"... mom’s friend sent her some blog post by some ..."

And so the now infamous post by RJ student / MP's daughter Wee Shu Min begins. I've decided to write an entry thinking about the post, on this opening specifically, after spending a considerable amount of time (the last two hours) reading through the many forums and blogs that have provided rude, rich, entertaining and varied commentary on her post and person. There may be nothing left to say in the wake of the Internet furor that has been churned up after the Wee Shu Min's initial post (or do we place a beginning at Derek Wee's post?) But a good time for supplementary commentary is after an event, after the eye of the storm has passed, and we when we may interrogated what was missed, perhaps intentionally missed.

Wading through all the posts and forum comments (and these ran into the hundreds), I found it interesting that only one comment made explicit reference to the opening clause of the post: "... mom’s friend sent her some blog post by some ..." It would be best if I could go back and actually quote what this forum comment said but that would necessitate wading through all those forums again. But I remember it pretty well. The comment was a strange, unsupported over-reading. It suggested that because the post begins with these words, that the entire Wee family and the friends of the Wee family share the same elitist sentiments as Wee Shu Min. Such a reading is patently unsupportable by this line alone, irrelevant and probably the result of trying to push a point of view that overdetermines the act of interpretation.

Yet what does "... mom’s friend sent her some blog post by some ..." tell us? Can we read it or misread it intelligently, elegantly, productively and creatively, or at least play with the phrase in an entertaining fashion? In reading this moment, I wish to invoke the Derridean notion (indulge me) of "the Supplement". Given how much the commentary has centered on what Wee Shu Min's post was about and how it was expressed, it seems strange to me that the opening received very little attention. Her words are quoted, repeated and parodied but her opening remains largely intact, glossed over, merely a prelude to the "heart" of the matter. Unlike the resounding finish ("please, get out of my uncaring elite face") that got played over and over, adopted, ventriloquized and bastardized, almost nobody had anything to say about this opening. But I hope that I'm not merely being perverse in trying to read an unreadable moment (is there ever an unreadable?) Read as Supplement, I think that the opening elaborates more fully some of the anxieties that proliferate in the commentary about her post.

The Supplement

The Derridean notion of the Supplement can actually be explained quite simply (unlike much of Derrida's thought). As its name suggests, the Supplement is an add-on, a secondary to the natural or actual, an extension to the main thing. Think about an appendix, annex or addendum of a book. There's material there that is meant to extend understanding, provide more detail or fill-in the gaps. So this is one face of the Supplement, and indeed, it seems to be the dominant face that shows up most of the time. The Supplement is there to help us appreciate the "real thing" better. But Derrida suggests that there is also another face to the Supplement:

But the supplement supplements. It adds only to replace. It intervenes or insinuates itself in-the-place-of; if it fills, it does so as if one fills a void. If it represents and makes an image, it is by the anterior default of a presence. Compensatory and vicarious, the supplement is an adjunct, a subaltern instance which takes the place. As substitute, it is not simply added to the positivity of a presence, it produces no relief, its place is assigned in the structure by the mark of an emptiness. (On Grammatology 145)

A good place to look for a lucid explanation (and examples) of the concept is here.

By reading this opening line as Supplement (made supplement in the discourse about the post because it got ignored and appears marginal), I hope to show how the supplementary status of a phrase or line can transform and enrich interpretative possibilities.

The first face of the Supplement: add-on / extension

The line "... mom’s friend sent her some blog post by some ..." gives us a better sense of the blog post's point of origin. It is significant to me that the meager context that it gives tells us something about reception and production. When I write a blog post, when most of us do, we don't regularly give a self-conscious rationale for why we're writing a post. The assumption is that we write a post because something we've read, experienced or thought about was interesting, significant or painful enough to stimulate a response. We assume a primary encounter with the phenomenon we're thinking about. Yet here we have a self-conscious reflection on how the post that follows originated. It isn't that Wee Shu Min encountered Derek Wee's post because she was blog-surfing and felt compelled to write back. Nor did her friends tip her off about Derek Wee's post (as is true for this post, thanks Ziliang ...) Something different happened: her mother got her to read Derek Wee's post. Further complicating (and enriching) the moment is the further nugget of information: knowledge of Derek Wee's post was a tip off from her mother's friend. What is intriguing here are the chains of transmission: friend-to-friend, then mother-to-daughter.

The "friend-to-friend" link

"... mom’s friend sent her ...", in the first face of the Supplement seduces us to speculate about why Derek Wee's post got circulated to Mrs. Wee in the first place. I introduce "Mrs. Wee" (though she may go by some other name) because she appears to be THE central figure in the production of Wee Shu Min's post that has been left out in almost all discussion about the post. Indeed, if "Mrs. Wee" did not have a friend who led her to read Derek Wee's article, we might not have Wee Shu Min's vitriol. Indeed, if "Mrs Wee" didn't read Derek Wee's article, and think it of a certain significance, and interesting enough to direct Wee Shu Min's attention to it, we also, may not have had the subsequent productions. But what happens to "Mrs. Wee" in the resulting discourse? She is obscured. Instead, the Daughter takes prime position and after her, the Father. Is this reflective of our prejudices in reading, that we are drawn to interpret the discursive moves of the noisy and the powerful?

Another reason why "... mom’s friend sent her ..." becomes useful in our reading of the post, lies in the way it sets a context that we can never actually be sure about. It allows us, or rather, forces us, to speculate why a friend would send Derek Wee's post. Any number of reasons might be possible, and each would shift the subsequent discourse in a different direction. For those of us inclined to read tragically, we could imagine that the post was first sent to "Mrs. Wee" so that fellow member of the well-heeled elite could laugh at the bad writing and futile struggles to secure a reasonable livelihood of the middle-class. In a more ironic vein, perhaps Derek Wee's original post was sent to "Mrs. Wee" (and thus to her husband, the MP and here, we can further speculate about other transmissions) to alert them about how the "ordinary" Singaporean perceives his prospects and career options. I can't imagine a suggestion that would lend to a comic reading, but I'm open to suggestions! The point is, read for some kind of "context", it allows us to wonder about how and why these posts are circulated in the first place.

The "mother-to-daughter" link

We have nothing more from the line that tells us WHY (again) a mother might have asked her daughter to look at Derek Wee's post. We might imagine reasons similar to why a friend would point "Mrs. Wee" to the post but also throw in a little maternal instinct into the mix. But we can think about why Wee Shu Min preserves and records this chain of transmission as a beginning. Why does the writer not begin with "I read a post by some ..." Why the preservation of origins, as if first hand knowledge or contact with such a post cannot be admitted? Perhaps the writer wants to insist on the distance, on the fact that she is not one who would regularly respond or think about such a post, except that it were put to her, except that she were MADE to read it by a person of some authority. Perhaps her subsequent discursive production is an act of retaliation, instead of a response.

The second face of the Supplement: Usurpation

Thus far, I've read "... mom’s friend sent her some blog post by some ..." as an extension to the rest of the post. I've read it as setting a kind of context and as establishing certain interpretive possibilities that might inform our reception of the rest of the post (and of the rest of the discourse that was produced in reaction to the post). I now turn to the second face of the Supplement, where "... mom’s friend sent her some blog post by some ..." can be read as supplanting and overtaking the rest of the post, and indeed, even contain the anxieties about elitism and privilege that mark the responses to Wee Shu Min's post.

This possibility of interpretation turns on the simple observation that not many parents I know actively direct their eighteen-year-old daughters to pieces of news or articles that are they think are interesting. I've done it for years as a teacher, and I do it because it's my job (and because I'm interested in these things). But even then, not many students take up my suggestions (unless coercion is applied and even then, I get a low rate of success). But I think it's rare for parents to do this and I think I'm right about this generalization. The act (rather active and deliberate, I must say) of drawing your child's attention to material that he or she should read (whatever the intent) demonstrates a "child-parent" bond that is itself predicated on a certain level of education and social class. I know I'm going out on a limb a little here. I obviously do not mean to suggest that only rich and well-educated parents are actively involved in what their children read or think about but I think it is generally true that it is the privileged who have enough energy, time and confidence to direct their child's interests. In one sense, "... mom’s friend sent her some blog post by some ..." usurps the rest of Wee Shu Min's post. If an individual only reflects the prejudices and beliefs of his or her social class, we have everything sealed up in that first line, which is a densely packed expression of social and cultural capital. Indeed, the responses to the post, the diatribes about elitism, privilege and abuse of power, can be traced back to this single line, this "parent-child" moment of transmission that few share. Indeed, even the father's initial defence of the child, is found in this opening line. Thus read as a "dangerous supplement" that threatens to overthrow the piece, the line can be said to determine, even predetermine, the rest of the discourse, and even influence and overtake everything else we might say about the matter.

Of course, just having copious social and cultural capital does not doom anyone to espouse the views that Wee Shu Min has. But reading "... mom’s friend sent her some blog post by some ..." as the Supplement alerts us to fact that the social and cultural assumptions that ground discourse, that are often glossed over and left uninterrogated even when they are on the page, may give us an insight into the origins of elite discourse and power. Perhaps we gloss over these moments because we are afraid to admit that beneath the veneer of close familial bonds, behind the curtains of the mundane, we are still subject to the dangerous workings of privilege and power.

Civil Religion in Singapore?

CIVIL RELIGION?

We tend to think of the state as a secular entity, and of religion as being of a divine form of beliefs. However, Rousseau has proposed the idea of a civil religion, which consists of the full set of political doctrines, historical narratives, exemplary figures, celebratory occasions and memorial rituals through which the state impresses itself upon the minds of its members, specially its youngest or newest members.

In Singapore today, most people do not think of social hierarchy rigidly, but quite the opposite. Most Singaporeans celebrate the alleged absence of social hierarchy. This is part of what sociologist Robert Bellah calls our civil religion (this term was first coined by Rousseau), a set of quasi-religious beliefs and practices that bind the population and justifies our way of life.

When we think of Singapore as a meritocracy, where everyone can realize the ‘Singaporean Dream’ (regardless of race, language or religion), as a place in which individualism and free enterprise ensures maximal benefit for all, we are giving voice to a certain Singaporean civil religion.

Paradoxically, however, our civil religion may also help to divert our attention from the inequalities that persist in our society. A strong belief in equal opportunity for all, may for instance, lead people to overlook the reality that the lack of opportunity remains in our society.

DE-CONSTRUCTION OF NDP?

In this post, I would like to cursorily de-construct the National Day Parade, a good manifestation of what is meant by Rousseau when he suggests a civil religion.

Apart from drawing one of the largest television audiences, the NDP generates a sense of what Durkheim (a sociologist who focused on the functionalist approach to studying social phenomena) would have called “collective effervescence”. That is, the NDP excites us by making feel like we belong to a community that is much larger than our individual selves. For 2-3 hours each year, Singaporeans who participate in the celebration (even by just watching on TV) transcend their everyday lives and experience intense enjoyment by sharing the sentiment and values of a larger collectivity. In their fervor, they banish thoughts of their own mortality (and also perhaps get over their regret over not booking a holiday in time and going overseas). They gain a glimpse of a prosperous future for themselves and their descendants as they immerse in institutions that will outlast them and ‘national’ achievements (like Team Singapore’s scaling of Mount Everest) that people will remember for generations to come.

This “collective effervescence” is one of the rare occasions where people actually come together and actually feel Singaporean. It is also probably the closest thing you could ever witness to four million smiles, I guess. The only other occasions when I feel Singaporean is when I spot fellow Singaporeans by the NTUC plastic bags they carry while shopping in Johor or when you see familiar faces while relaxing at the not-so-integrated resorts at Genting.

TOTEMS?

We designate certain objects as symbolizing the sacred, objects which Durkheim called totems. While spiritual religions may have overt items like statues, crosses and chalices as totems, civil religions similarly have their totems, though they may not be that overt, which is also why I think it is more insidious.

Using the case study of NDP, we can see many totems of civil religion.

In this picture shown here, the obvious totems are the multitude of flags being used, not to mention the giant state flag used in the regular helicopter fly-past. But if you pay attention to the top left corner of the photo, you will notice an interesting phenomenon that the Parliament bloc is dressed in party colours of white, amidst a red fervent background of enthusiastic Singaporeans. Well we have all heard many unofficial explanations for this anomaly and I’m not about to dwell on them in this post. (Which sometimes also prompts me to ask, where are the opposition MPs in their party colours?)

I would like to offer something in line with this idea of a civil religion, where it almost seems as if the MPs have to deliberately dress differently from the rest of the madding to suggest notions of superiority. Indeed one can argue that it is just their party colours, but seriously, they look almost like the clergy, who have a religious duty to serve the masses. I used to be very puzzled why politics had anything to do with a national celebration, or nationalism. Now that I see Durkheim’s suggestion that such a religious belief in certain ideas functions like a social cement, yes it does seem that such a move helps to entrench certain ideas we have about certain groups and institutions. In short, we might be more inclined to accept our lot in life and the way things are, after we experience and complete such rituals.

By chance, I noticed this uncanny similarity also. I shall restrain myself from reading too much into it, but all I can say is that the Presidential drive-past it itself a totem, and is part of the many rigid rituals that characterizes the NDP. The rigid line-up of events, all synchronized to a perfect timing through countless rehearsals, combined with the many totems that are paraded throughout the NDP all work together to reinforce social solidarity. We suspend our everyday lives as we watch the whole ritual of NDP being enacted. The ritual heightens our experience of belonging to certain groups, which in turn panders to the theme for the year (a CMIO multi-racial family, forward-looking IT nation, etc), increases our respect for certain institutions, and strengthens our beliefs in certain ideas. These groups, institutions and ideas all transcend us, thus fulfilling the sacred nature of the event.

Indeed, there is much more about NDP to be de-constructed as a ritual. I myself, having served the last half of my NSF life working for NDP 2007 & struggling with its continued relevance to today’s society would definitely like to spend more time and effort researching into this area if my studies allow. I hope it has been intriguing to offer to conceptualize this idea of NDP as a civil religion.

Post 18: "Post-65"

To 'I think' and 'I am' must be added the self –that is the passive position ... ; to the determination and the undetermined must be added the form of the determinable, namely time. Nor is 'add' entirely the right word here, since it is rather a matter of establishing the difference and interiorising it within being and thought.

Gilles Deleuze, Difference and Repetition

Deleuze's remark about Kant's contribution to ontology is an observation made about how the indeterminate becomes determinable via the move to ground "being" in time. While he makes the point while exploring the basis of "being", I think that the notion that "time" (not even the abstract "time" of Delueze and Kant but a more general commonsensical perception of time as "history", "sequence", the spinning of the earth on its axis as it makes its annual journey around the ...) is intimately woven into any attempt to apprehend identity is an interesting, and highly significant proposition.

In Hui Yi's very recent post, she mentions a "new" website, started by "post-65" Members of Parliament. In this post, "post 18", I intend to think about the notion of the "post-65" as a kind of time signifier that has been deployed as a crucial stitch in the fabric of national identity.

"Post-65": What it's meant to convey
I suppose few people would disagree that generally, "Post-65", is meant to designate at least two things. "Post-65" is usually used to refer to younger Singaporeans who grew up in post-independence Singapore and thus constitute a group of citizens that did not personally experience the difficulties and struggles that Singapore faced as a developing country. This seems to be what is meant when older ministers use the term. The implication is often that these "post-65" Singaporeans run the risk of forgetting the past and of taking Singapore's economic success for granted. The second, and perhaps weaker sense of a "post-65" generation, connotes the sense of Singaporeans who grew up with opportunities and aspirations that earlier generations of Singaporeans did not have; opportunities gained because of Singapore's growing economic prosperity and transformation into modern city-state. Of course, both uses overlap and the emphasis on what is really referred to unsteadily sways between each pole, depending on who the speaker is.

I think that these Members of Parliament use the term "post-65" in an attempt to show that there is political representation that understands this younger group of Singaporeans and does this in an attempt to identify with this group. This identification is crucial given the first and stronger sense of "post-65" as it has normally been applied in political discourse. These young MPs want to suggest that they too, perhaps, have been accused of forgetting Singapore's difficult past but via their optimistic engagement with the political status quo, aim to show that there are youthful elements that do not take Singapore's success for granted and want to do good for the nation.

Consequences?
What the term, and its deployment as group identity ("post-65 generation", "post-65 MPs") does, however, have consequences that are not immediately obvious in the rather pedantic observations that I've made so far. Here are two reflections on the ideological implications:

1. The term "quilts" identity. Slavoj Zizek, in The Sublime Object of Ideology observes that "quilting performs [a] totalization by means of which [the] free-floating of ideological elements is halted, fixed – that is to say, by means of which they becomes part of a structured network of meaning." Of course the term "post-65" was already part of a network of political meanings, but when it is adopted as a nominal identity by politicians themselves, it becomes more settled as a precise nodal point from which other terms and other meanings will derive their significance. Pre-MPs-calling-themselves-post-65, the term could have been more easily deployed in other ways (as the terms "Gen X", "Gen Y" and indeed, "slacker" often are) but now, the term takes a more clearly designated place in a state authorized spectrum of political signifiers. Of course people will still use the term in their own idiosyncratic ways but since it has entered political parlence, this plurality will probably fizzle out. Of course, I think of the term "Senior Minister" and what it used to mean (the other senior ministers were Goh Keng Swee and Rajaratnam) before it came to only mean "Ex-Prime Minister". And as Zizek points out, this quilting is ultimately governed by the specter of the "the Lacanian One". In this case, that would be the governing belief that in a single moment in August 1965, for the first time in the history of the universe, a nation was conceived and birthed, parthogenically, in the tears of a founding Father.

2. The term codifies a certain view of history. If a "post-65" generation of leaders exists, 1965, must have been a key moment in the nation's history, a moment more significant than 1941,1959, 1963,1979, 1981 or even 1985. When historical interpretation becomes a marker of identity, identity takes history within itself, neutralizes it, makes it an object and replicates it in our beliefs and subsequent representations of the historical event. A more neutral manifestation of this: It seems that Singaporeans have a penchant for identifying themselves with the year of their birth. "You what year, one?" is probably unique in the manner by which we think about how old we are in relation to other people. This phenomenon usually occurs with people who have IC Nos. that begin from 1968, the year when IC Nos. began showing the year of birth. So "I 1974 one" or "I 1985 one" makes sense in this rather singular practice. Of course, these identifications as well as the way they are iterated are normally devoid of ideological significance of a "1965"(Or are they? do they not encode a history of serialization? Of numerically representing and thus effacing difference?) The blanket term "post-65" has the potential to play a similar function. How long before it becomes part of a new serialization of identity that manages, in a single inscription, to cross out autonomous identity and leave the distinct marks of a particular view of national history, by tagging us with a name that is not our own?

Bruddas From Da 'Hood

Well I was going to do a piece on the Hip-Hop gang of MPs, but Hui Yi beat me to it. I think she raised some excellent points and I was particularly impressed by how she questioned the need for a right platform to express our views. This, I find, is contradictory to the essence of democracy itself, because simply being a citizen of Singapore should entitle me to a right for my opinion to be heard, proper platform or not.

Anyway… back to our MPs, or the Post 65 MPs, as they would like to be known. Now I know that they have sort of responded to criticism that they are trying too hard by saying that they just want to show that they can laugh and joke, even at themselves. I’m not here to nitpick over their words because I think that’s shallow - as shallow as using hip-hop and blogs to define youth - so I won’t be going there.

What I do want to talk about is their intention, and I think that is clear: To connect with the younger generation and show that they are not so different from us regular people after all. To do that, they have chosen to engage in activities that youth today are supposedly engaged in. This method shares more than just an attention grabbing similarity to bling-bling; both are aesthetically pleasing but serves no other purpose. And even that point is standing on shaky ground. I mean, how many times do you actually find your Dad cool when he tries to impress you by picking up one of your hobbies? How many times do you actually cringe?

Wanting to engage the youth is fine, but engaging them through meaningful ways is the real challenge, is it not? How does this help get kids interested in parliament, constituencies, the debate about the need for quality opposition, OB markers and everything else that we are worried that the kids are not interested in? Even if the P65 team thinks that kids nowadays are more interested in hip-hop and blogs than politics, I doubt making politicians do hip-hop and blogs will raise interest in affairs of the state.

It could possibly be argued that youth who take interest in the things the P65ers do will soon move on to an interest in politics, but that’s hopeful as best. Why? Because the essential ingredient is missing – political maturity and knowing that politics is not just an elitist game because at the end of the day, it affects all of us. Being decked out in baggy cargoes in camouflage print may earn a few catcalls, but how long can the show go on? Just because I can’t help but look every time the Fa Lun Gong members display their placards deploring the state of human rights in China, doesn’t make me buy into their whole religion.

Here’s what I think guys, and since I believe I’m still considered a youth, I’ve got a feeling that my opinion matters. You want to appear like a regular guy, than act like a regular guy. Be seen taking the bus to work. Use Singlish to complain to your fellow passenger that the fares have increased again but you don’t even know about it because the Ezy-Link card’s just so sneaky about how much you pay for the ride. And while we’re at it, maybe one or two of you should pick up some Hokkien so that you guys don’t risk looking like foreign talent. After all, we’re talking about appealing to youth in general, not just the elite who go to polytechnics, JCs and universities.

One more thing: The term “P65”, it don’t mean a thing to us, homie. Labeling this bunch of MPs doesn’t them closer to the youth of today. And even if you do want to use a label, there’s still a big difference between post-65 and post-75, or even post-85. Just cause ya’ll P65, don’t make us no bruddas from the ‘hood, ya naw wat ah sayin?

So you think your MP can't dance / blog?

In line with PM Lee's request for the younger MPs to 'recommend ways to better connect with the young and to make fresh proposals for a more hip and happening PAP' (see ST, 27 July 2006), the post-65ers - 12 MPs born after 1965 and called collectively the P65 Team - have come together to rehearse for a one-minute long performance at next year's Chingay Parade AND set up a blog site.

First, the Chingay performance -

Guess what? These guys are going to do hip-hop. Yes, they will not be wearing white (for once) and instead donning t-shirts and cargo pants complete with dangling chains.

As written in the ST, 4th Oct:


Mr Michael Palmer, also a Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC MP, said: 'Hip hop is popular with the young now, and learning it has allowed us to connect and identify with the younger generation.'

Are they worried about being seen to be trying too hard to connect with the young?

Mr Teo and Mr Palmer are upbeat. As Mr Palmer put it: 'We are not doing this to make ourselves look like idiots. Rather, we want to show the people that we know how to have fun - do silly things and laugh at ourselves.'


When I read that in the papers yesterday (4th oct), I was honestly, not highly impressed. While there are youngsters who are interested in hip hop, the logic is lost when you believe you're connecting with them just because you start learning the dance - and unless you come up with some impressive, 'wow' type of performance, you are not going to get their attention anyway. C'mon, some of these kids spend most of their free time practising along Citylink towards Esplanade, so did anyone really believe that they would suddenly develop an interest in current affairs and/or the PAP after realising that, hey, my MP can dance too?

I guess my idea of hoping for a greater degree of engagement between the govt and the youth did not include having my MPs perform breakdance or attempt not to break their bones while doing those pivot-head-on-floor kinda spins. It's one thing to 'play' and 'have fun' and 'do silly things', but quite another to get the young crowd involved - developing a sense of ownership and responsibility, being opinionated and passionate about govenance, and perhaps most importantly, learning to speak up while knowing that you would not be penalised (though of course one must be responsible for his words and deeds) and appreciating that your views would be listened to and acted upon.


Next, the blog site -

So the P65 Team has a new blog site http://www.P65.sg, where the MPs could blog there. While there are no set rules about what they can blog about, 3 of the MPs interviewed indicated that this blog would be a reflection of their personal lives. (ST, 5th Oct)

Lim Wee Kiak (Sembawang) : "it is really to show our more personal, non-political side, so they can get to know us."


Teo Ser Luck (Pasir Ris-Punggol) : "We may share our views on policies, but not to the extent where we edbate whether a policy is right or wrong... There are other platforms for doing that, such as Parliament and formal dialogues."


Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah) : "I see this as a reflection of what MPs achieve on a weekly basis. Youngsters can see this without having to come to dialogues, or Meet-the People Sessions."


I'm still rather intrigued by our country's policy that politics must be discussed on the 'right platforms' - like dialogues, meet the people sessions, parliament.. under the parliamentary system, we elect representatives to parliament who would formulate policies, pass laws, run the country. But this doesn't mean we've given up our rights to comment. IMHO, there's really nothing wrong in encouraging people to discuss about policies; in fact, this would prompt us to think about the issues in a deeper manner.

It's rather disappointing that this blog site would be like a celebrity blog - 'oh look what i did this weekend!' - I'd have imagined that these post-65ers would appreciate that youngsters like to heard, want to be heard, and seriously, should be heard. And if they honestly want to connect with the youth AND engage them on important topics concerning the country at large, then they could start by de-formalising the entire process - remove the need for your 'right platform', and loosen up on those OB markers!

It's been quite a number of years since Catherine Lim got chastised for discussing politics - 'run for Parliament and debate there' kinda reply - and surely one day, we have to reach a point where we can finally all talk about politics freely with each other?


My take on all these stunts? I hope there are better ideas in store for the P65 Team - set the trend, folks! And educate the young in the meantime; no one should be encouraged to 'love' a political party without understanding the party's beliefs and policies. This would only bode well for the future generations of Singaporeans.

By Hui Yi (who goes by Booze Queen normally but couldn't log in to post this one!)

Riding Along With the Increase

In mulling over the announcement of public transport fares being increased, my feelings towards it ranged from the predictable and instantaneous (anger) to the inevitable (resignation).

I guess many people share my first reaction. Especially in the way it was announced and the timing of it all. I remember reading in the Straits Times that the council which regulates public transport fees had said that they saw no reason not to allow fares to rise because the economy was doing well. In that report which I read, there were no other reasons reported for increasing public transport fees. While allowing slow inflation to take place being good for the economy may be a good enough explanation for an economist, it simply doesn’t cut it for me, and I’m guessing it doesn’t for other citizens as well, hence the grumbling every time such unpopular decisions are announced. That it came only a few months after the elections further stokes the fire and dissatisfaction that anyone may be feeling.

When I look at the announcement and rationale behind it again, I see an announcement from a business, a corporate announcement about a decision made for economical reasons. This goes in line with the feeling that Singapore has always been run like a business, and that us citizens are just people keeping the economy going. Now I’ve heard it all, about how a place like Singapore must ensure it economy’s survival and be on our toes about making money all the time, but somehow such arguments sweep questions that we should ask about the running of a national commodity that affects us all.

Firstly, that we must ensure our public transport system stays efficient and our buses and trains continue to look good just doesn’t sound good enough. Not after we hear of them making millions in profit every year. And we don’t even know where all the profit goes to. While I do think that the buses and trains are top notch, I don’t think there is a good link to be found with the astronomical profit that the services are churning out. While money is indeed needed for maintenance and renewal of fleets, the profits that are reported are over and above that.

And before we start thinking that it’s healthy for every business to make a profit, why must we think of public transport as a business in the first place? After all, it is a national service to us citizens. It is something that most of us have to take and so the demand is really inelastic, to use an economical term. Looking at public transport in terms of a national commodity doesn’t mean we think immediately of nationalising the whole thing. It just means that if we do have to continue practising capitalism, at least we can try capitalism with a human face. That would mean capping fares at a level where it is enough to make enough money for buses to be repaired and new trains to be bought. Right now, the excess millions that they are making just don’t seem to be justified.

Anyway, if we really do want to think of public transport in the free market, I’m guessing we would be running into a few problems. Singaporeans, by and large, do not have a choice when it comes to taking a bus. Having TIBS and SBS doesn’t count as competition because they run different routes. And more importantly, they charge the same fares. It isn’t as if I could wait for a TIBS bus to arrive instead of taking the SBS one that just pulled up because I’m unhappy with the fares SBS is charging. That’s what I mean by a lack of choice. And we all know what a lack of choice in a free market means: Monopoly.

This is probably why I guess most people share my last sentiment of resignation as well.