To Fix a Mocking Peasant

Evil Kitten Blogs Irresponsibly

Molly helps Janet Wee Fix TOC
 Dear Molly,

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

Mr. Lee See Nao

Dear See Nao,

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



Download pdf here.

ST Snapshot
Girls Gone Bad

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

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

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

Finally, a piece of good news (I hope)
MediaCorp to discontinue TV Mobile from next year

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

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

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

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

Gender, Sexuality & What Attitudes to Peepholes Reveal
Peepholes in men's toilets too

(Razor TV)

"Peepholes in men's toilets" would be a reasonable headline. But "Peepholes in men's toilets too"? Do I sense the somewhat (or perhaps more than somewhat) sexist assumption that women attract sexual attention (objectification through a gaze) whereas there is nothing about men that attracts scopophilic exploits and hence it should come as a bit of a surprise ("too") that men's toilets have peepholes?

On top of that, do I detect some silent refusal to simply see the issue as it is? "While perverts and peeping toms have long been common in female toilets, RazorTV discovered that men are not immune." There is something strange here. Firstly, I have no idea how "common" perverts and peeping toms in the Ladies are. Do women bump into one every other day?

Secondly, there is the question of what the comparison is. Perverts and peeping toms are common in female toilets but they are less common in men's? Or peepholes are common in female toilets but less common in men's?

Obviously perverts and peeping toms do not need peepholes, and, holes need not be used by peeping toms (though I suspect some would argue that they are used by perverts nonetheless). Just because there are holes, it does not mean that they are used for peeping. Perhaps the voice-over in the Razor TV video is too abashed to say certain holes are what might be called glory holes, as one sealed hole seems featured in RazorTV seems to be. In this case, it may not be an issue of peeping toms taking delight in peeping at others perform tasks that most people do not want to watch. Instead, it is more likely going to involve a subculture of sorts with knowing, consensual participants.

Of course, there will be unknowing men who step into a toilet cubicle with peepholes or other sorts of holes in the partitions and it might indeed be disturbing for them to be exposed to unwanted attention.Their privacy should be safeguarded. But what's the point of interviewing one seemingly clueless man after another, only to have them to make remarks ranging from:

1) I don't care because I'm a man and there's nothing (for other men?) to see. [Only women are eligible scopophilic objects.]


2) It would be a more serious issue for women. [Why? If men can be watched by other men, can't women be watched by other women? Or is there an assumption that the "watchers" in both men's and women's toilets are invariably male? [Sexual predators are always male. And women make bigger victims because, for some strange reason, it's not as bad for a man to be peeped at as it is for a women to be peeped at.]


3) It's no big deal, actually. We are all men. (Peeping toms in the Ladies can be male, but there are no female peeping toms.) Only worry is that some men are, you know, "abnormal." (?)

I prefer cubicles with their partitions intact. But what a whole lot of assumptions we can infer from what people say about holes!

Exchanges With See Nao I
Dear Molly,

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

Yours coldly,
See Nao


Make Cooling Day a Public Holiday

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

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

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

Lee See Nao (Mr.)

Dear See Nao,

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

Yours bimbotically,

Another Space
Molly is now blogging elsewhere.

Apologies to Zaqy and Today

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harmony and Difference

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


Log in

No account? Create an account