To Fix a Mocking Peasant

The Fundie Agenda

2009-05-10T13:13:21Z

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

2009-05-09T11:16:33Z

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

2009-04-25T09:18:53Z

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

2009-04-24T09:46:08Z

“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

2009-04-16T13:37:01Z

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!")?

ST-upidity Forum

2009-04-16T12:52:26Z

For the record, Ace Kindred Cheong who thinks that “running naked from one hostel to the next is something all schools and universities must prevent” because it “can lead to other crimes” also believes that hawkers “should have an 'A' grade (for hygiene) before they are allowed to operate.” (No wonder he's called Ace.)

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?

Terrorizing Protestors

2009-04-16T10:12:34Z

Minister Terrorized By Protestors

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

Do train doors close without warning?

2009-03-21T10:03:44Z

Ms Charmain Ng wrote the the ST Forum relating an incident in which her hand and bag were caught between MRT train and platform doors:

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?).

What Ms Ng and the public is interested in knowing is probably whether there was a glitch in the system and whether it is well-maintained. One point that SMRT seems to have failed to address is Ms Ng’s claim that the doors closed “without warning”. We know that an alarm would go off before the doors close. If Ms Ng’s account was accurate, then it would seem that there was a glitch in the system, at least where “train doors are closing” alarm is concerned. And from her account, it would seem that there was a very short but significant amount of time after her hand was caught between the doors: “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.” Assuming that Ms Ng’s account is reliable, it seems quite possible that she actually “waited” before pulling her hand out instead of pulling it out immediately after it was caught between the doors. So was the indicator able to indicate that something was caught between the doors?

The public does need replies that state what should have happened as though it represents what actually happened. But it seems that it’s the trend in Singapore these days.

****************************************************************************************************

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.

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

Illegal Immigration Poster

2009-03-17T15:07:08Z

Letter to ST Forum

THIS poster warning against illegal entry of foreigners into Singapore displayed at the train platform at the Little India MRT station is effective in that it is written in a language the workers [what workers?] can understand.

But the visual may create a wrong impression of the manner in which the Home Team handles such law breakers. Tourists who often use the MRT may misinterpret the visual of an illegal immigrant, handcuffed and about to be confined in a cage at the rear of a lorry, as an inhumane act.

A picture of an official vehicle, such as a police or Immigration and Checkpoints Authority van would create a more proper image of the Home Ministry's professionalism, instead of a lorry.

Paul Antony Fernandez

Perhaps Paul Fernandez is right that a more appropriate picture could have been used. Perhaps some might find it a little strange that there are posters that warn against illegal entry into Singapore, especially if they are going to be seen by those who have already entered. But I suppose over-stayers (those who have entered through the proper channels but have not have their permits renewed) are the target audience and it's not meant to dissuade anyone from trying to swim their way into Singapore illegally.

Nevertheless, what wrong impression is there to create? How does Singapore treat illegal immigrants? Paul Fernandez is worried that tourists might, quite stupidly, take the poster quite literally and think that we keep illegal immigrants in cages. But of course we don't do that. We only send them to jails (where each prisoner might have less space than depicted in the picture) and we torture them. Yes, we do torture illegal immigrants. We call it caning.

Will reality project a better image of Singapore to tourists than a poster that is not meant to be taken at face value? Though it's not about image, really. It's about how humane we are, isn't it? Oh but this is Singapore. It's not about being humane, but about . . . I don't know what. Being ruthless but ineffectual?

Delicious Piece of Nonsense

2009-03-16T02:17:59Z

Have been too lazy to blog, but this ST forum letter is such a irresistible work of rubbish (written by a kindred spirit) that one is obliged to record it down somewhere:

Streaking 'fun' can lead to other crimes

After reading last Thursday's report, "Undergrad streakers expelled from NUS hostel", I would like to remind students that NUS stands for "National University off Singapore", and not "Naked University of Singapore".

I have nothing against drinking and having fun. However, running naked from one hostel to the next is something all schools and universities [all schools in conservative little Singapore, you mean? If not, please forward your advice to UC Berkeley (link Not safe for work).] must prevent. Such "fun" can lead to other [the word "other" is noted] crimes.

Ace Kindred Cheong

I suppose Ace might advise universities to clamp down on students who download mp3s (if it has not already been done). Cos it might lead to other crimes such as murder and rape. Given the severity of the issue, the students should be expelled from the university. At least if they commit suicide after that, the university can say "No, they are not NUS students. Don't say NUS stress students until they commit suicide."

Oh yes, Ace. A piece of advice: please make sure that you don't study in world-class universities like UC Berkeley. :) Just go study in top dunnowhat world-class NUS.

Dialects: Stupidity vs. Politics

2009-03-10T08:27:45Z

Perhaps we should stop harping on how wrong Chee Hong Tat is in the letter to the Straits Times Forum in which he claims that it is “stupid” (slightly more tactfully phrased as “foolish” in the title, perhaps thanks to diligent Straits Times editors). As the great mortals out there have advised, local bloggers should try to moderate themselves and people are surely going overboard when they embark on wild distortions of Chee's remark, claiming that he had said that only stupid people learn dialects. Truth is, of course, he only claimed that it was “stupid . . . to advocate the learning of dialects”, not that people who know dialects are stupid. (See, Molly is being a responsible blogger for once and she's pointing out how terrible her fellow bloggers are. There's hope for Singapore yet. If only everyone would just be sweet and reasonable.)

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.

Bilingual Education

2009-03-09T10:03:55Z

"There 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." (Chee Hong Tat)

Singapore has had bilingual education policy for 50 years?? I thought we only started bilingual education years after we became independent... Anyone can confirm?

See Nao Thinks Gahmen Should Promote Bloggers

2009-02-27T11:45:29Z

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

My Spectacles are Not Spectacles: New Media, Old Strategies and Stale Messages

2009-02-23T15:48:56Z

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.

Seditious Bloggers Charged to Instill Fear?

2009-02-22T13:38:01Z

According to Vivian Balakrishnan,

Anonymity in cyberspace is an illusion. You will remember in 2007, we prosecuted three persons under the Sedition Act because of the blogs they put up which denigrated the religion of one of our communities in Singapore. The reason we did that was to send the message that your words have an impact; if need be, we can identify you, and if we have to, we will be prepared to prosecute you. (CNA)

Ah, what a beautiful twist!

Once upon a time, bloggers lacked credibility because they hid behind the infamous cloaks of anonymity, exploiting the immunity from persecution and prosecution they offer to inflame and spread lies. The righteous slammed the anonymous for being anonymous, which was seen as an indication of the unwillingness to be held responsible for what they write (the willingness to be held responsible being a virtue of the highest order which even evil bandits could possess).

But times must have changed. No longer is there such a thing as anonymity (never mind the fact that few anonymous people really believed that there was ever true anonymity, with diligent intelligence departments and all working round the clock to ensure that people can all be made to be responsible even if they are also labeled irresponsible).

But what is fascinating here is perhaps also the implicit suggestion that seditious bloggers were charged not necessarily because they did something wrong but because the people who charged them (the “we” of Balakrishnan’s statement, but who, really?) wanted to send across a message to the public to instill fear, to remind the public that they can be prosecuted. (Nonsense! Of course there is no such admission. For no one is admitting that prosecution can be used as a tool of political hegemony.)

But wait a minute? Who . . . were charged in 2007 under the Sedition Act? Being bimbotic, Molly does not remember. And her research only tells her about the 2005, 2006 and 2008 cases. The only year with three people being charged with Sedition was 2005. But aiyah, bimbos’ research is limited to Wikipedia, so maybe it’s not reliable. It could not have been possible that people were charged without the public being informed. For, remember, the prosecution was meant to send a message to the public (as much as or perhaps more than it is to punish the three people for doing naughty things), so of course the media would have to cooperate and report the issue and make it as hot as possible so that everyone would get the message.

(And what’s the purpose of sending the message? To tell people that they should know when to shut up. Though, of course, the clever bit of the trick is that people won’t know when to shut up and to play safe, they might just shut up altogether.)

Off Topic

2009-02-21T07:18:35Z

In Memory of J H

There are endings, different sorts of endings. Stories come to an end. So does life. And friendships too.

Stories may end happily or tragically, regretfully. Life, at best, ends peacefully; or for some, in relief. As for friendships, they need not be happy or relieving, but, like life, they can peter out peacefully.

For life, one might believe in reincarnation. For stories, one might not seal all the holes in a story, so that it might perhaps take another life of its own, through sequels and fanfic. Not everything has to be that absolute. So why consign anything to eternal damnation?

Memories do not have to suffer damnation. Neither do the possibilities of the future.

Perhaps we will one day be happier people.

Singapore now has a heart! (How about acquiring a mind next?)

2009-02-18T14:49:59Z

Man saves woman who tried to kill herself.

Man gets injured in the process.

Man "complains" that hospital charges him $90 although he was performing a heroic act. (Or rather, the ST tried to spin the story into something worthy of The New Paper.)

Someone decided to "reimburse" the man.

ST reports: "Singapore has a heart after all."

Several readers of The Straits Times offered to foot the $90 medical bill on behalf of accidental Dutch hero Filip Lou after reading about his story in the papers on Tuesday.
But one Singaporean beat everyone to it.

(Don't say Molly is cynical hah, but did the person have to show his IC or passport when he offered to reimburse the heroic man or reveal his nationality in some way? Otherwise, how we know he is a Singaporean?)

In any case, one person does something and . . . you conclude: Singapore has a heart???!!! (Whatever that is supposed to mean.)

Reminds me of this one that went "It gets better and better in Singapore, says maid".

Demented | Defended: Letters from the Madhouse

2009-02-16T16:13:55Z

Dear Molly,

Could you please help me? I was asked what I would defend. Frankly, I don’t know. I am single. I hate my job. And I’ve sent my ageing parents to JB? I don’t even feel like living. Do you have an answer for me? Thanks.

Auntie Agonized

Dear Auntie Agonized,

Defend something you don’t already have. Or at least your right to fight for it. Or defend your right to migrate (even to JB). All the best.

Molly

……………………………

Dear Molly Jie Jie,

Uncle See Nao says you are very helpful, so I’ve come asking for help. My teacher asked me, “What will you defend?” I wasn’t sure how to answer, so ‘cher said, “How about your favorite toy?” I thought ‘cher was joking, so I said, “Siao ah, defend toy for what? More important to defend myself.” Then ‘cher scolded me. What did I do wrong?

Lee Boh Nao

Boh Nao,

Listen to Molly Jie Jie’s advice. Stop hanging out with that uncle of yours. There’s no such thing as defending yourself. You sacrifice yourself. Or simply just die for the sake of things like toys. That’s life. Don’t be selfish and stop whining.

Molly Jie Jie

……………………………

Molly,

I’m an NS-man. You know, I heard that there might be a possible conflict of interest if war breaks out with Malaysia and some of our soldiers have Malaysian relatives. I think, then, it’s very dangerous to send our old parents to JB nursing homes. If war breaks out with Malaysia, how? Wait they hold our parents hostage how?

Concerned Soldier

Concerned Soldier

Got freak election results, how? You might be asked to do real work for once. You worry too much. Just serve and . . . youknowwhat.

Molly

……………………………

Hi Molly,

I was asked, “What will you defend?” I’m a lawyer and I defend people who have been sued for defamation. So I replied, “Chee Soon Juan next, perhaps.” I was slammed. I was giving a truthful answer!

Attacked Lawyer

Attacked Lawyer,

Orbie Good!!! Who ask you to twist the question and anyhow answer? If you had answered “Singapore”, “Pokemon” or even “Dildo”, it would have been fine. Truthful answer indeed. Tsk. Tsk. Tsk.

Molly

……………………………

Hi there!

What will you defend?

S. Tate

S. Tate,

Against you and up yours.

Molly.

……………………………

ST Article

Feb 16, 2009

25 years of Total Defence

Marking Total Defence Day

This year's campaign asks question: What will you defend?

By Jermyn Chow

SINGAPOREANS were yesterday reminded of their role in defending the country through several events held islandwide to mark Total Defence Day.

Sirens wailed at 12.05pm to remind all citizens that the peace today can become violent war tomorrow.

A memorial service was held at the War Memorial Park in Beach Road to remember the thousands killed during the Japanese Occupation of Singapore in World War II.

Over at Suntec City, Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean launched the Total Defence 25 campaign.

In its 25th year, the annual drive aims to familiarise people with the five aspects of total defence - psychological, social, economic, civil and military defence.

This year, the campaign 'gets personal' with the tag-line question: What will you defend?

Mr Teo, evoking the question, said the answers each person gives, ranging from a treasured toy to something abstract like one's way of life, will be different.

But ultimately, the answers will make a tapestry of 'collective dreams and hopes' that Singaporeans deem important enough to them to fight for, he said.

'At the core of these hopes and dreams are the shared values that make them possible...These do not change, and they inextricably link the defence of what is mine to that of yours and others.

'Defending the peace and security of Singapore is thus the foundation that allows for everything else that you and I build and cherish.'

DEFENCE MINISTER TEO ON WHAT'S WORTH FIGHTING FOR

What will you defend?

'For the young, it could be their favourite toy or playground. For others, it is their school, a neighbourhood they grew up in, a way of life...
'A favourite toy is not just an object, it represents what daddy gave me, an expression of love and bonding. A way of life is not just a concept, it represents a totality of experiences and relationships that make us what we are.'
What will I defend?
'Some of you may be wondering what I will defend. I have visited many countries and lived in several for a period of time. Nothing beats the feeling of getting on that plane and heading home. There is no other place that I could ever call home. I will defend Singapore - a home where my family, our families, and future generations can live in peace and realise their aspirations together.'

Sg Gahmen, Thanks for Cheaper Health Care in Johor

2009-02-10T19:55:33Z

Khaw Boon Wan makes a “suggestion” (as The Straits Times calls it) that Singaporeans could, in a bid to minimize their expenses, consider staying in nursing homes. Sylvia Lim and Low Thia Kiang criticized the idea, with Lim saying that Khaw’s suggestion reflected on the affordability of Singapore’s health care services. Low, on the other hand, commented, “'Is the Minister suggesting that Singaporeans who cannot afford medical treatment or step-down care here should now consider such facilities in Johor? If so, is the minister 'outsourcing the Government's responsibility to provide affordable health care service to Malaysia.” (The Straits Times)

Khaw then accused Low of twisting his words, explaining that his suggestion was not meant for the poor in Singapore but for middle-income Singaporeans: “I'm not saying that if you are poor I will put you in an ambulance, send you across the Causeway to a Johor nursing home. [Duh, of course. That would be outright political suicide. But what does the fact that you bring up the option instead of telling us what ideas you have to enhance the affordability of health care locally suggest to us about you? Maybe you do have a good idea or two about it, but it's not mentioned in the news article I read. If so, please go and sue The Straits Times.]That is not what I said and please don't twist my words.” (ST)

Then come two points in the report which I can’t totally make sense of when put together:

1. 'Everybody can afford health care in Singapore whether acute care or long-term care,' said Mr Khaw.

2. The suggestion was aimed at middle-income families who need to pay for the care themselves. It gives them choice. 'I just wanted to point out to Singaporeans that there are options like this,' Mr Khaw said.

If everyone can afford health care in Singapore, does it mean that it’s soooo dirt cheap over in Johor that its health care is more affordable than affordable?

I’m reminded of reports following the NKF scandal a few years ago of Singaporeans going to Malaysia for renal dialysis because they it was too expensive for them locally. Perhaps the issue is what is meant by “affordable”. As a totally invented example, is it affordable for a low-income individual who earns $800 a month to pay $500 for health care services? (After all, the $300 left is roughly what those surviving on public assistance get.) Maybe Molly is guilty of twisiting words too? Maybe "can afford (health care)" does not necessarily mean "afforable"? Molly might be able to afford that branded $1000 bikini if she earns $1300 a month, but it doesn't mean that she finds it afforadable.

Of course, the issue is not with the poor. Khaw is simply pointing out an option for the middle-income, not the poor (whatever the difference is). Are middle-income families going to be so stretched that they have to look for cheaper alternatives abroad? Is there anything done locally to help them with the costs? But how could I say that? As The Straits Times reports, “The cost of nursing home care will always be more expensive in Singapore, as doctors and nurses are paid more, and construction cost is also higher.” (Yeah, but does this mean that health care cannot be subsidized further so that the difference is narrower? But this is a seditious suggestion that is going to cause Singapore to go bankrupt.)

I’m reminded of this Michael Moore film on the health care in America, Sicko. He took a few people over to Cuba for a much, much cheaper alternative. The point was that America’s system has failed Americans. Maybe Moore could help Singaporeans out a little. Bring them to Johor. But of course, it would in no way point to any deficiencies in the Singapore system.

Funny thing is, I have no idea why Khaw is talking about the option to go to nursing homes in Johor in the Parliament. He says it’s globalization and it’s already happening with people going to Johor for cheaper medicine. Yes, so why on earth are you bringing it up in Parliament where I thought the focus should be on how to change or improve things within Singapore. Are we supposed to be grateful to the Singapore government that there’s a cheaper option . . . in Malaysia? Those sick people Moore brought to Cuba should have been grateful to the American government.

So the following comment is puzzling: “By allowing the flexibility of consumers walking across the Causeway... they benefit. I don't think we should constrain them from doing so.” What did Khaw mean by “allow”? It’s not as if he could allow or disallow it. (Maybe if Molly marries a rich angmoh overseas one day, she would have to thank the government for "allowing" her to find a foreigner husband and for not constraining her from doing so. And for reminding her that such an option exists. Even though people are already doing the same thing.)

And who on earth is saying that Singapore should be stopped/constrained from going to Johor for cheaper alternatives? Other than the government over there perhaps. Now, who's the bona fide king in the world of word-twisting?

Subterfuge and Survival

2009-02-08T10:48:09Z

The story, as infused with wisdom as before, that people should not expect a painless solution for the recession, though the story makes it sound as though people are expecting the impossible, a miracle for a serious illness.

Sick people should not expect miracle cures, but they surely need to know if the doctor has prescribed the right medicine by seeking a second opinion for instance. And surely when the illness is causing a lot of pain, the doctor should not be prescribing medicine that causes more pain. So if solutions are supposed to be painful on top of the already-painful illness, what do people end up with? Add pain to pain and one simply ends up with more pain.

The wise Mr. Lim Swee Say has this to say: “We must never hope for a no-pain solution because there's no painless way out of global recession.” Maybe there is indeed no painless way out of global recession, but does it mean that solutions, instead of alleviating pain, have to inflict, if I’m not making a wild misinterpretation of his words?

How long does the pain have to last? Do people have to be prescribed more bitter pills for life each time there is a recession so that they won’t die?

But I guess resilient people like us are capable of amazing acrobatic feats of pill-swallowing. Even MM Lee, who has once suggested that we are not rugged enough, seems to have changed his mind somewhat, saying:

1. “This year will test the mettle, the strength of character, of Singaporeans.”

2. “Singaporeans and their government are not in panic. We have got the wherewithal to survive this recession, even if it goes on for several years.” (Speech)

Certainly, we ought to find some consolation in MM Lee’s words. According to MM Lee, “Singaporeans need not despair or be depressed. We will have to endure some hardship but nobody will be destitute, depending on soup kitchens or begging in the streets.”

Yes, it’s not as though as we are seeing hungry people going to temples for free food and we have never encountered beggars in the streets (though I have to admit that it does not exactly make sense to me to disallow people from begging in the streets when no one is as poor as to resort to begging).

MM Lee concludes his speech to his ward:

The success of Singapore came from the hard work, resourcefulness and ingenuity of your forefathers and their leaders. You are the descendants of these lion-hearted pioneers. You have it in you to succeed. Joining you are hardworking and talented new emigrants from Asean, India and China. Together we can make the grade.

New citizens joining old citizens? No wonder there’s talk about putting Singaporeans first.

…………..

Once upon a time, someone told a story of how mice. The mice could have lived happily ever after if not for a cat which decided to make its presence felt in the kingdom of mice. A mouse thought of a way to deal with the cat, which was to hang a bell around the predatory feline’s neck, so that the mice would be able to run away whenever they hear the cat. But no mouse would take the risk to hang the bell, so the idea was ditched.

Eventually one mouse did manage to overcome the cat. One day, the mouse was almost caught by the cat and in its desperation, it barked like a dog to scare the cat away.

The moral of the story, according to sages over the ages, has been that it is important to improve one’s skills so that one can deal with new threats. Others said that the barking mouse was simply lucky to bump into a stupid cat.

But that was only part of the story.

Soon after the barking mouse’s success in scaring away a stupid cat, the success story was spread throughout the mice kingdom. The dog wannabe was made a national heroine and, in the mousy national press, all her words gained the status the Holy Bible would in a Christian community. Mice all over the kingdom believed that it was the ingenuity of the dog wannabe that chased the cat away.

Dog Wannabe decided that it was important for all mice to learn how to bark, so the kingdom of mouse all learned to bark like lackeys. Some were exceptionally good at barking and they became the leader mice whereas those who were only average barkers were the followers.

Mistress Mouse Dog Wannabe spread the myth that no mouse was ever threatened by cats. And so the mice believed that they need not be afraid of cats anymore, thanks to her ingenuity and their willingness to bark. There were some mice that were not quite in agreement of the cultural myths of the mice kingdom, but Mistress Mouse Dog Wannabe simply colluded with the hungry snake to get rid of the uncooperative mice that would threaten the safety of all mice in the kingdom. All rabid mice were fed to the snake, though the snake was also valorized as a national hero that helped to ensure the safety of mice in the country that could also help everyone deal with any cat threats.

It so happened that the cat had actually given up on eating mice. It decided that fish was tastier and better for its health than mice. The thought of attacking mice never came across its mind ever since the barking mouse scared it away. But the mice kingdom continued to bark and constantly came up with innovative ways of sounding and looking like dogs.

But they mice did not live happily ever after. Even without a predator, the mice were not living very well. There wasn’t a lot of cheese in the country. Mistress Mouse knew of a way to get cheese though. The world was opening up and there was an eagle which would often fly past the mouse kingdom to various destinations. Mistress Mouse decided to seek to eagle’s help to bring cheese into the mice kingdom. In return, the mice in her kingdom would provide various sorts of services to the eagle to improve its quality of life.

Both the eagle and the mice benefitted from the deal and everyone was happy for a while. But alas, ideals don’t last in the real world (and though this is only a story, ideals don’t last either). For everyone wanted cheese and more cheese. And some got more than others.

And the eagle. It was a predator of mice too. When it had enough to eat, it wouldn’t touch the mice. But when it was hungry, it would prey on the mice, especially those who did not have a lot of cheese. It was, after all, only the cheesy mice that it directly collaborated with.

Last it was heard, Mistress Mouse is telling the mice not to worry for she would help them. And lots of lesser mice were still barking and trying to bark better. If they were not eaten by snakes or eagles, they might be lucky enough to get a morsel of cheese from the imperial larder so that they would not die, but could continue to work, so that the imperial mice and the snake could continue benefitting from the loads of cheese the eagles could bring.

As for the cat, I think it died of old age and was never seen again.

The above story is adapted from an original story told by Mr. Lim Swee Say in the Parliament and reported in the Straits Times as a piece of breaking news (which is probably the only funny bit of the article).

Straits Times Article

Mouse who barked

A MOUSE met a cat. The mouse barked like a dog. That scared the cat away.

To great levity in the House on Wednesday, labour chief Lim Swee Say recounted the tale to get across a solemn message: it is important to upgrade one's skills.

In an impromptu speech to rebut criticisms of the Jobs Credit scheme, Mr Lim said: 'We must never hope for a no-pain solution because there's no painless way out of global recession.'

He then told the tale of a kingdom of mice that 'lived very peacefully' until a cat appeared. The mice Parliament convened to discuss how to overcome their new fear.

One mice MP proposed a very simple solution: hang a big bell on the cat's neck so that it can be heard wherever it goes. Another suggested that it be big and heavy 'so that by the time the cat sees us, it will be so heavy, it cannot keep up with us'.

But there was a snag in implementing it. Who will bell the cat?

'There was no volunteer,' said Mr Lim.

The idea failed and the cat continued to move around freely while the mice lived in fear. One day, a mother mouse and her baby were hunting for food when the cat cornered them.

Trapped, the mother did the unexpected: she stared at the cat and barked, sending the feline fleeing.

To laughter from the MPs [Some people are very easily entertained or are too eager to please], Mr Lim said: 'The mother mouse turned and told the baby mouse: 'See, now you understand the importance of upskilling and re-skilling'.'

Lesson of the Day

2009-02-07T08:31:32Z

A mouse can pretend to be a dog by barking. And it's not wayang.

Gahmen Talks About Trust Again

2009-02-06T10:17:08Z

From Wayang Party Club:

Low Thia Kiang:
“”The concern arises over the way the 2-key system operates. It seems the 2-key system operates simultaneously at the same time. When the government key says “unlock”, the other key unlocks automatically.”
Tharman:
“This is not a ‘wayang’…The point is: the President, advised by the CPA (Council of Presidential Advisers), makes an independent and careful judgement on the government’s case.”
Inderjit Singh:
What’s missing is the process that the President took after he got briefed by the government. If we could get a sense of what they discussed and what process they went through to decide, then this may clear many of these questions.”
Tharman:
“I’m not sure why it is relevant. At the end of the day, this is a system that is different from Norway and Australia, where as much detail as possible is provided. This is a system that relies on trust in the individuals who are in charge including those appointed to the CPA and the Elected President. Do you trust them? Have they made decisions wisely? Has the government been acting responsibly?”

Do I trust them? Well, the question should be whether I should trust them. What have they done to gain my trust when details are not even provided? This goes round in the usual parliamentary circles. You say details are not given because it's a system of trust. I say a system of trust can only exist with transparency regarding details. Otherwise, how do I trust an Elected President who isn't even elected and a Council of Presidential Advisors whom I didn't appoint? What trust?

If you can expect trust from people without transparency, if you can expect people to trust a president they didn't vote for, then perhaps you might as well do away with the General Elections and with all forms of transparency. People should just trust.

But the last question "Has the government been acting responsibly?" sounds strange. What has it got to do with the whole issue? (Am I supposed to trust that the government has been acting responsibly or am I supposed to evaluate whether it has been acting responsibly? If I am supposed to trust the government (the Cabinet, that is), why is there this President that's supposed to perform some kind of check-and-balance function?

But no, Molly doesn't think it's wayang. If it's all wayang, then even a non-PAP government (after freak election results) can say it wants to use the reserves and just be allowed to do so. I doubt this is the case. No wayang. Tharman is right.

[Publicity Service] Dating Violence

2009-02-06T09:58:32Z

Got a request to do some publicity for the following:

www.chooselovenotabuse.com

Singaporeans as Production Units, Not Humans

2009-02-05T09:45:51Z

The kind of people we have in Singapore never fails to amaze Molly, for better or for worse. (For better when there are people whose intelligence escape relatively unscathed despite the Singapore system. For worse when the degree to which their intelligence has been destroyed is shocking.)

An NMP, Loo Choon Yong, says that because the five-day work week has not made people more productive, we should go back to the good old days when people had to work on Saturdays (heck, people still do anyway). What? It makes some sense? No! I meant “productive” in terms of producing babies!

The most amazing bit of his ideas is that he seems to see no problem with the concept of treating Singaporeans like non-human units of production. Give them a five-day work week not because it is more humane, but so that they could make more babies. Which was perhaps the government's rationale when it introduced the five-day work week. And which is also why it will not cause people to have more babies. The Straits Times reports that he also says, “I urge the Government to take steps to determine whether our productivity and competitiveness have been affected by the five-day week and to review the policy, if necessary.” So it's all about productivity. Five-day work week or a longer one, it's all about some form of productivity, not whether people need to be treated as dignified human beings.

But if underlying attitudes towards people don't change, there's no way the work week is going to make a difference. If people's need to a life is not respected, then the five-day work week would simply mean that the same workload (or more) is squeezed into less time (which also means more stress) or that people still work on Saturdays without having to be present at the workplace. (Or people simply still go to work on Saturdays.) And people will probably be unhappier because they are told that they now have the privilege of more time for themselves when they are actually now under even greater stress. Reversing the five-day week practice isn't going to help either, if it doesn't make things worse. For perhaps the increased Monday-Friday workload would remain and on top of it will be piled the Saturday workload. (It sounds like a simplistic way of looking at workload, but I think the idea is there—work could simply increase.)

I really have no idea what the heck this Dr. Loo (how on earth do so many morons get that Dr. title?) is thinking. According to The Straits Times, he thinks that people trying to lengthen their off days by taking leave immediately before or after public holidays and weekends is a sign of deteriorating work ethics. Now, it has always happened and no matter when people choose to take leave, they still have the same number of days of leave and they still work the same number of days right? What f------ problem does Dr. Loo have? Did he prescribe himself the wrong medicine?

And even if there really is an deterioration in work ethics, how is making people going back to work on Saturday going to help? Perhaps work ethics are deteriorating precisely because people have been overworked. They want to get away from their work as much as possible. Which is a rather sad state of things.

One wonders, though, what Dr. Loo would think of some people who take five weeks of leave at one go. That's certainly longer than the petty cases of people stretching their weekends by taking leave on Monday or Friday. (Maybe it's just lesser mortals that have to work, work, work, produce, produce, produce?)

I now wish the rumors that Lee Hsien Loong slapped someone in Parliament in the past were true. Because I wish he would give this Dr. Loo a good one to wake him up. Idiocy in the Parliament isn't exactly productive either.

--------------
The Straits Times
Feb 4, 2009
Budget 2009 Debate
Reconsider 5-day week?
By Jeremy Au Yong

MORE free time did not result in more babies, so people should go back to work on Saturdays.

Nominated MP Loo Choon Yong on Tuesday threw up the most provocative suggestion during the Budget debate when he questioned the benefits of the five-day work week.

Speaking on the second day of the debate on the Budget Statement, he said the move to a shorter work week by the public sector and then the private sectors in in 2004 could have eroded the Singaporean's work ethic, while not improving the fertility rate in any meaningful way.

The number of live births only inched up to 39,490 in 2007 from 37,485 in 2003.

'We should accept that as a people our procreation talent is not our forte - nothing to crow about,' he said.

'I urge the Government to take steps to determine whether our productivity and competitiveness have been affected by the five-day week and to review the policy, if necessary,' he added.

Dr Loo had unleashed this stunner as he voiced concerns over what he called the 'all life and very little work' attitude of the younger generation.

He pointed to Straits Times reports on how to maximise leave by taking advantage of public holidays that fall near weekends as an indication of an erosion of the work ethics.

'I have nothing against our young Singaporeans having fun and partying. But I hope they will work as hard as they play,' he said.

Declining productivity was also a concern of Mr Zainudin Nordin (Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC) although he broached the subject from a different angle. He pegged the dipping productivity figures in recent years to an over-reliance on foreign workers.

Lui Tuck Yew Wants a Cyber Panopticon

2009-02-04T22:26:40Z

In the latest curious statement from the government, Senior Minister of State for Information, Communications and the Arts, Lui Tuck Yew, is criticizing the Internet (well, not the “Internet” but really this group of irresponsible bloggers). “Contrary to what some may feel, . . . Lui Tuck Yew has said the internet is not an effective self-regulated regime.” (CNA) But that’s nothing new right? It is perhaps not a coincidence that the press has already set the staged for this, with article’s like Eugene Wee’s referring to the bacteria of the Net.

But Lui’s latest comments are interesting because his criticism is based on the idea that the Internet should be self-regulatory. It reveals what an ideal world, online and offline, must be to him. A self-regulated world. And what's self-regulation to him? I think it's when right(eous) people will come out and smack you on behalf of the government. (Otherwise, why doesn't he comment on the immense amount of "regulation" and criticisms that the pro-government ones get online?)

What one might find really disturbing, if one has seditious sensibilities like Molly, is that the notion of self-regulation is taken by the minister (and more importantly, will be taken by many Singaporeans innocuously) as an unproblematically positive concept. Yet, a self-regulated regime is a disciplinary regime. (But how does a bimbo explain this? In Singapore, discipline is highly fetishized as a great virtue and too many are unaware—or have forgotten—that discipline is a function of power. And self-regulation means that those in Power, of Power, do not even have to lift a finger to have you do their bidding. Come on, someone please tell this bimbo to shut up for making sweeping statements in parenthesis that lack the well-balanced rationality that the state has elevated to be the peak of human existence.)

It pays to note the phrasing of the news article: “Contrary to what some may feel . . . .” Who? Those who feel that the government should stop meddling with free expression? When others speak of self-regulation, they don’t necessarily imagine a culture of telling people to shut up, of “correcting” people for being wrong, the way the PAP loves to imagine it. But one notes also that Lui is not saying there is no self-regulation at all. There, after all, exist a number of people who would visit sites to correct people or who would blog about how skewed and imbalanced others are. (And self-regulation can also mean that those who speak on behalf of the privileged rational are also regulated.) What Lui really wants is even more self-regulation:

Speaking in Parliament on Wednesday, Mr Lui cited the example of cybertalk which erupted after MP Seng Hang Thong was set on fire by a disgruntled ex-cabbie.

The blogs of local netizens were abuzz with the incident involving Mr Seng. Mr Lui said while a small number of comments were sympathetic, most were unhelpful.

"Significant numbers were unkind. A small number was downright outrageous. [In your opinion, Mr. Lui?] It's disappointing."

Mr Lui added that the internet community had not done enough to rebut some of the unhelpful comments delivered by fellow netizens. (CNA)

What “unhelpful”? What “rebut”? Do we want all the bloggers in Singapore to post something that can be paraphrased as “It is wrong to set an MP on fire no matter how much you disagree with the government.” (Which is, in common parlance, DUH.) Molly thinks Lui’s words simply mean that the ideal world must subscribe to Lui Tuck Yew and the PAP’s worldview and do the self-righteous thing of telling others to shut up and correct them. And mind you, for a long time to come, I foresee that more of these people will appear, whether or not they are sent by the PAP or not. In Singapore, the PAP government has a strange power to subtly incite its engineered subjects to do what it thinks is right.

Of course, Lui has to try to strengthen his position by speaking of health. “But many of those responses were not rebutted nor answered. And I think it is not healthy for some of those to remain on the net unchallenged, unquestioned, and unanswered," says the reasonable minister. (And I thought the PAP has a group of people doing that on the Net.) I note that Lui does not talk about discussion or debate. He is talking about correcting people, which is sometimes also as good as silencing people. There exists a plurality of viewpoints on issues such as the setting of Seng Han Thong on fire. Just because those that Lui finds outrageous or unreasonable are not “corrected” to the point of eradication, it does not mean that the views go unquestioned. It is an insult to Singaporeans who read blogs and forums to say that and to also assume that people absorb what they read without question. (Oh, but that’s also the PAP’s ideal world, isn’t it? If Singaporeans were questioning, The Straits Times would have gone out of business with all its worthless propaganda. But the PAP wants only some views to go unquestioned. It wants the views it likes or believes to be true to go unquestioned; it wants citizens to come out to shut one another up, perhaps even to report one another to the police with allegations of sedition.)

Of course, as with all PAP talk about the terrible “Internet” which contains people who seem to do nothing all day but criticize it, it’s all about responsibility, credibility, rationality, balance. It pays to be remember that in these notions have been corrupted in public discourse here. Balance is skewed. Rationality is irrational. Credibility is deception. Responsibility? It’s always responsibility for, not responsibility towards. There’s a difference between being held responsible and being responsible, being responsible for one’s views and having a responsibility towards others (which governments should have). But I can’t possibly be making sense to the true blue engineered subjects of Singapore. Just pay heed to Lui:

1. "It is a squandered opportunity for a higher degree of self-regulation. It would have been an example of the genesis of the first step towards a more responsible, a greater self-regulatory regime,” says Lui. [Yes, and from Molly’s bimbotic knowledge, the narrative of Genesis would eventually lead to doomsday and then there would be only Heaven and Hell. Molly hopes she doesn’t have to specify to whom this Heaven would belong.]

2. “Mr Lui said to develop a responsible cyberspace, all parties, including the government and netizens, have to play a role.” (CNA) [Oh my gosh! Is this a hint? What role is the government going to play now? After the ridiculous proposals to liberalize the Films Act to make it more oppressive, what other proposals could there now be?]

3. He said bloggers and website proprietors need to maintain credibility, while netizens should do more to establish and enforce the norms of acceptable online behaviour. [Well, if you give Molly enough powers, she would volunteer to enforce acceptable online behavior. And the first websites she is going to crack down on are the mainstream media websites.]

Yes, let’s be responsible for once. Learn from the best of the best. Our role models come from the mainstream media I suppose. We should learn to twist everything bad about the government into something positive. Such as? Instead of saying that the government can be paraphrased as saying “Fuck it!” to free expression, say: “The Singapore government is now making more efforts to engage netizens after the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS) submitted its proposals in December last year. But it is opting for a cautious and pragmatic approach for now.” (CAN)

Of course it’s pragmatic. Historically, it has always been political suicide for oppressive governments to suddenly be generous and let people express themselves freely.

(No, I didn’t research on that last claim. See how lacking in credibility I am. I’m going to do the irresponsible blogger thing and petition for the whole Cabinet to resign next.)