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.

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!”

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? 

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.

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?]

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 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. 

It's not the grade that counts, silly. It's the minimum standard met before hawkers are allowed to operate that counts. If standards are so low that even a dirty stall can ace a hygiene examination, there is no point having that 'A'. On the other hand, if standards are so high that even a sterilized stall might score a 'B' because of other shortcomings, then there is nothing wrong with having a 'B' grade. (After all, it does seem to me that, for some strange reason, a C-grade hawker  can get an 'A' grade after his hawker center has been upgraded even though I have no reason to believe that his practices have changed.)

Nevertheless, the questions should really be what the B- and C-grade hawkers are lacking compared to their A-grade counterparts—and whether food safety is compromised at all in any way. The NEA grades hawkers based on hygiene, cleanliness and housekeeping. I don't know how a hawker is assessed for hygiene and housekeeping. Does the NEA seek the help of the ISD and send someone to hide somewhere and observe hawkers in action? Or can hawkers wayang whenever they are being assessed? What is “housekeeping”; why and how is it being assessed? 

Elsewhere in the ST forum, Dr. Hoe Wan Sin (who perhaps doesn't want any sin), says, “I am puzzled as to why official approval was given for the pro-euthanasia group, Exit International, to run a workshop here, considering that it promotes a subject that is against public policy.” Excuse me, but why can't a workshop that advocates something than runs contrary to public policy be held? Isn't this a . . . free country? And it's not as if a seditious workshop on civil disobedience is being held. Dr. Hoe's ultimate purpose of writing the letter is ultimately to say that euthanasia should not be legalized. So why pretend to be puzzled over the approval of the workshop?

In another letter regarding euthanasia, Kelvin Wong thinks that “[l]egalising euthanasia will lower our quality of life.” Whose quality of life would be affected? Really? When I'm euthanized, I think there wouldn't be any quality of life to speak of . . .

The title of Kelvin Wong's letter (which could have been invented by a journalist) is even better. “Euthanasia robs terminally ill and their loved ones of precious moments.” I would have thought that when something is given up voluntarily, the word “rob” should not be used.

Then there are what I think could be acts of journalistic rape. In a letter to the Forum, Ms. Yeo Gek Noi writes about the pay cuts that her company has implemented. She believes that “If employees are not represented by a union, there is one less hassle to deal with. If any employee is unhappy and resigns, the company saves more money because his workload can be spread out to the remaining staff. If a replacement is required, it will not be difficult to find one at a lower pay, now that so many people are looking for jobs.” However, the heading goes “Why SMEs resort to pay cuts”, which sounds as if Ms. Yeo was trying to explain or even justify why there are pay cuts in SMEs.

A Teo Kueh Liang who “read with concern” Ms. Yeo's letter has this to say: “The Government has implemented the Jobs Credit scheme and tax rebate incentives to help businesses and employers tide over this difficult period . . . However, some petty-minded, over-calculating and over-pessimistic employers still exploit such measures to cut staff pay or freeze increments and force employees to take unpaid leave.” I don't really see why the letter is given the heading, “Pay cuts are a fact of life, especially in a recession.” Couldn't the title have been “Employers should not reduce workers' benefits unnecessarily” or something?

The Streaks Times, April 16 2009

SINGAPORE: Singapore will treat protestors as terrorists, according to the police state's Dopey Minister (DPM), Mr. Wong Cant Sync. He confided to journalists of his party's widely circulated newsletter, The PAPer, that his party has been terrorized by protestors who keep breaking the law that curtails their right to protest. This latest move has disappointed avid protestors (or “troublemakers” according to The PAPer”).

"Singapore has a responsibility to ensure the safety of world leaders, such as those from America and China, from protestors when we meet later this year from the APEC Summit,” said Mr. Wong in an exclusive interview with The Streaks Times.

When it was pointed out that even his fellow politicians from communist countries might not even be averse to protests, DPM Wong retorted, “There are a lot of them coming, so Singapore will become a target for terrorists. Therefore, we have to take tough action against protestors and violent anarchists.”

“While there is clearly a need to prevent violence, could you please explain the logical link between potential terrorism and protests? And could you clarify if you think that protestors are the same as those whom you call violent anarchists and terrorists?” probed our puzzled Streaks Times journalists. In response, Mr. Wong sternly said, “Now, you are protesting the fact that Singapore is taking necessary steps to protect world leaders. Do you know that this attitude could result in the deaths of heads of state such as President Obama of America?” (The Streaks Times journalists has fled the country in fear.)

In a report by The PAPer, Mr. Wong is quoted reprimanding activists who engage in protests. “In Singapore, there is a small but irritating group of irresponsible people who want to engage in street protests. If they want change, they should not protest, but should do it the responsible and altruistic way like the new executive committee of AWARE.” Mr. Wong argued, “It is not as if there are no legal means of self-expression in Singapore. We have, for instance, taken the bold steps of liberalizing the Films Act to allow people to objectively make films to express their adoration for the government.”

Mr. Wong, who is also in charge of the Intelligence and Surveillance Department (ISD), world-renowned for being tougher on those guilty of political dissidents than on an alleged terrorist by the name of Mas Selamat, also highlighted new roles for his favorite department to The PAPer. “The ISD has a very important role to play and that is to maintain social cohesion now that Singapore is undergoing its deepest economic crisis ever. We have to make sure that our racial and religious harmony is not threatened,” said Mr. Wong without specifying how the ISD is going to maintain social cohesion or explaining what the economy has to do with racial and religious harmony.” 

So-called troublemakers contacted by The Streaks Times have expressed their disgust with not just DPM Wong's covert threats. One troublemaker who prefers to remain anonymous said, “It is already bad enough to take a ridiculously harsh stance against protests. It is worse that the minister tries to manipulate public sentiments by talking about terrorists and protestors in the same breath without any due consideration about peaceful protestors. It is despicable hypocrisy from the same people who have been claiming to free political space for years."

“It' reminds me of the time when I was a kid and the school bully stopped me from complaining about him, warning me, “Shut up or I will slap you!” and then telling my classmates that I had tried to extort money from him,” claimed another troublemaker.

.......

The Streaks Times . . . Baring All

The place was crowded and as we were boarding the train, the train and platform screen doors suddenly closed without warning. My left hand and bag were caught between the train doors while I was still standing on the platform.

I assumed the doors would reopen but that did not happen. I had to tug hard to extricate my hand and bag before the train and platform screen doors closed completely.

SMRT replies saying:

All SMRT train and platform screen doors are fitted with safety sensors that ensure all doors are closed and locked before a train is permitted to move off from the station. [Yes, but was there a glitch in the system during the particular incident provided by Ms Ng?]

The train officer will reopen the train doors [so the doors won’t open automatically?] if the sensor indicator shows that the doors are not fully closed. In Ms Ng's case, she had managed to pull in her hand and bag before the train doors were fully closed hence the indicator did not prompt our train officer to reopen the train doors.

Excuse me, but didn’t you say that if the train doors were not fully closed, it will be shown through the sensor indicator? Then you say that she pulled her hand out before the doors were fully closed, so the indicator did not tell the train officer to open the doors. Doesn’t this second statement seem to suggest that the doors had to be fully closed before the indicator would show the officer that something got stuck? (What? You want the doors to amputate her hand ah?)

Of course, perhaps there are two meanings of “fully closed”—the first being that the doors are fully closed with nothing between them, and the second being that the doors are fully closed with something stuck between them. This should have been made very clear and when Ms Ng said that her pulled her hand out before the doors were “closed completely”, she was clearly using the first meaning. It seems obvious that Ms Ng’s hand was caught between the doors. So the explanation by SMRT seems lacking. I would assume that the moment anything is caught between the doors, the indicator should indicate to the train officer to open the door—if the doors do not open automatically (why don’t they?).

Hand Caught in Train Door (March 5 2009)

DO MRT train doors and platform screen doors have automatic sensors? If a person or object is caught between the doors, do they continue to close or do they reopen?

My experience suggests that safety measures at train stations are inadequate.

Last Saturday afternoon, I was waiting to board an eastbound train at City Hall MRT Station.

The place was crowded and as we were boarding the train, the train and platform screen doors suddenly closed without warning. My left hand and bag were caught between the train doors while I was still standing on the platform.

I assumed the doors would reopen but that did not happen. I had to tug hard to extricate my hand and bag before the train and platform screen doors closed completely.

Does the train driver not monitor the boarding situation before and while closing the doors? What if a small child had been caught between the doors?

Does this also escape the attention of staff in the station control room, where the CCTV monitoring system could have shown what happened on the platform?

I reported the incident to a station manager, who told me the doors have automatic sensors and they would reopen if an object is stuck between them. He was unable to explain how the incident occurred.

Charmaine Ng (Miss)

Hand caught in door: Don’t rush, advises SMRT

I REFER to the online letter "Hand caught in train door" by Ms Charmaine Ng (March 6).

We are sorry to learn of Ms Ng's experience on Feb 28. All SMRT train and platform screen doors are fitted with safety sensors that ensure all doors are closed and locked before a train is permitted to move off from the station.

The train officer will reopen the train doors if the sensor indicator shows that the doors are not fully closed. In Ms Ng's case, she had managed to pull in her hand and bag before the train doors were fully closed, hence the indicator did not prompt our train officer to reopen the train doors.

Our investigation also showed that our staff at Raffles Place MRT station had promptly attended to Ms Ng's complaint and reassured her that the incident would be investigated. [Your investigation shows that you promised to investigate? Haha, this sounds quite funny.]

We wish to take this opportunity to remind passengers not to rush into the train when doors are closing. Before the doors are closed, a chime, door closing announcement and a buzzer are played to alert passengers of the impending closure of the doors. As a visual reminder, there are also red flashing lights above platform screen doors at underground stations. [But Ms Ng said that the doors closed without warning.]

Bernadette Low (Ms)

Manager, Corporate Marketing and Communications

SMRT Corporation Ltd

Yet, why does Molly seem to be harping on the issue despite her suggestion that people should stop harping on the issue? How hypocritical. Apologies in advance then. While much has been said about why Chee Hong Tat is wrong to think that it is wrong to promote the learning of dialects, perhaps what really needs to be read from the particular letter he wrote is what it shows about Singapore in general. After all, bloggers who are fierce proponents of free speech should not deprive others of their entitlement to have an opinion and state it, no matter how silly it sounds.

It might be fruitful to consider what Chee's assumptions are. Clearly, Chee is not stopping anyone from learning dialects. He just thinks that we should not promote dialects and the reason he gives is that most people (or, as some other might say, lesser mortals) already have problems learning just English and Mandarin, and having to learn a dialect on top of English and Mandarin is going to compromise their mastery over English and Mandarin. Even if such a claim is wrong, perhaps the concern is genuine and justifiable. Do we want our kids to take a Cantonese Exam in the PSLE?

The last question above, of course, is a trick question and it gets to the heart of Chee's assumptions. The question to ask is whether the promotion of dialect acquisition has to become a national policy. Does it have to be a compulsory subject in the curriculum just because there are agencies advocating the learning of dialects? Of course not. To look at it this way perhaps reveals a rather disturbing way of thinking about Singaporeans. Are Singaporeans mere units to be managed by all-encompassing policies? One hopes not. But if Chee did not imagine that advocating the learning of dialects is the same as implementing a policy that affects all Singaporeans, why would it be foolish to promote the learning of dialects? As he says, “[t]here are linguistically gifted individuals who can handle multiple languages but Singapore's experience over 50 years of implementing the bilingual education policy has shown that most people find it extremely difficult to cope with two languages when they are as diverse as English and Mandarin.” Even if he is right, so what? Agencies can promote the learning of dialects, but not everyone is obliged to pick up a dialect just because it is promoted.

To examine Chee's claims further, one notes that he goes on to argue that English is our working language while Mandarin helps us engage China. Regardless of whether it is true that Mandarin helps us in our dealings with people from China, Chee's approach is utilitarian. If we advocate the learning of a language, make sure it serves a purpose―an economic purpose, to be exact. There is no need to care about the appreciation of a language for its own sake, for its richness, for how it helps us imagine the world in different ways. If we advocate a language, make sure we don't just dabble with it a little and be able to speak a little of it. Perhaps that is why he does not see that dialects can be offered as a third language elective to students who are able to cope, or even to adults who simply want to learn something new. No, promoting the learning of dialects is wrong, period.

Or perhaps, ultimately, the issue is a political issue. Who says that the policy of teaching English and Mandarin to Chinese students in school has to be implemented at the expense of dialects? Who says that just because the government adopts the policy of teaching Mandarin as a subject in schools, radio and TV stations cannot broadcast programs in dialects? So much so that they can be fined for doing so . . . until SARS came along to show that there is one group of people left out―the group that knows only dialects and has never had a chance to learn Mandarin or English. And suddenly, it became necessary to broadcast certain public service announcements in dialects as well. (No, I don't think it caused anyone to fail Mandarin in school.)

The eradication of dialects can be seen as a calculated move meant to efface difference. It is a far-reaching act of social engineering. If we consider this, then the stakes are changed. Whether people can cope with learning dialects or not is no longer the issue. Certainly, people are easier to manage when they are more alike than different. And when it comes to language, when everyone speaks the same language. Erase. Get rid of different affiliations and alignments. Mould new generations of people through the education system. Deprive the uneducated of the old generation―the generation that witnessed a political world that had possibilities beyond the PAP―that you cannot mould of a voice.

You can have a Japanese movie in dual sound on TV, but a Cantonese movie from Hong Kong can only be dubbed into Mandarin. Why? In Singapore, dialects have never been treated as just languages or just languages that could prevent people from mastering Mandarin. Look at what sort of nonsense the government has spouted about dialects. From Cantonese in Singapore:

- Dialects are vulgar, polluting and associated with the uneducated; Mandarin is refined and part of the literary culture. Mr. Rabim Ishak, then Senior Minister of State (Foreign Affairs) noted the vulgarity associated with dialects in a speech where he noted that he learnt swear words in Cantonese, Hokkien, Teochew and Hainanese whereas in Mandarin, the swear words were less common and was a language for the refined people” (ST, 11 July 1980). [Hilarious Stereotyping]

- Dialects are divisive, fragmentary and a major cause of miscommunication and misunderstanding; Mandarin is the language of unity, cohesion and a bridge between the different members of the Chinese Community. Goh Chok Tong, then Second Defence and Health Minister, pointed out at the opening ceremony of the SMC in his constituency that “The spoken and written form in Mandarin are in unison and do not create problems, unlike dialects where one word can have several meanings depending on the dialect it is spoken in” (ST, 9 June 1981). [But people did know more than one dialect and people can learn both dialects and Mandarin. They are not mutually exclusive.]

- Dialects are a burden on the young, forcing them to learn two languages when they go to school; Mandarin facilitates academic success. Lee Kuan Yew argued that “dialect will hinder the learning of the child if he uses dialect … to speak dialect with your child is to ruin his future” (ST, 17 November 1980). [Shucks. I think I did speak a dialect when I was a kid. But hey, it is only detrimental to my studies because the policy is designed to deprive me of a chance to use dialects in school in the first place. We're going in circles.  . . . What happens to kids to learn French, German, etc though?]

- Dialects have no value, neither culturally nor economically; Mandarin is linked to a 5000-year old history, rich in culture and bears immense economic potential with the opening up of China’s market. Lee Kwan Yew stressed that unlike Mandarin which “has cultural value and will also have economic value twenty years later,” dialects “have no economic value in Singapore. Their cultural value is also very low” (ST, 17 October 1980). [Must everything have a value? Even if so, what value a language has depends on how the users use it.]

- Dialects represent the past and are primitive; Mandarin is the future. Lee Kwan Yew in a television forum argued, “Mandarin is a developing language; on the other hand, dialect is a stagnant language” (ST, 10 January 1980). [Yeah, don't ever learn Latin too. Or you will die.]

By emphasizing the pragmatic aspects of the current policy of bilingualism, Chee is forcing in the idea that the particular way the policy of bilingualism is manifested is non-political. But things are not so simple. And he might find it necessary to do so firstly because the government does not favor the presence of differences that dialects could bring about (the reason it suppressed dialects to begin with), and, secondly, it is an attempt to suppress the history of the suppression of dialects itself (a political move) by pretending that it is really a practical matter of ensuring that people would be able to master English and Mandarin. And perhaps this explains the harsh language (“stupid”). It is perhaps neither plain tactlessness or obstinate idiocy that motivated the letter, so why keep on harping on how wrong and tactless Chee is? Look at the unsaid motivations behind the letter instead.

Send this to the ST Forum 13

[Dear Molly, If the ST doesn't publish my letter again, please publish it in your lesser blog.]

Government Should Promote Bloggers Selectively

The problem of new media is not new to Singapore and has cropped up a number of times over the past few years, ever since bloggers who thought a tad too highly of their intellectual and critical abilities took to criticizing the sound, well-intended, even if unpopular, policies of the government, slamming the government for every single move it makes. As such the moderation of the Internet is essential.

I do not refer to the to a person or entity conferred the power to delete comments of posts when I use the term “moderation”. Instead, moderation, like the old cliché about beauty, should come from within and is most effective as such. I say so because, given the number of unreasonable anti-government (and therefore wrong) blog and forum posts in the Internet, no single body will be able to go around erasing what others write. But we know that moderation is essential because we live in a conservative society where people are modern, modest and their temperaments moderate. 

Thankfully, there is no need for one person or entity to go around the Internet and censor everyone. This is because, if we can turn every reader into a moderator, then there is no real need to implement any perceivable form of moderation. If everyone is able to identify an unreasonable criticism of the government as nonsense, then there is no need to stop anyone from making such a criticism. In an ideal world, every reader that might chance into a view that is not moderate will automatically reject that view, dismiss it, treat it with contempt. As such, it is important to ensure that the cognitive infrastructure of Singaporeans is built to resist attacks from the radicals. Singaporeans should be made to develop an instinctive aversion towards radical viewpoints that are more than two shades lighter or darker than the what is moderate and government-endorsed. Additionally, if these sort of Singaporeans decide to blog, they would write proper posts that criticize the government within reasonable limits instead of going overboard and upsetting the government. This will result in a Singapore where public discourse is kept within the limits of responsibility and rationality. Everyone can have a different opinion, but each of these opinions should stem from one thinking pattern or rationality, and those who adopt a different thinking pattern will fall out of the realm of comprehensibility. The general populace will throw them out of the window faster than their maids have a chance to fall out of windows.

As it is, Singapore is far from the ideal state I have described above. I advise the government to identify a class of exemplary critics (who can include proponents as well) and promote them aggressively but insidiously, so that a desirable thinking pattern would become entrenched in Singapore society and enhance the constructiveness of criticisms. Blogs bordering on the absurd such as that one by a bimbotic feline creature will eventually be weeded out.

Lee See Nao (Mr.)

**********

Dear See Nao,

Moderated is not the same as moderate. And what was that final reference to a bimbotic feline creature for? 

With sighs,

Molly

On the role of a news broadcaster like Channel NewsAsia, which is marking its 10th year on-air, Mr Lee said there is a need for a channel which is not wearing what he termed "Western spectacles".

He said: "We [who?] felt there was scope for perspective from Asian eyes. Not to put over an ideology or a doctrine, but just present the facts, less the Western spectacles. And I think that is what Channel NewsAsia has tried to do and with some reasonable success." (CNA, “Government building capabilities to tap on new media at next GE”)

The Prime Minister seems to think that presenting news from an Asian perspective is also to present the facts without bias whereas presenting news from a Western perspective is, one supposes, biased. Perhaps he thought it was funny to say things like that, but I have not heard a laugh, not even from myself. Not all instances of irony contain humor, after all.

Equally bizarre, however, is the way the Prime Minister seems to be persisting in making a certain distinction between traditional media (mainstream media, as some call it) and the new media. He thinks (or claims that the traditional is a source of credible and neutral information, which seems, again, to suggest that anything seen through his lenses must surely be objective and true whereas anything seen through other lenses are distorted. I would have thought that only entities such as God would be in a position to make such claims, but we learn something new every day. 

And after making the distinction between traditional and new media, he makes seems to preach one universal ideal for both traditional and new media:

"Well, there is a place called the Wild West and there are other places which are not so wild. And the new media - some of it are Wild West and anything goes and people can say anything they want, and tomorrow take a completely contrary view. . . . But even in the Internet, there are places which are more considered, more moderated where people put their names down and identify themselves. . . . (CNA)

While PM Lee makes a seemingly open-minded and fair remark (there's a place for for all the different sorts of information!), one notes that he seems to favor the supposedly "considered, more moderated" sources of information where "people put their names down and identify themselves." But I thought his good colleague, Dr. Vivial Balakrishnan just clarfied that anonymity is an illusion and therefore we cannot just say anything we want? Are we back to the old story that anonymity = irresponsibility = reckless = bad? Whereas people who pull punches when criticizing (or pull no punches when praising) the PAP-government = more thoughtful = good?

But even before the applause for PM Lee's most intelligent pun (Wild West and Western spectacles) dies out, Molly has to pour cold water and suggest that the geographical location of the Wild West depends on where you reside. Just like how PM Lee's spectacles are not spectacles no matter how thick they are, his Wild West is surely objective, truthful and moderated. Maybe the traditional is the Wild West of the PAP where journalists are all ready to pull out their guns and shoot those disease-spreading bacteria otherwise known as bloggers and the sheriff polices the town riding a kangaroo. These are forms of moderation too. After all, one minister can warn people that they cannot say whatever they want on the Net one day, and, the next day, his superior says that people can do so, the next. (But I must be twisiting their words to suit my point, the terrible unidentified bimbo that I am. PM Lee did not say that you will not be hunted down and prosecuted when you say whatever you want. So there's no contradiction. Yet, surely my willingness to confess that I am spouting nonsense should give me some credit in the Tamed Tame East?)

Nevertheless, PM Lee is poising his government (actually his party, if we are talking about elections, but who really thinks there is a meaningful distinction?) as one ready to make use of the new media—at the next General Elections (whenever that is going to be). Before one even considers how the PAP is going to make use of new media, perhaps one should ask why it would even make use of the new media. Why the General Elections in particular? Presumably, the answer is that the new media would help the party secure some votes. For why else would it be relevant to the Elections. Thus proceeds the PAP with its usual bravado, positioning itself as cutting-edge and willing to keep up with the times while never forgetting the traditional. 

But it is obvious that media are just media. Am I going to be more inclined to support the PAP because Lee Kuan Yew goes on Facebook and his son posts youtube videos? I doubt so. I might get a little excited if MM Lee twitters to tell us that he is following the footsteps of his daughter-in-law, Ho Ching, who has stepped down as the CEO of Temasek Holdings, but that is probably about all. The biggest mistake the PAP can make with regard to new media politics is to think one or more of the following:

1. That the PAP is threatened by new media.

2. That if it, too, makes use of the power of the new media, they would be able to counter dissenting views.

The new media poses the PAP no threat. Media are just media. A medium is something through which something else is transmitted. All media are in themselves unbiased. There is nothing pro-government about newspapers and nothing anti-government about blogs. It is really the content that  is transmitted through media that makes a difference. The new media in Singapore is so often associated with alternative opinions, with what the PAP considers to be biased and distorted, not because the Internet does not like Lee Hsien Loong's face. It is the sort of messages transmitted through the new media such as blogs that gives the new media such a reputation. 

Just because the PAP decides to make use of new media too does not do anything to change the reasons why they are gaining popularity as a source of alternative viewpoints. The government's stranglehold on traditional media, or its insistence that the traditional media be reserved for what is deems to be the unbiased truth (truth in its favor) perhaps contributes directly to the use of new media to disseminate alternative viewpoints that would otherwise simply be limited to private conversations as well as to the popularity of new media when one is searching for alternative sources of information. Does anyone really care whether the PAP is going to have yet more sources of disseminating its so-called unbiased truth? Is it going to make a difference whether the PAP is posting youtube videos of its election rallies in addition to having The Straits Times report on its rallies without “Western spectacles”?

In fact, if the PAP attempts to gain a larger share of the new media pie by resorting to fear-mongering and legal maneuvers, it risks discrediting itself to those who are already tired of the relentless propaganda and social-engineering that goes on in our society while those who are already brainwashed (so to speak) have already been brainwashed. The PAP's use of new media might even facilitate click-happy critics. Put up a video and bloggers can link to it and expose the hollowness of the message within (as they are already doing with mainstream media articles), or create a parody of it. Earnestly non-partisan websites could gain popularity for providing links to both PAP new media content and those that critique such content vehemently, possibly resulting in a more politically aware public.

Of course, not everyone would believe that the PAP would let the new media be a level playing field if it could help it, if it could clamp down on new media content the way it did the various newspapers in Singapore that once existed. Already, Vivian Balakrishnan have emphasized that bloggers can be identified and prosecuted even if they seem to be anonymous. (He could very well have said, in a more positive light, that people are free to post their comments as long as they are within legal limits, but he did not put his words this way.) The proposed amendments to the Films Act might very be an attempt to limit the exposure activities of opposition parties could get through new media. So the more pressing issue is not whether the PAP uses new media (who says it has not anyway?), but whether it would attempt to monopolize new media as it has monopolized traditional media (even if to an unavoidably lesser degree). 

But, eventually, it is up to Singaporeans whether they want to continue lapping up nonsensical contradictions such as the statement about Western spectacles. Sadly, I am not too sure how much confidence one could have in most victims of brainkill , who would buy into anything coming out of the mouth of Power, the same mouth that ironically rattles about rationality, reason, balance, and lots of other ideals that have been contaminated in the absurdity that we call our nation.