimately the government holds the responsibility for deciding how much to reveal in our best interests."

In other words: We will tell you what we want to tell you. Your job is to believe.

Question: Does "our" refer to the government or to all Singaporeans (or whatever else it might be)?

To the editors of Today: What a wonderful feat of double entendre! Are you saying that Singaporeans are sore (a word that passes negative judgement) and Mrs. Lim is acknowledging that Singaporeans are sore (in which case the word should be "claimed" and not "acknowledged")? Or are you saying that Mrs Lim is acknowledging that people are questioning Temasek's transparency (in which case there's really nothing to acknowledge)?



What day?
MEEK
[info]mollymeek

A time to celebrate, a time to deplore. There are those who are determined to infantilize the collective, choreographing empty pledge recitations, tribal face-painting, mumbling songs designed to for the practice of false love for a mythical nation. And there are those who feel a sense of belonging by participating in the unspoken dread of the idiocy ritualized annually.

How could August 9 be known as National Day if there’s nothing tangibly national to speak of, when the dominant tales of the nation alienate all but those who have been successfully infantilized? In other words, what is national day if the widely circulated notions of nationhood are held with contempt by those who persist in their (in)sanity while being repeated ad infinitum by those who seem to find delight in lip-synching to delirious gibberish about harmony, overcoming crises together, Lee Kuan Yew the Greatest, Goh Chok Tong the Great, hegemony our pride?

The nation, as the political power-authors of Singapore articulate it, is anti-nation. This is not to say that there is anything necessarily desirable about being a nation. But if we understand a nation as a group of people, the anti-nation of Singaporean nationalism may be said to be anti-people. The nation as it is orchestrated by the state goes against the very people it claims to be working for. It is invariably a collection of tales about achievements together with cautionary tales of crisis. Your unhappiness is forbidden. Be happy like the blessed infantilized whose sole mission in life seems to be to recite the pledge, riding it of signification whilst clenching fists at their chests, wringing your heart.

Don’t be unhappy. Don’t protest.

The PAP is not the nation, the argument goes. Love the nation even if you hate the PAP. But August 9 is a time of mourning precisely the PAP has made itself national. There is only loss, no love. Premature loss before love could even exist. You can’t trick me into loving the PAP, fools.

If there is anything national to speak of, it has to be the deformity born out of the collective trauma of 44 years (and counting) of disfigurement. Singapore is a mass of scar tissue, aching with dying life. Eternally dying to die. It is the trauma of the oppression that has taken place under the pretext of nation-building, the constant assault on our minds and common sense by omnipresent propaganda.

What oppression? The question is bound to crop up. One shall not answer a question which, by answering it, would subject one to further assault. Yet, by not answering, one subjects oneself to further accusations. Irrational. Biased. Imbalanced. Insane. And this is perhaps the essence of the national trauma brought about by a group of people’s (or perhaps one man’s?) nation-building. To articulate the trauma is perhaps one way of imagining the nation, not against the people, for once. Perhaps this is why one sees the urgency with which the social engineering project of infantilization is carried out. Make them idiots from a young age. Rather they paint their faces red than they see red. Obscure the trauma forever with a mask of glittery enjoyment. Let everyone recite the pledge at 2022, let their hysterical voices conjure the horrors of the Japanese occupation and institute it as The Trauma, sitting on the actual trauma of the people.

Let those who cannot be made happy leave or be consigned to eternal suffering-silence.

Unfortunately, every day is national day.

What day? I’ve forgotten. What day I can’t forget.

 

I don’t hate Singapore. The trite disclaimer. Perhaps it’s the only way to love. But I’ve nothing to hate. Nor anything to love.



The Fundie Agenda
MEEK
[info]mollymeek

The Homosexual Agenda according to a certain feminist mentor whose own agenda and sanity I highly question:

1. decriminalisation of sodomy [big deal?]

2. equalization of age of consent for heterosexual sex and homosex [so what?]

3. anti-discrimination laws e.g. equality in sex education which should cover heterosexual sex and anal sex [sounds reasonable]

4. same-sex marriage or civil union [what's wrong?]

5. homosexual parenthood and adoption rights [cannot meh?]

 

 

The Fundie Agenda according to Molly:

1. Capitalize on existent homophobia to criminalize homosexuality by aligning it with pedophilia and other forms of sexual behavior deemed unacceptable

2. Removal of age of consent laws to allow sex only after marriage

3. Oppressive laws that ban contraception and abortion

4. Invasion of fundie morality on all behavior on all heterosexual relationships

5. Sectarian State


The Bimbotic Kitten Agenda:

1. To pee on someone's grave [Er, stray cat pee on grave not against the law hor?]


A Political Affair
MEEK
[info]mollymeek

To be absolutely truthful, it is clearly possible for homosexuality to be promoted, whether through sexuality education programs or in other ways. The great minds of people like Dr. Thio Su Mien are certainly right to believe that homosexuality can be promoted, although this does not mean that it has been promoted through AWARE's sexuality education program. I doubt, though, if there are many people whose passion in promoting homosexuality are as intense as the passion of those who promote heterosexuality. After all, the same crusaders against the promotion of homosexuality are promoting heterosexuality and have managed to convince a number of homosexuals to become straight―or at least behave as though they are. And since heterosexuality can and has been be promoted, why should we pretend that homosexuality can't?


It is not whether homosexuality has been promoted through sexuality education in schools. I doubt even Dr. Thio (either of them―the mother or the daughter) would believe me if I were to tell her that teenagers became lesbian because AWARE told them that being lesbian was fun. What the likes of Dr. Thio are concerned about is really a group of people who are encountering uncertainty about their sexuality. They might observe their same-sex peers being interested in the opposite sex and feel that they have different inclinations for some reason. Given the way the world is today, most teenage students would know what “gay” and “lesbian” refer to. But when they find themselves possibly being described as “gay” or “lesbian” (words often used derogatorily, with the assumption that being gay and lesbian is abnormal), they are likely to begin facing self-doubt and guilt. Their psychological health is inevitably affected in some way.


Dr. Thio clearly does not simply want people to stop themselves from telling others to become lesbian.  (Pardon me if I give the impression that I'm trying to use her as the avatar of bigotry. I could very well use a certain Pastor or many of his followers, but none of them has ever claimed to be a feminist mentor.) What she―and her allies―want is something more. She does not even condone neutrality. Pastor Derek Hong of Church of Our Saviour apparently believes that they cannot be neutral and that is fine. No one is obliged to be neutral. But one cannot stop others from being neutral about issues to do with homosexuality. And this is the impulse of the opponents of AWARE's sexuality education. For the sake of what they believe God wants, they righteously go out and stop people from being neutral. No, you cannot be neutral. You cannot say that I have no issues if you are lesbian. God forbid. 


So homosexuality has got to remain taboo, and when it ever has the audacity to sneak into conversations, judgment has to be pronounced. Negative judgment, of course. If you do not turn homosexuality into a taboo, or if you do not condemn homosexuality (it's probably optional to claim to love homosexuals after the condemnation), you must be a promoter of homosexuality. I suppose only God can decide if these people are promoting perverse wisdom Which isn't really wisdom, of course, but we don't really have a good word for it. It's perverse but the moment it establishes itself in enough minds, it becomes conventional wisdom; it becomes irrefutable.


What about the young people going through sexuality education then? If they happen to have any inclinations towards homosexuality, they must be told by the seeming authorities that it is wrong. And the people who are judgmental might ironically think that they are not being judgmental. A fictitious conversation:


Girl: Dr. Thio, I think I'm lesbian.


Dr. Thio: Oh . . . Are you sure? What makes you think so? Maybe it's a passing phase―maybe you just admire some of your peers and and you mistake it for love? There's a chance you are not . . . you know . . .


Act non-judgmental―after judging with your heart, mind, and soul. From the fictitious conversation above, it is clear that no one has even said that homosexuality is sinful. But it is the assumption. Even if you tell someone, “I think I support the opposition over the PAP,” I doubt people will say, “Are you sure? Maybe it's a passing phase. Maybe you are really a PAP supporter like the rest of us.” To say so would be to assume that it is rather strange (if one tries not to use the word “abnormal”) to support anyone else but the PAP. And one doubts that the screwed-up but screw-loose person who might think it sinful to support the opposition would have a similar reaction if you say, “I don't do politics.”


So what? Don't people have a right to be homophobic? Sure, they do. As much as I have the right to use Dr. Thio as the avatar of bigotry, she has the right to do the same to, say, Alex Au. But the concern is really what sorts of effects there are on those affected by sexuality programs. Dr. Thio may or may not know this, but what she wants is for those having issues with their sexualities to feel obliged to change, to feel abnormal until they do something to convert, to feel rejected despite having the supposedly unconditional love of Dr. Thio, her pastor and her mentees. Never mind if these students don't believe in God and are going to hell anyway, according a much less debated Christian concept.


And beyond the relatively small number of people affected by the issue of homosexuality, there might be those who engage in premarital sex. It is very strange, but I have no idea why no one is saying that the premarital-sexualites promote a premarital-sexual lifestyle or have some kind of premarital-sexual agenda to prevent righteous laws banning premarital sex from being implemented. (Hey, if the Public Order Act can be implemented in Singapore, is there anything that can't?)


In the world of the passionate conservatives (otherwise known as fundies, but I prefer to be neutral and I hope no one has issues with my neutrality), it is probably wrong to teach people about the various methods of contraception―even if they are not against contraception, they would probably see no reason to teach teenagers about contraception when they are not supposed to be having sex until after they get married many years later. Surely to talk about contraception is to promote premarital sex. And to talk about abortion is surely to promote murder―the murdersexuals must be promoting a murderous lifestyle and have some sinister murdersexual agenda and must be stopped.


What do the passionate conservatives eventually want then? Lots of miserable people. People who feel miserable for having homosexual inclinations, people who feel dirty for having had sex before marriage (don't ask me how much sense it makes to insist that atheists have sex only after they get themselves legally married despite not believing in any god that would make the marriage sacred). People who are constantly haunted by selective specters of Sin. And what might they get? People who simply stop having faith, disenchanted people for whom there is no negotiation or discourse. If they get what they want, our society might get what it doesn't want.


According to more optimistic bloggers than Molly, the recent AWARE saga is an indication of how mature Singaporeans have become and how civil society has developed. But it is actually a purely political process that is located outside of the realm of politics proper. Against the conservative takeover of AWARE, the only discourse we seem to have recourse to is that of neutrality. To make matters worse, the mainstream media was clearly not in support of what they called a coup―not because they are not conservative, but because their politics is the politics of the PAP. In other words, the politics of claiming tolerance, harmony and neutrality. The results of the AWARE EOGM that had Josie Lau and her conservative team losing to those they ousted became a triumph of neutrality and tolerance in Singapore. It could very well have been seen in terms of confrontation rather than tolerance. What we need is not imposed neutrality and enforced tolerance. What we need is for everyone to have the equal freedom to be non-neutral and confrontational, though this might make Molly sound somewhat too subversive for her own good. But confrontation is not anarchy and it certainly does not preclude peace. What has happened after the EOGM? AWARE politely stated that it would review its sexuality education program. And people have managed to manipulate the Ministry of Education into suspending the program―simply by complaining and complaining passionately.


What we are now left with is the unequal freedom to be non-neutral. When you are seen as “mainstream”, you have more power to make noise about the sexuality program. I cannot say for sure, but I really doubt that the MOE would suspend a sexuality education program if lots of gays and lesbians start complaining that despite claiming to be neutral, it is actually discriminatory towards homosexuality and there is a need for tolerance.


Singapore has not changed. It is exactly the same before and after the AWARE saga, though it provided for the usual dose of entertainment during the prolonged ennui of staying in Singapore. (Now move on to Mas Selamat.) Dark clouds gathered, but they were blown away before a storm could be brewed.  Black or white, everyone is in the same set of chess with less than two players. Perhaps your game is a programed computer demo. Sure, the AWARE coup was a travesty. But it wasn't disallowed in the script. It was not as if an ingenious hacker had changed the program to allow for possibilities it offers. Your apparent agency is never your own. Well, admittedly it is more exciting if you don't think too much. Forget yourself and not be aware and you might find fulfillment even without dignity.


I love presumptuous people
MEEK
[info]mollymeek
Imagine how people would react if Molly were to say, "I am alarmed by developments in AWARE. I don't want my children to say that oh, it's sinful to be homosexual, to experiment with conservatism and fundamentalism. I'm concerned. I'm a parent. It's shocking. How can this be done in Singapore?"

Of course, I would rather say, "I am alarmed by the developments in AWARE. The people in the new exco are assuming that the right thing to do is to declare that homosexuality is evil whereas it would be more appropriate to be neutral. Even if you do not agree with advocating the acceptance of homosexuality, you have to be neutral and tell people that it is currently a controversial issue and you can't decide for them."

But Maureen Ong would rather
say:

"i don't want my children to say that oh, it's all right to go and experiment with homosexuality, to experiment with anal sex [why are these people to fixated with anal sex??], to experiment with virginity or the pill or even pre-marital sex. I'm  concerned. I'm a parent. It's shocking. How can this be done in our Singapore society?"

Now, how the hell do you experiment with virginity?! I must say Maureen Ong has very creative sexual ideas. Experiment with virginity. I've always thought you either have it or don't have it. What's there to experiment? And the pill. Swallow it or not. What experiment. Does she happen to think of crushing it into powder and applying them to her face as make-up?

But what is really disturbing here is that she might also be suggesting that other than homosexuality, using contraceptive pills is wrong too. Did she forget to say "experiment with condoms" too? Goodness. Homosexuality cannot, pill cannot, pre-marital sex cannot. And the word "even" tells us  that she seems to regard pre--marital sex even more seriously than homosexuality or the use of the pill. Which is fine if it's a personal choice. But why go around with the idea that everyone else must have the same values? This is exactly the sort of people I won't want in AWARE. To me, it's fine if people cannot accept homosexuality personally. But it's a different issue when people allow their personal moral values to affect their professional work. And I seriously don't know what a group of people so obsessed with homosexuality would really do for gender equality in Singapore. Tell women, "Either you don't have sex, or you have sex and get pregnant and give birth to babies. Don't use contraceptives. Don't abort. These are sinful. Don't . . ."? I won't be surprised if they do, seriously.


Obliged to Hate, We all must die
MEEK
[info]mollymeek

“I don't understand what has sparked this irrational fear of us . . . and what hatred.” One might imagine someone facing severe discrimination, such as a victim of homophobia, to say this. But in a moment of supremely palatable irony complete with a lingering bitter aftertaste in the mouth, the current President of AWARE, Josie Lau, is the one saying this. (The Straits Times, New exco gets death threats) It seems to this irrational blogger that some people have such an irrational love for hijacking that they would hijack even victimhood.


It also seems to me that some people have rather liberal interpretations of religious texts. On the one hand, they would be fixated with a selected verse or two about the permitted sexual behavior of homo sapiens; on the other hand, they would totally disregard a commandment about being truthful.


From what I remember, Josie Lau claimed that the AWARE coup was not premeditated. Really, it must be the will of a wise divine being—residing somewhere in the dark recess of someone's sunless heart—that a few women attending the same church happened to want to take up key positions in the executive committee in AWARE, and these few people happened to be voted in. One has got to believe in miracles. Then righteous mentor Dr. Thio Su Mien decides to confess that she has been urging women to challenge what she perceived to be AWARE's promotion of a homosexual agenda. Perhaps the same divine being appeared before some people and said, “Thou shalt not lie.”


Or perhaps the act of coming out of the homophobic closet is a calculated act, now that there is an Extraordinary General Meeting coming? If those who are suspicious of the agenda of the new executive committee of AWARE could get people together, so could they. In fact, they could mobilize even more people. Recall the time when people signed a petition to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code? Didn't some people manage to do the same thing and get even more people (rational or irrational) to petition against the repeal in the name of protecting their definition of marriage and family. Perhaps these people now believe that they need to defend their definition of equality for the benefit of Singapore. And what would work better than reminding like-minded (if “mind” is not an unfortunate misnomer here) people that they are under siege? Who really are the new members of AWARE, now that membership has shot up?

No one would disagree that the primary concern of AWARE has always been to promote gender equality, probably not even Dr. Thio Su Mien. But Dr. Thio would tell you that the old AWARE was promoting lesbianism. Which is to say that she thinks: if you happen to behave as if you are fine with lesbians when you are promoting gender equality, then you must be promoting a lesbian cause. Or perhaps one could say that one is suddenly obliged, in the world of Dr. Thio, to be against homosexuality, to be so wary of it that one cannot even screen a movie with a plot involving lesbians. Mandatory paranoia.


Any person of reasonable intelligence would likely find that any attempt to understand Dr. Thio's mentality to be as challenging as an attempt to chew a ball of tangle hair.


As far as I can see (but bear in mind that I'm irrational), the new exco of AWARE (or a few of its members anyway) are more interested in putting a stop to what they deem to be a homosexual agenda than in women's equality. Perhaps they would even go a step further and promote what one might (to learn from them) call a homophobic agenda. But, of course, it is not homophobia. These people love everyone, including lesbians. It is just that there is a need to protect the sacred institution of marriage as something heterosexuals (or perhaps bisexuals?) have an exclusive right to, is it not? And for this, one might also say that abortion is terrible. So is divorce. Or that gender roles contrary to what is prescribed by a particular religious text (or one interpretation of it) is abominable.


There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female. But perhaps there is lesbian or straight. There self-righteousness and decadence. There is heaven and hell, condemnation prior to judgement, redemption in idiocy, hypocritical love and sincere hatred. There is forgiveness and magnanimity, but rationality shuns them. Sin began with one woman and thanks to her we all must die. 


Tele-Metaphysics | Or: Journalist Concludes for Independent Committee
MEEK
[info]mollymeek
From Today:

Residents did not make complaints
Zul Othman
zul@mediacorp.com.sg

WHEN news of a seven-year-old girl’s four-storey fall through a broken railing first made headlines, many wondered why complaints from residents months earlier had gone unaddressed by the town council.

However, it has now transpired that neighbours other media had quoted as calling up the town council didn’t in fact make the calls. [Nonsense. They have stopped claiming that they made the calls. This doesn't mean that they really didn't. There's simply no proof that they did.] This is according to the independent committee appointed by the Tanjong Pagar Town Council to look into the incident.

The panel has completed interviewing all the parties involved, chairman Johnny Tan told Today, and the only party that maintains it had called up the authorities about the broken railing is the family of victim Siti Nur Aini. [One more time: just because people who do not maintain (initially claim, but later stop claiming) that they called up the authorities, it does not mean that they didn't do so. Perhaps they are not maintaining their claim because they do not want any real or perceived trouble.]

But the family is not certain when they placed the call, so tracing the records has not been possible. [And so this means that no one made the call?!?!? If no one remembers my existence, I don't exist. Why is tracing the records not possible anyway? Maybe someone can check the telecom company records to see if the family made a call to the Town Council on any occasion, and then check the records based on the dates found. Or if the telecom company has no such records, but the Town Councul has records of calls, it is still not really impossible to trace the records. Just plough through everything, no? Or check at least the December records since Siti Nur Aini's uncle, Mr. Muhammad Syukur Johari, claimed in March 2009 that he had informed the Town Council of the damaged railing three months before.*]

Added Mr Tan, principal partner of LT&T Architects and an accredited adjudicator: “At the moment, without any final conclusion, we have not done any assessment as to the accuracy of what the witnesses have said.” [Ah, I see. So who's making conclusions? Journalists?]

The committee — appointed by Town Council chairman Koo Tsai Kee last month — includes Mr K Anparasan, a lawyer and deputy managing partner at law firm KhattarWong, and Mr Teh Hee Seang, an engineer and senior adviser at T Y LIN International.

“We have interviewed all the people involved, investigated the inspection regime of the town council and are now in the process of analysing the information,” said Mr Tan. The report will be released to the town council by the end of next month. [Still in the process of analyzing the information? Bah! Local journalists are more efficient, I think!]

The Blangah Rise Primary School student’s grandfather, retiree Johari Mohd Siamu, told Today Siti was discharged from hospital on April 6 and is now “quite active”. She had suffered multiple fractures and bleeding in her abdomen from the fall on March 8. The medical bills were paid by the town council.

“She will be going for check-ups, but it looks like she will be going back to school on April 20,” said the 69-year-old.


------
*According to a March 18 report in The Straits Times, "Mr Muhammad Syukur Johari, had told the media that he informed the Town Council three months ago about the damaged railing, there were no records of such a call being made to its service provider, the Emergency Maintenance Service Unit (EMSU). The question: is it that they records could not be found (the Town Council's problem) or that the family could not remember when they made the call (read: "Not the Town Council's problem. Blame the family!")?


Home