Meet The People

Kindergarten fee hike

2008-04-26T19:04:00.001-07:00

Found this out from Mr Brown’s blog.

Sharp hike in kindergarten feesFriday • April 25, 2008Alicia Wong
Some 1,500 students attending the seven PAP Community Foundation (PCF) kindergartens in Woodlands will see their fees shoot up by 30 to 100 per cent from July.
Then, about 50-odd PCF branches will raise their fees when a freeze in effect since last July comes to an end.
The PCF, which has 84 branches, each with up to eight centres, told Today "65 per cent of the branches will be adjusting their fees because operating costs have increased".
A letter sent by the PCF Woodlands branch to notify the parents of its 250 students said that PCF branches in the Sembawang Group Representation Constituency (GRC) — which comprises Sembawang, Woodlands, Marsiling, Admiralty, Canberra and Chong Pang wards — "collectively submitted our applications for a standardised GRC fee structure for approval to PCF HQ".
Woodlands kindergartens in Blk 601 and Blk 875 will hike monthly fees from $50.90 to $110 per child because they will be air-conditioned. Air-conditioned kindergartens in blocks 899B, 652 and 824 will increase fees from $86.60 to $110, while non-air-conditioned ones in blocks 624B and 853 will hike theirs from $50.90 to $95.
Nurseries run by PCF Woodlands will also see a $20 to $30 monthly fee increase from July.
PCF Woodlands' letter attributed the hikes to, among other things, rising operational costs and the need to fund training programmes for staff to meet new Ministry of Education (MOE) requirements.
Last month, the MOE raised the bar for kindergarten teachers, who will need a teaching diploma in pre-school education, not just a certificate.
Last year, the PCF froze fees and absorbed the additional 2 per cent Goods and Services Tax from July to December.
Some parents from the Woodlands kindergartens had petitioned against the hike. But PCF Woodlands administrator Amy Chia said "after much consideration", they decided to proceed with the fee adjustment, since the Government Kindergarten Financial Assistance Scheme is available for low-income parents.
Parent Aileen Lee, 31, who would pay $96 from July instead of $20 now, said she was "quite okay" with the hike.
Meanwhile, fees look set to go up at other kindergartens and childcare centres — if they have not already done so.
A 35-year-old accountant, whose son was enrolled at The Experiential Learning Centre last year, got a "rude shock" when the childcare centre said subsidised fees will increase from $250 to $400 per month by the year end.
Ms Kate Tan, 32, who is self-employed, said within eight months of enrolling her five-year-old son in a kindergarten at Seng Kang Methodist Church last year, fees shot up by 20 per cent to over $500 per term.
A check with four other kindergartens showed Josiah Montessori had raised its fees last year, and Kidzone Kindergarten will do so in May. One school at Jurong East is considering a hike, while Zulfa Kindergarten and Sembawang Mart will stick to its $110 fee.
"PCF school fees are reasonable and affordable … We hope parents will understand," said PCF executive Sherlene Wong.
This article comes from Today.

Several comments left on Mr Brown’s blog struck me.

Firstly, that these PAP kindergartens that are supposed to be public schools are raising their prices so dramatically parents might as well send their children to private schools.

Isn’t it the role of a public school system to provide cheap and affordable education to everyone? Isn’t it about education being the great leveler amongst the people so that regardless of your economic background you have a chance in this so-called meritocracy?

Secondly, someone mentioned why public kindergartens are called PAP schools in the first place? Just because the government is formed by the PAP? Once again there is an appalling lack of separation of party and government. If these kindergartens are funded by state funds, what right does the PAP have to attach them under its banner.

But then again, considering that the PAP uses HDB upgrading (funded by state funds) to coerce voters into voting for them, appropriating pre-school education shouldn’t be below them.

Thirdly, someone suggested that home-schooling might be a better alternative now. At first I thought it was brilliant idea! Just save the money and take on the responsibility of your child’s education! Boycott the entire system and it might be culled into reversing the fee hike.
But then I realised how inherently elitist this statement is. Home schooling your kid isn’t something everyone can do. You must have the time to do so in the first place. If both parents are working and trying to pay the bills, home schooling isn’t an option. Moreover, some parents might view kindergarten as a safe “child care” facility as they are out working.

Parents may also feel they are not up to the job of home schooling. Sure, it might be simple stuff at kindergarten level, but if it was really that simple, we wouldn’t need a kindergarten in the first place right? My parents’ dream (as is all parents’ dreams I believe) was for me to do well in school right from the start, and that includes kindergarten. They believe that school was a way to give me opportunities that they have never enjoyed.

It is unfair to simply say home school your kid if you aren’t happy with the fee increase. Home schooling should be a choice of the parents; it should not be forced upon people who can’t afford school.

School is a public service as much as public transport. It is equally unrealistic to say we should stop taking the train and bus to protest the rising fees. People are taking the train and bus because it’s their only option. Likewise, I’m sure every parent would want kindergarten to remain an option open to him or her.

Singapore makes the front page of the NYT

2008-03-13T17:27:00.000-07:00

As sort of a follow up to Ziliang's post: here's the entire NYT article which deals in rather mocking tones with the whole incident while taking numerous side swipes at Singaporeans ...

Escapee Eludes Search Party of 4 Million

By SETH MYDANS

SINGAPORE — The big mistake, officials here say, was letting the terrorist suspect make a trip to the bathroom.

Mas Selamat bin Kastari, alleged by the government to be the leader of a terrorist group here, escaped from a high security prison two weeks ago, while taking a bathroom break, in a major embarrassment for this efficient, tightly battened city-state.

In a furious response, the government put the entire country on alert, setting up checkpoints, sealing its borders, patrolling its parks and its shores, even urging people to keep an eye on their bicycles in case the wanted man decided to pedal to freedom.

With each new empty-handed day the embarrassment deepens as Singapore confronts its Tora Bora moment, its most-wanted terrorist suspect melting into the urban terrain, as Osama bin Laden evaded American troops in Afghanistan.

For some people here, this noisy, flailing search — even more than the escape itself — has cast Singapore in an unfamiliar light of haplessness.

“We had all bought into the image of a well-organized government machinery,” wrote Alex Au, author of a popular political Web site called Yawning Bread. “Suddenly, our picture of Singapore as a kind of Big Brother state is, well, full of holes.” All around the city, police officers are on patrol and their checkpoints have delayed traffic for as much as 15 hours in some places, according to newspaper reports.

Security officers on boats and Jet Skis are patrolling the coastline and the police have removed keys from the ignitions of unattended motor boats.

In what one newspaper called “extensive land, sea and air searches,” military patrols in jungle fatigues and Nepalese Gurkha paramilitary forces have scoured the city for the runaway inmate.

Wanted posters are everywhere, mug shots have been transmitted to millions of cellphones and the entire nation of four million people has been deputized to look out for a round-faced man who is 5-foot-2, weighs 139 pounds and walks — or at least runs — with a limp.

Newspapers here say it is the biggest manhunt in Singapore’s history. Mr. Mas Selamat, 47, who is said to be the chief of operations in Singapore for the Jemaah Islamiyah terrorist network, is accused by the government of being the coordinator of a failed plot to bomb the United States Embassy and several other targets in Singapore. Officials also say he planned to crash an airplane into Singapore’s airport.

He had been in detention here since 2006 under the Internal Security Act, which allows the government to hold suspects without trial, and his escape shocked terrorism experts in the region.

“Everyone thought Singapore had the tightest security system of anyone around,” said Sidney Jones, a leading terrorism expert for the International Crisis Group.

As a nation, Singapore is as lean and mean and flexible as the rapid-response military the Pentagon dreams of, and it reacted with impressive speed and agility to recent Asian outbreaks of bird flu and SARS, or severe acute respiratory syndrome.

But for the moment it seems to have met its match in Mr. Mas Selamat. His disappearance challenges the government’s basic promise to its citizens that it will keep them safe and comfortable.

The authorities have released little information about his escape on Feb. 27, but they say that he acted alone and on the spur of the moment and that he is probably still in Singapore.

The official account is that the prisoner asked to go to the bathroom while waiting for family members to visit, then simply disappeared from the Whitley Road Detention Center.

If this is true, said Lee Kin Mun, a leading political blogger who calls himself Mr. Brown, the government should “take a leaf from school exams, where security seems to be tighter” and where students must be escorted to the bathroom.

The country’s founder and former prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew, boiled the whole debacle down to one word: complacency.

He used the episode to strike again with his frequent warning that Singaporeans must work hard to protect the modern but fragile country he created from a social or economic explosion.

“It shows that it is a fallacy, it is stupid, to believe we are infallible,” he said. “We are not infallible. One mistake and we’ve got a big explosive in our midst. So let’s not take this lightly. I think it’s a very severe lesson on complacency.”

His son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, said, “It is definitely a setback, and it should never have happened.” And then, echoing his father: “It’s the danger of complacency, of thinking that everything is all right.”

In Singapore, words like that amount to marching orders, and government agencies seem to be rushing to demonstrate that whatever else they are, they are anything but complacent.

Wong Hong Kuan, the assistant police commissioner, is at the center of the storm, commanding both his security forces and the public response.

“He knows machines, so keep an eye on your car,” said the newspaper Today, reporting on a recent briefing by Mr. Wong. “Anyone who discovers their vehicles, including motorcycles and bicycles, missing, should make a police report immediately.”

“Err on the side of caution,” the paper quoted Mr. Wong as saying. “Every second counts.”

The public has swung into action, as it has with previous nationwide campaigns — to have fewer children, to have more children, to keep toilets clean, not to throw things off balconies, to speak good English, to smile and to commit “spontaneous acts of kindness.”

More than a thousand people have telephoned the police with tips. Concerned citizens are stopping people on the street who fit the fugitive’s description. This is not a good place to be a man with a limp.

“Mas Selamat” seems to be everywhere.

He has been seen running into a park wearing only a pair of shorts monogrammed with the initials of the detention center. He has been spotted at an outdoor food stall, “but it turned out to be the man is Chinese,” according to a witness quoted in the news media.

Someone followed his footprints up a flight of stairs to a rooftop, where the footprints disappeared. Someone else saw him running down a highway toward a causeway linking Singapore to Malaysia.

A comedian, Ahmad Stokin, 51, said he had been stopped eight times, but did not seem to find it funny. He said he might look a bit like the picture on the wanted posters and he may have a limp, but it is in his right leg, not his left.

Two weeks into the search, these fruitless sightings are about all the papers have to report about the biggest news story of the day.

The top headline on Thursday about the search in the country’s main newspaper, The Straits Times, read: “I Think I Saw Mas Selamat.”

An unidentified woman, the paper reported, had just recalled seeing someone who fit the description two weeks ago near the Singapore Association of the Visually Handicapped.

Pondering this report, the newspaper left its readers with what is now a pointless question.

“Was Fugitive Limping Along This Road?” it asked in a headline, and displayed a photograph of an empty, rain-slick road where the witness had been standing.

Only in Singapore…

2008-03-10T15:31:00.001-07:00

… Can a dangerous terrorist escape from prison and a government not be held accountable for it.

Up till today, some two weeks after Mas Selamat’s great escape from Whitley Detention Centre, home of the ISA, the government’s official stance on how he escaped is: We don’t know.

Information that could very well aided in his speedy capture trickled agonisingly slowly from police only days after his escape. First they told us he has a limp. After a few days, his limp becomes one that is visible only when he walks fast. The police also deemed it necessary to let us know what he was wearing when he escaped only days after he could very well have gotten rid of the clothes, as the police themselves acknowledge.

Police incompetence aside, what more can we say of our government? A simple “sorry” from the Home Affairs Minister and he expects Singaporeans to be placated? Well, you better believe it. He even had the cheek to admonish us not to speculate on how Mas Selamat escaped but to concentrate on capturing him instead!

How are we going to do that if we had spent the crucial first few days after his escape looking for a man with a limp that didn’t exist, wearing clothes that we had no idea what they looked like.

Best of all, our meek media does not even dare us the question that everyone was asking – how he escaped – immediately after Mas Selamat disappeared like Houdini. Instead we had these grant reports on the country’s efforts to capture him. Cherian George, media expert of Singapore, puts the point across succinctly here.

Without the media, or anyone for that matter, questioning how all these oversights in the workings of our government and police force can happen, all these important points are not brought to public consciousness.

For one, do we deserve the reputation of good security in Singapore if something like this can happen. Are our leaders held accountable when something goes wrong, are they getting away too easily when things don’t go the way they normally do in this supposedly clean and efficient country.

People may argue that our leaders have got it down right most of the time and we should give them a break when once in while something goes wrong. Well, I would say that our leaders, having grown accustomed to being immune to public opinion and having grown complacent that everything goes well, failed to react decisively when Mas Selamat waltzed out of Whitley.

If giving out information freely and quickly had been the government’s way of doing things, we might have gotten privy to his escape and crucial clues that may have led to his capture. instead, the government predictably closed ranks, grew their hide thick enough to withstand all public opinion and proceeded to exclude the citizenry in the hunt for Mas Selamat, only giving details when it became clear the trail had gone cold.

So, when MM Lee spoke of the complacency that led to Selamat’s escape, he forgot to mention the complacency that came out after the escape as well.

Obama? More of the Same

2008-03-09T07:06:00.000-07:00

So -- Barack Obama's impact on young people is clearly evident in the posts preceding this one. Sure, he inspires (through a very talented speech-writer ... which explains why he does better in set-piece speeches than in debates), represents something "new" (though to get to this stage of his political career one wonders how many favors he's promised), and portends to give historic representation to traditionally marginalized groups (in spite of his penchant for pandering after the 'white' vote). But the fact is, even if Barack Obama wins the nomination and defeats McCain in November, it will be business as usual in Washington. Different sections of the immense political establishment will benefit but no real change will occur.

So -- instead of pulling for Barack Obama, I think the candidate that best represents genuine political will and dedication to public service is Ralph Nader. This sounds silly as most people know him as the narcissistic spoiler of the 2000 Elections, as the man who robbed Al Gore of victory and the villan who sent Bush into the White House. But what fewer Singaporeans (I'm assuming we've heard of the man to begin with) realize is that Ralph Nader has been a tireless public advocate on a range of issues that are bound up with our daily lives since the early 1960s. One example: Seat belts in cars and all-around safety in automobiles? It was Nader's land-mark investigations into the dishonest profit making short-cuts of the automobile industry that have made safety features the norm in our world. Forty years before Al Gore, Nader was already talking about the environment and how corporations need to be accountable for their industrial practices. Nader has an amazing list of accomplishments that look out for the little guy, from airline policy to nutritional labels on food; but more profoundly, he's demonstrated that more can be achieved if non-partisan citizens take an interest in politics and challenge the Corporate-Government complex. It is a sad thing that the two-party system (much like the PAP's stranglehold on political discourse) has essentially kept Nader out of any kind of meaningful political debate. There's an excellent film that documents Nader's career: An Unreasonable Man which would inspire anyone, regardless of political persuasion.

In an ideal world, I would root for the party (and by default, that Party's nominee) that has a socialist bent. But "The Government", so crucial in effecting key legislative reform that straightened out inequalities in an earlier time, has allied itself with corporate interests at the expense of taking proper care of ordinary citizens. And this is pretty much a global phenomenon. The fact that "Singapore, Inc." is touted as an excellent model of government is a sad case in point. Perhaps the best way to BE political is to cultivate small victories in local ways - for instance, getting individuals interested in issues to begin with, as this blog tries to do - rather than rally around the most fashionable icon of the political establishment.

Why I Unreservedly Endorse Barack Obama

2008-03-05T21:50:00.000-08:00

For the past few months, I have been unable to make up my mind between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

But my choice was made when it dawned upon me how Clinton is a symbol of the establishment and Obama is the call for change.

For Hillary Clinton, she has time and again emphasised her ability to be “commander in chief from day one” and often cites her experience in the government as a plus point. I must admit I found that argument pretty convincing.

However, as I listened to her speak after winning Ohio last night in the presidential primary, I felt a haunting sense of déjà vu. Her promises of being the best-prepared candidate are exactly the kinds of argument that the ruling party in Singapore uses every single time there is an election.

Deriding her opponent as nothing but an empty call for change is the same as how Lee Kuan Yew described opposition rallies as nothing but cheap entertainment that Singaporeans go to.

Declaring that Barack Obama will not be prepared to take the reins of the government is also akin to the scare tactic that the PAP often uses. Vote the opposition in and they will bring Singapore into ruin they say.

I have often told my friends to get real, that a few opposition members in the parliament will not cause Singapore’s economy to collapse overnight. Why did it take me so long to see through Clinton’s attacks?

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both promise a change in the way government functions. But the fact is Clinton is simply too entrenched in the political system, having been in Washington so long. With someone owing so many favours to politicians and donors alike, how much can she possibly venture off the beaten track?

As for Obama, having not much experience might really work against him. But if we don’t give him the chance to prove himself, where is that experience going to come from. Just like if we never give the opposition in Singapore the chance to appear in parliament, where are they going to get the opportunity to speak up for Singaporeans?

Listen to Obama and you will know that his calls for change are not empty. Just be glad that we get to hear him on TV. To hear a proper opposition standpoint, one has to go stand in an opposition rally. The press rarely, if ever, reports it.

And so as a person who finds much reason to support the opposition I cannot but feel a need to support Obama. As a person who feels the establishment is so arrogant they think they have a god-given right to rule, I cannot but feel Clinton’s current fall from grace is a kick up her ass that she needs.

One can only hope the people of Singapore gets the guts to kick our government up its ass soon.

Obama for Singapore?

2008-02-29T12:20:00.000-08:00

If the media is to be believed, Barack Obama is the most exciting person in American politics right now. Actually, that is an understatement. Barack Obama is probably the most exciting person in politics worldwide right now.

Most politicians will be happy to have delivered one speech that gets people talking about the eloquence of the delivery for days. Obama has made it a weekly habit of his. “We are the change we seek,” thundered Obama at one of his campaign speeches, mixing alliteration with his favourite pronoun.

His political star is burning so bright a student in our country, halfway around the world, threw up this question a at recent political forum – will we ever see our very own Obama?

Well, our very own Obama will have to come from a political party and it certainly will not be the PAP. It has long been the ruling party’s style to groom its future leaders through a methodical fashion. For the PAP, it is not about change we can believe in, but about a track record that we can trust. We are more likely to see a Hillary Clinton who expounds on her ability to be a leader from day one in the PAP. There does not seem to be any room for the meteoric rise in profile that Obama, a relatively inexperienced senator, is enjoying in the US.

And the younger members of the PAP are hardly able to reach out to younger voters the way Obama has appealed to college students in the US. The post-65 MPs have simply been hard-selling themselves too much. The cringe-worthy dance routine they tried to pass off as hip-hop was panned by many and the MPs spent much time defending their dance effort on their blog.

Obama inspires viral videos from everyday people and celebrities alike. Netizens blog about his speeches on the presidential campaign. The Post-65 MPs have to blog about their own speeches in Parliament on their own blog.

So we turn to opposition parties for our Obama, but they are unlikely to produce one either. Much has been said about Obama’s grassroots support and his ability to raise massive amounts of money from internet donors alone.

But we forget that he had a swooning media circus that catapulted him into the minds of the public when he was just a green senator from Illinois state. The extensive coverage of Obama in the news, which actually started way before his decision to run for president, gave people awareness of the books that he wrote, the speeches he made, and his appearances in the US Senate.

Now that he is running for president, cameras are ever-ready to televise every single motivating word he utters. The media has made him visible to the average American who is supporting Obama right now. The media has created Obama.

In Singapore, the opposition hardly makes the news. Whether it is because they are not worth covering or because the media is unwilling to give them coverage, we will never know. But the fact remains that the opposition is hardly in the public’s eye.

The only time the opposition appears regularly in the news is during the short period of general elections every five to six years. And though the opposition parties are able to come up with fresh faces from time to time, they lack the ability to stay in politics for long.

The Workers’ Party captured the imagination of voters when they fielded young candidates in the prime minister’s ward. But these Kamikaze Six, as the prime minister called them, disappeared from view as the ballot boxes were put away. Disagreement within the ranks later led two other members to quit the party.

Another opposition member, Steve Chia, made such a big impact in the 2001 elections that Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong praised his credibility. But he shot himself in the foot when a scandal involving compromising photographs of his maid emerged.

These are just about the only reports we see in the media about the opposition parties. The news-making juggernaut that is the government simply sucks up all the coverage in the media.

So can Singapore have an Obama? To borrow a line from Obama himself: yes, we can. We might even already have one in our midst. But without the media telling us so, we will never know.

I will sing

2008-02-15T22:06:00.001-08:00

"Foreigners should not be encouraged to organise and lead Singaporeans in making complaints about the nation.

Information, Communications and The Arts Minister, Dr Lee Boon Yang, made this point in Parliament on Friday when he reiterated the government's position that only Singaporeans can be involved in domestic politics.

Dr Lee said letting foreigners lead Singaporeans to make complaints in public, run contrary to established principles that comments for domestic affairs should be reserved for Singaporeans.

To Mr Siew's (Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong ) point that Singapore had commented on the domestic politics of other countries, notably Myanmar, Dr Lee noted that the situation was different.

He said reactions to what was happening in Myanmar were in line with international sentiments. " Above-mentioned quoted from -CNA 15 February 2008 1842 hrs

Hmm, if Dr Lee says that only Singaporeans can be involved in domestic politics, does this policy presume that Singaporeans can freely be involved in domestic politics without being a victim of the politics of fear?

It seems to me that this policy presumes the presence of a certain vibrant and safe public sphere where Singaporeans can express their emotions and reactions to local politics. But how true is this? How many Singaporeans would gladly attest that we are free to express our political views about Singapore, in Singapore. How many of us would tend to hide behind the excuse of being 'politically apathetic' instead of embracing the opportunities given to us to spread political awareness and recognise that a political life is an everyday reality, whether one admits it or not.

Befitting the context, if some Singaporeans felt like forming a choir or an improvised drama group or even just a book sharing session to express and share political views, would they ever be granted a license from the MDA to perform in public? Would it ever be legal to bring out our political opinions into the public sphere? Is a civil society viable in Singapore in the near future?

These are important questions that we should at least stop in our busy upper middle class lives to think about. These are critical questions that should somehow touch a nerve within you. How long more will we be able to hide behind materialism and economic development and repress our natural desires to be engaged in a political life, whether it is simply hoping to see some real competitive politics on TV or being able to decide what to do with your lifelong savings.

I would like to commend CNA for mentioning Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong's counter-point to Dr. Lee, pointing out the inconsistency of the government's professed policy towards non-interference in other nations' domestic politics. Even if we accept Dr. Lee's caveat that it is in line with international sentiment, the same caveat can be used to support my point that there is alot of unhappiness with Singapore's domestic politics (or lack of), whether emanating from inside Singapore or outside. I believe there is a certain undercurrent of international sentiment that does not exactly agree with the oppressive and authoritarian type of democracy that exists in Singapore. This underlying sentiment may be much diluted and dwarfed by international perception of Singapore as a successful business hub and post-colonial developing country in Asia, and also perhaps the active use of libel laws here.

I will sing in protest, not at the state of domestic politics in Singapore, but to spread awareness among my friends and fellow Singaporeans. Wake up from your dreamy cushy upper middle class life and stand up for your rights, act in the full capacity of a political citizen, for the strengthening and renewal of this beautiful country and state. 'Political apathy' seems like an oxymoron for me, I cannot understand how it can truly exist unless you are truly that easily satisfied with things in life. I will sing, whether in hokkien or teochew or singlish or english or mandarin or arabic or malay if you teach me. If you are willing to hear, I will sing, for I believe certain fundamental things in life like music and liberty are a universal language that transcends many barriers.

Lost in Translation

2007-03-27T05:03:00.000-07:00

Here in our tiny island state, language seems to be a very fixed and standardised thing. The Chinese speak Mandarin, The Malays speak Malay, and the Indians speak Tamil. In turn, English is the language that supposedly unites all under one common tongue. We are all taught that race determines the language that we speak.

Imagine my astonishment then, during a recent trip to Sabah. My Malay-speaking friend from West Malaysia had trouble understanding a Malay girl’s words because, according to her, “she spoke different Malay.”

I shouldn’t have been surprised. Variations within languages are the rule rather than the exception. Everyday, English school teachers agonise over the different forms of American and British spelling that are both accepted in Singapore. Over in the Hispanic world, there are different pronunciations for various words in Latin America and Spain itself.

Language is a messy subject, and inevitably so. It is no accident that the English language is the fastest growing language – 990, 000 words, according to the Global Language Monitor – in the world, given its status as the lingua franca in diplomacy, business and science. The more people speak a language, the faster it evolves.

There are languages that have remained constant throughout our modern times. But who actually speaks them anymore? They are more likely to be used in the next Mel Gibson film than being spoken by more than a mere handful of people. Gibson, of course, has a new obsession with using archaic languages throughout his films. Even the disciples of Jesus in Passion of the Christ had to learn the Aramaic language spoken in the film by heart because they were not speakers of the language. Likewise for the Native Americans running around the jungles in Apocalypto.

The use of ethnicity and nationality to draconically determine what language we are supposed to speak does not work as well. Tamil is not the only language spoken in India. Other languages like Punjabi and Hindi are but a few of the other major languages. And this is not an Asian phenomenon. Spain is home to 3 other languages other than Spanish: Catalan, Basque and Galician.

An example that we are more familiar with would be the various dialects of Chinese. In Singapore, most Chinese know the dialect group they belong to. But it would not be an exaggeration to say that the number of dialect speakers among the younger generation is significantly less than the people of our parents’ age. The government discourages the use of dialects as well, disallowing its usage on television and radio.

The slow death of dialects is lamentable. Diversity is one of Singapore’s greatest strengths, not something to be ashamed off and suppressed. Even in China, the supposed proprietors of standard Mandarin, dialects are still widely spoken. Large cities like Shanghai continue to embrace their local tongue of Shanghainese. The Taiwanese adopt Hokkien in their everyday lives. In Hong Kong, schools continue to teach in Cantonese and Hong Kongers are still chatting away in their native tongue despite ten years of Chinese rule (albeit with an added impetus to learn Mandarin as well).

If we forget our dialects while the rest of the Chinese world continues speaking it, the ability to connect with our counterparts from another country is lost. A year ago, I found myself wide-eyed and bewildered on the streets of Hong Kong as Cantonese rang in my ears from every passer-by. I looked very much a local until I opened my mouth to spout my best Cantonese that I could muster. From that moment on, I might as well had the word “foreigner” stamped across my forehead.

The possible detrimental effects of speaking dialect on one’s Mandarin ability may discourage us from learning it, but think again. Chinese standards have never been sky high to begin with. The government has had to reduce the Chinese syllabus in schools in order to combat falling Chinese standards and reignite interest in the language. Those struggling with the Chinese language are often more comfortable expressing themselves in English. It is the over-reliance on English that we must be worried about.

Speaking dialect in a more intimate setting among friends and family need not clash with the learning of English and Mandarin in classrooms. Most dialect speakers in Singapore are able to effectively code-switch between Mandarin and dialect. Coupled with the education system’s competent teaching of English, understanding our own dialect need not come at the expense of other linguistic abilities.

All is not lost for those who wish to begin learning their dialect now. Our parents still speak the dialect and would probably be more than happy passing it on to us. Learning a language begins most fundamentally at home and not in a classroom. Losing that direct link to our dialect will probably mean we will never find another way to learn it more effectively. If that happens, don’t be surprised to find Mel Gibson’s camera crew booking a flight to our tiny island state.

The writer is completely aware of the immense irony that this entire article is written in standard British English.

Under One Roof Again...

2007-03-04T08:54:00.000-08:00

Plenty of action has been surrounding parliament lately. The budget debate is heating up and the GST hike is taking centre stage.

Various Members of Parliament (MPs), both PAP and non-PAP ones, have been raising tough questions about GST. There is talk about using other forms of revenue to offset the reduction in corporate tax, instead of the GST hike that is being proposed. In essence, MPs have been asking: Is the GST hike the only way to go for Singapore’s economy?

This question is a welcomed respite from the standard fare of reasons behind the hike. The government’s side of the story has been so widely covered by the press since last year that we almost forget that the hike was merely raised by the Prime Minister and not even debated and passed by parliament yet.

At least the lively debate concerning the GST hike prevents parliament from becoming a mere formality. It is indeed a breath of fresh air to hear alternative opinions on what is otherwise a foregone conclusion.

It is not a case of “ask for the sake of asking” as well. In particular, questions raised by non-PAP MPs have been deemed important enough to solicit thorough answers from the Ministry of Finance in defence of the GST hike.

It might seem redundant to question the executive branch of the government (the Prime Minister and his Cabinet), but the legislature (parliament) must be actively involved in the decision making process as well.

The debate of various ideas in parliament is an essential part of that process in order to arrive at the best answer for the country’s economy, even if the best answer happens to be the Prime Minister’s proposed GST hike.

Through the ongoing debate in parliament, citizens will know the various alternatives that have been raised and considered by the government and might then be more accepting of the GST hike. It also reduces the impression that the GST hike is something arbitrarily conjured up by the government and thrust upon the people.

Indeed, questions close to the heart of the public have been raised. The issue of necessities like bread and food being excluded from the hike was discussed when a PAP MP raised the point. This allays the fear that the government does not understand the worries of the people.

Of course, it is still up to citizens if they are willing to accept the answers with regards to the questions raised in parliament. Some may, after reading the clarifications on the GST hike in the newspapers, decide for themselves that they still disagree with it.

But an informed member of the public is still more desirable than one who is simply blindly opposing the GST hike, without knowing the various arguments for and against that the government has already considered.

Now that MPs are stepping up to challenge the budget plans of the government, it is our responsibility as well to reflect our views and concerns to our MPs. To do so, we must be savvy to the national debate surrounding the GST hike. Only then will we be able to articulate our concerns in a thoughtful manner worth considering. Mere disgruntled rants only serve to display our ignorance to a matter that affects all of us.

If more Singaporeans are willing to make their voices heard in an informed and rational manner, and MPs make a concerted effort to listen, they will be able to reflect the public’s views better.

The GST hike is but one of the many issues worthy of national debate involving every citizen. It is high time we start practising to speak up, and MPs start paying attention to what we have to say.

Only then will they truly become the peoples’ voice in parliament.

THE HIJACK OF GLOBALISATION

2007-01-25T08:32:00.000-08:00

With regards to the relevance of the politics of globalisation, the ease with which governments can hijack such an amorphous phenomenon for various purposes and seemingly get away with it disturbs me.

My example is the all-too-famous IRs, but i will not dwell on the well-circulated debates. My ire is with the approach that the government went about to decide (paternalistically) for its people that we should have the IRs for pragmatic (when has it not been, except Suzhou) reasons.

This issue resonated strongly with me, especially with regards to globalisation, as it seems to me that the amorphous nature of globalisation has allowed the government to easily hide behind it and create a politics of fear, thus getting away with non-democratic, non-transparent and non-accountable policies such as this.

Some of the official reasons our ministers gave us (AFTER they decided) were that if we were not to jump on the bandwagon, many other neighbours would still offer up their land for casinos and 'IRs' and we would still lose out in the long term.

Our politicians seemed to attempt to paint globalisation in the light that it can be an opportunity if you make use of it and react to it, but if an idealist state passes up on it then it will just see other states reap the fruits and opportunities of globalisation's offerings.

While that theory MAY prove true, there is no way to ENSURE that the economic benefits would ultimately outweigh the social costs, and it would be years before we can estimate the long-term 'trickle down' effect to the average Singaporean.

Making use of the fact that even the elites of singapore (intellectuals, academics especially) may only have a fuzzy grasp of this phenomenon labelled globalisation, it is easy for governments to hide behind this impervious shield and ramp up the politics of fear.

The fear of losing out to our neighbours, especially our northern one, or even places like Macau, the fear of losing out another 'Number One' to others, sentiments like these are very effectively utilised to stifle opposition to the IR policy.

I feel that is also partially why there was quite a muted response when citizens discovered that our paternalistic government had already decided on having the IR before telling its people.

And if indeed one of the underlying aims was to draw habitual Singaporean/regional gamblers away from Genting Highlands and back to good old singapore, look who won the Sentosa IR; Genting & star cruises! It even defeated our only local tie-up with kerzner, so i guess our northerly neighbours had the last laugh.

Even if the main economic gain theory is largely true, Dr Li Xiaorong (research scholar at the Institue for Philosophy and Public Policy at the University of Maryland) makes the point that "The economic development of the state is not the same as obtaining economic rights for the people".

Having the IRs in Singapore does not directly translate to more disposable income for the average Singaporean. Even if there is, by what means can we credibly measure the economic benefit to the individual? And at what social cost would this be achieved?

My personal opinion is that the average Singaporean may buy the story that the IR will somehow improve his economic condition, while the powers-that-be conveniently utilise the pretense of subordinating a transparent, consultative process of policy-making to economic prosperity, intended to further entrench the elites' power and draw foreign investment.

Indeed, heeding the siren call of globalisation and acting fast on it will potentially result in economic benefits. My question is, benefits for whom?

It is thus pertinent for us concerned Singaporans to be aware of how governments react (or not react) to the facets and offerings of globalisation.

Indeed the politics of distraction through the offering of handouts and the building-up of a comprehensive social program to combat potential social ills of having a casino on our soil will distract some handout-hungry singaporeans.

But i guess for all loyal singaporeans who are concerned with our stakeholdership in the running of this country, we will need to delve a little more into such seemingly all-pragmatic, good-for-ALL policies.

A Bit of Old News

2006-12-25T06:36:00.000-08:00

As can be seen from the title, this is actually about Wee Shu Min, that daugther of a MP father whose elitist rantings made her the most searched item in Technorati for weeks. This is actually the first draft of an article I'm writing for my school paper, and I thought I'll just post it here. I believe that there are still things worth saying about the whole affair and it's something worth thinking about and drawing lessons from. Well anyway, here goes.

It was a recipe for disaster waiting to happen. An 18 year-old teenager studying in a premier institution like Raffles Junior College (RJC) kept a blog. A blog that she used to rail at a middle-aged white-collar worker. He had expressed worry in his own blog about his job security and had the audacity to wonder if the government could do anything to alleviate his plight. Just “one of many wretched, unmotivated, overassuming (sic) leeches in our country”, she cried. And that was one of the more polite terms she used.

It did not help that her father was a Member of Parliament (MP). Sooner or later, netizens were bound to pick up on it, and then all hell would break loose.

In Wee Shu Min’s case, it was sooner rather than later.

A statement had to be issued by the school principal in which he regretted her actions and said she would be counselled. Two apologies from her father (the second one was for the first, in which he stood by the “brutal truth” of his daughter’s words) later, cyberspace was still abuzz over the words of Miss Wee.

A member of the academic elite displaying elitism at such a tender age no doubt disgusted netizens. But lest we forget, her words are no less venomous even when removed from her privileged background.

Nobody would begrudge her the opportunity to perform and achieve. It is not a crime to be the cream of the crop, but she is guilty of the mentality that her position at the top somehow made it all right to look upon others with disdain.

One does not need to be part of the upper strata to be an elitist. A member of the middle class who has an “I’m one up” approach towards the less privileged is equally guilty of elitism.

In Miss Wee’s case, coming from RJC and having a member of the government as her father made her an elite member of society; her opinions that were so colourfully expressed over the Internet made her an elitist.

Do all our youth of this generation harbour such elitist attitudes? After all, we are engaged in the constant battle for good grades to make it to that top class, stream, or school.

Is it not understandable after the spoils of battle are won, that we look back at all those people that we have beaten and think to ourselves, “Phew, we’ve made it?”

This winner-takes-all attitude permeates through the education system, affecting the primary users of it, our younger generation. We are conditioned sub-consciously to value results, not effort. Coming in second just means being the first loser.

We are taught this set of values in the fundamental stages of education. The government has recognised the inadequacies of the primary school streaming system and has moved to reform it.

Most significant is the scrapping of EM3, perhaps the most controversial part of the old streaming system. One can only hope that along with it goes the social stigma that surrounded students under that stream.

The new subject based banding allows students with the same abilities in a particular subject to study together. It is up to us not to allow this new system to descend into merely a new way in which to compare our primary school students.

After all, we often emphasise on Math and Science as subjects more important than the rest. This may very well give rise to a situation where students not in top Math and Science classes are subjected to prejudice.

It is also imperative that we do not forget those who are unable to benefit from the new system. According to the Ministry of Education (MOE), 40% of EM3 students are eligible to take at least one subject at the Standard level.

It is not clear what is in store for the remaining 60%. A comprehensive programme should be developed for them, lest they be left behind by the system. We must not allow them to be perceived as the “new EM3”. The possibility that the stigma associated with that will be greater than before, since even the new system is unable to help them.

The case of Wee Shu Min has highlighted a key issue that our country will be grappling with in the future: The fight against elitism. While we must, as a nation, continually stand up to and reject elitism in all forms, we must also prevent elitists of the same mould from being bred.

As for Miss Wee, the public backlash would have been more than enough to keep her from making the same mistake anytime soon. But there is an important lesson that she and other like-minded individuals have to learn: The hierarchy borne out of meritocracy is no excuse for justification of an elitist mindset.

GST to be raised to 7%: PM Lee

2006-11-14T01:13:00.000-08:00

From ChannelNewsAsia:

SINGAPORE: The Goods and Services Tax will be increased to 7 percent from 5 percent presently.

This was announced by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in Parliament on Monday.

However, when the rise will be implemented, will be decided later.

Speaking in Malay, Mandarin and English, Mr Lee explained that the hike was necessary to finance the enhanced social safety nets, needed to help the lower income group and he emphasised that the offset package would more than counter the rise in GST.

While Singapore's current model to tackle the widening income gap is sound, Mr Lee said the government would take on two approaches to deal with the new environment - to strengthen the safety nets and tilt the balance in favour of the lower-income groups who do not benefit from the fruits of economic growth.

To do this, government spending will have to go up. The government now spends some 15 percent of its GDP - one of the lowest in the world.

"This is inevitable over the next 5 to 10 years. Infrastructure investments will cost money - R&D is to cost $5b over the next 5 years; as medical technology improves, people age and more will go to hospitals to get more treatment, so spending is bound to go up. As we tilt the playing field across the board, the lower income will be getting another boost, not just once in a while. Therefore its better to start building resources now so that when we spend more, we have the means to do so," said Mr Lee.

To finance this, indirect taxes or the Goods & Services Tax will have to go up.

"It will give us precious extra resources to implement social programmes like Workfare later on. Our aim is to help the lower income groups and the elderly, not to increase their burdens. When we implement the GST increase, it's not just the GST increase, it's the package which will fully offset the impact of the GST increase and begin to strengthen the social safety nets and tilt the balance in favour of the low income groups - we will not just raise the GST but we will have a comprehensive offset package," said Mr Lee.

This package will be weighted more to the middle and the low income groups, especially the elderly, and it will more than offset the GST increase.

"It is not just an offset package to deal with the GST. It is a whole set of measures which we are taking in order to tilt the playing field in favour of the lower income group, which is what we have to add and tally in the balance, and my purpose is to help the lower income group. For the middle income, it will be generally about ok; for the higher income, I think the higher income should end up paying more overall. It's part of being one society. I'm not going to tax 15% on income tax, I'm not going to tax 25% from GST the way the Scandanavians do, but I have to make the adjustments of 2% which I think is fair and I think Singaporeans will support," added Mr Lee.

He explained that it is better to do the increase now when the economy is doing well, rather than wait till later. This will give the government time to see how this adjustment can be managed, and to cope better with the unknown forces of globalisation over the next 5 to 7 years.

More details of the GST increase will be announced on 15 February 2007, which is Budget Day. Mr Lee added that Second Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam would deliver the Budget speech.

Another change will be the amending of the Constitution to allow the government to tap the capital gains received from investing the national reserves. - CNA /dt

yet another tax hike. not surprised by its timing, just slightly annoyed.
and yes, despite the lack of new posts we're all still alive (i hope). it's just the exams, and as good Singaporean students we must retreat into hibernation..

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

2006-10-26T20:33:00.000-07:00

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?

2006-10-20T10:35:00.000-07:00

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"

2006-10-06T19:14:00.000-07:00

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

2006-10-06T09:04:00.000-07:00

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?

2006-10-06T06:04:00.000-07:00

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

2006-10-01T08:13:00.000-07:00

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.

The Buzz About Fare Increases

2006-09-18T13:32:00.000-07:00

So this is a piece about the bus-fare increases.

Of course, it going to be difficult for me to really rant about it, because I'm not at home right now and not exactly feeling the pinch. In fact, when the suggestion was first mooted by the other writers on this page that we all do a piece about the fare hikes, I actually didn't think that there was too much to say. I do think that public transportation in Singapore is actually quite affordable (of course, that's if you exclude taxis, which I hardly take/took). Plus, there was that statistic that tried to prove that fares are increasing at the very low rate of a cent a year. Of course, there are arguments about the timing of the fare hikes (after an Election) and whether the SBS and SMRT need to turn in a profit (no, I don't think they do), and whether we need such luxurious TV-fitted public transport vehicles or air-conditioned bus terminals (no we don't). But all that aside, I think that fares are pretty reasonable.

Adding to my reticence to plunge on ahead with a slew of criticisms is my frame of reference. The crazy cost of transport here in New York, does make me quite aware of the fact that Singapore's got a pretty good system going and one that is quite affordable. When I first got here two years ago, it cost 60 dollars to get a month's worth of unlimited rides on the subway and bus-system. Soon, there were rumors (which turned out to be true) about an impending fare hike: of 24 dollars! Protests ensued (I still have a poster from one of them ...) and the final compromise was a fare hike of 16 dollars. So it still costs 76 dollars a month for me to get where I need to be and at two dollars a ride, regardless of distance, it's pretty hard to make any kind of substantial savings. In fact, the wife and I share a month pass (even though the logistics of passing the card around sometimes get tricky) for when we don't need to be out at the same time.

So relatively speaking, the fare increases back home aren't that bad. But I'm intrigued by the fact that it's become a hot-button topic for lots of Singaporeans while simultaneously being safe enough to get lots of play in the media. As a partial explanation of this, I'm wondering about the primal associations lots of Singaporeans form with their MRT and bus-routes. These are the kinds of associations that go beneath the "world-class transportation system" rhetoric, and resonate more deeply, hopefully, than the white noise generated by those darn TV Mobile programs.

For instance, I fondly remember the silly enthusiasm with which I would walk to the Newtown MRT station when it first opened (and when the trains only ran from Newton to Clementi), take the MRT and then hike home from Clementi, even though there were more efficient bus-routes in existence.

Another case in point. I've had the good fortune (ok, that's questionable...) of having taken the same bus-route for a large part of my life (about 25 years). That's the good ol' "154" that runs from Eunos (I believe) all the way to Boon Lay. Of course, I'm only intimately acquainted with the portion of the ride that runs from Bukit Timah to just a few stops after Clementi. I've ridden the bus since it was a rattley single-decker with colored tickets and bus-conductors with their ticket punches and many-pocketed leather bags. When they turned "OMO" (one-man-operated?) in the late 80s, I "stole" one of those wooden signboards that explained the details (but was made to throw it out by my mom). It was with excitement that I took the bus when the first double-deckers were added to the fleet and you could sit right up in front and wait for the untrimmed branches of the trees along Clementi Road smack into the windshield. I took it as sleepy schoolboy, smelly NS guy, confused NIE trainee and exhausted teacher, always certain that I knew the right spot to stand at the bus-stops to ensure "priority boarding" and which seats on the upper level offered the most leg room. I've done homework on that route, graded essays, sung songs and played guitar, gotten scolded, gotten laughed at, slept all stretched out in the back .... My point is that we develop bonds with these buses and trains that we depend on daily: idiosyncratic, nuanced, and often solitary (I've never had a travel companion on my daily commute) connections with these vectors through space. Of course, the same applies (and I suppose with greater intensity and clearer logic) for individuals that actually become acquaintences, friends and lovers all because they took the same bus route. Unlike the driver of a private automobile (who forms a rather distinct bond with the machine), public transportation enables mulitple connections to form and circulate on the premise of a social space that straddles the public and private in a rather unique fashion.

So, I think that goes at least some way (through the winding paths of romanticizing nostalgia, I might add) toward explaining why people don't like fare-hikes, no matter how "reasonable". I think a lot of older people get their heckles raised by rising transport costs because they symbolize a fading link to a time when things were simpler and, well, when life in general was more enjoyable.

We Are What We Read?

2006-09-13T08:47:00.000-07:00

I was flipping through the Shin Min Daily News the other day and the news reports were worthy of any tabloid in the world. The front page was dominated by an alleged sex scandal in Taiwan, with an alluring picture of the victim and a forlorn looking old man accused of raping her plastered next to the headline. Inside the paper, a news story told of how a woman had thrown herself down her HDB block, committing suicide, after a tumultuous period in her life which included being spurned by her lover. The headline continued to inform that sorrowful wailings can be heard from that block. Bizarre? You bet.

If you think that I’m being too graphic with my description of the juicy stories carried by this local Chinese tabloid, please do note that I was merely regurgitating what I saw in the paper. And if we’re tempted to think that such newspapers in Mother Tongue pander to an older generation of readers who are not well educated and with a less sophisticated reading taste, The New Paper is an English language tabloid that carries stories just as sordid as the above examples.

I guess that my point is there is definitely a market for such sensational news in Singapore. Clearly, we do not subscribe to the theory of Asian values of harmony and community when it comes to the consumption of news. Not when we lap up stories about other peoples’ misery and when sex sells so well.

Why is it then, that when it comes to explaining the local press being supposedly respectful of authority, the government likes to invoke the mystical argument of Asian values? Is it true that being Asian, we are innately programmed to respect authority and expect others to do the same as well?

Our appetite for less than savoury stories in our tabloids have already shown that using Asian values to explain how our press works is at best a weak argument, and at worst a very misleading way of looking at the local press system. Since the Asian values of harmony and community do not apply in the local press, I’m guessing that proclaiming that Singapore’s press is respectful of authority because of Asian values glosses over the underlying reasons that can better explain what we are observing in the local press.

As for the underlying reasons, who else but the First Prime Minister of Singapore can state it better?

“Freedom of the press, freedom of the news media, must be subordinated to the overriding needs of Singapore, and to the primacy of purpose of an elected government.” – Lee Kuan Yew 1971

Of course, the assumption is that the elected government will always be benign and that it will always exercise its powers correctly. The watchdog role of the press is suppressed in favour of a nation building one. Far be it for me to question if it was the right move back then, but 35 years after this quote, have the “overriding needs of Singapore” changed? The government doesn’t seem to think so, but more importantly, what do you as a Singaporean think?

A safe Singapore!

2006-09-11T09:26:00.000-07:00

This afternoon, I took a short walk from NTUC income on Bras Basah Road to Raffles City Shopping Centre - and met more than 10 (ten) uniformed-officers along the way.

Shocking? Hardly. For the IMF delegates are here, and the Authorities are appearing in full force to ensure nothing goes wrong.

I just couldn't help but wonder about the irony - how some tourists find Singapore so safe, that they don't see any police officers around but still they can wander around the streets at night and know they're being protected.

So now the spotlight is on Singapore, and we put our entire police force (and probably special ops) on display, standing around at traffic light junctions and patrolling underpasses, such that it seems that almost all of them are looking for something to happen to add that spice into their routine.

And it's only just Day 1.

I guess the guys on duty (even now, at 12.30am) are probably having a stressful time right now, and their efforts should be lauded. It's just that I get an uneasy feeling seeing these uniformed men strutting around, given that they've always been invisible. It's almost like thinking if something's happened to warrant their presence, but then no, nothing's happened and they're just there to.. be there when something happens. Or to make the delegates feel protected.

I was rather tempted to take a shot of the patrolling teams, but decided it might be unwise to stop in my tracks and take photos - they might think I'm planning to leave some unattended packages somewhere, and arrest me and put me under detention for hours and hours. So I was the good Singaporean who continued walking, seemingly oblivious of the added security presence, and reminding myself to smile at anyone who looks vaguely unSingaporean.

Welcome to Singapore, IMF dudes.

And it's the 5th Anniversary of this constant paranoia we live in - what goes around comes around, we should all hope for wiser leaders.

your right to speak here - in a nutshell

2006-09-08T01:12:00.000-07:00

Some of the IMF delegates coming to Singapore next week could be heaving sighs of relief, because for once, they would not see slogan-shouting, placards-raising protestors anywhere on this clean, green and beautiful garden city. Many free speech activists are denouncing Singapore's "anti-democratic laws" and "authoritarian rule", so I've just decided to state the law as it is (to my best knowledge) so that any interested reader might be able to form an informed opinion about the state of freedom of speech in Singapore.

To begin with, this freedom of speech and assembly is enshrined in Article 14 of the Singapore Constitution [I use the term 'enshrined' because the Constitution is meant to be the supreme law of the land, art 4]:

Freedom of speech, assembly and association
14. —(1) Subject to clauses (2) and (3) —

(a) every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression;

(b) all citizens of Singapore have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms; and

(2) Parliament may by law impose —

(a) on the rights conferred by clause (1) (a), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or to provide against contempt of court, defamation or incitement to any offence;

(b) on the right conferred by clause (1) (b), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof or public order; and

(c) on the right conferred by clause (1) (c), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, public order or morality.

(3) Restrictions on the right to form associations conferred by clause (1) (c) may also be imposed by any law relating to labour or education.

[any emphasis is mine]

Interpretation of the article itself could result in lenthy essays, which is not my endeavour here. In essence, the article grants every Singaporean citizen the right to free speech, assembly and association BUT subject to 'restrictions'. The restrictions here refer to negative law (eg thou shalt not defame others) and positive requirements (eg licensing rules for assemblies). This means that 1) prima facie, foreigners do not enjoy this privilege in Singapore and 2) where the restrictions are legitimate (ie validly passed by parliament) your right to speak or gather will be limited by the law - there is no absolute right here, even though this article is found under Part IV "Fundamental Liberties" of the Constitution.

speech.
There are limits to free speech, just that different countries have differing standards to measure by. The US constitution upholds absolute freedom of speech, but even the courts know that this freedom of speech must not be abused. Free speech was seen as a form of liberal enlightenment, that in the marketplace of ideas, the 'truth' would be known. If your idea was right, it will survive rigorous debate; conversely, if you were mistaken, free speech and the exchange of ideas will clarify doubts.

In modern times free speech has also become a tool for social change - when people aren't too pleased with their representatives in govt, some take to the streets to push for reforms. Public figures come under the scrutiny of the people, and this makes them more accountable to their voters. (note: free speech is a privilege given in democracies/pseudo-democracies so we're not talking about dictatorships here) It's suffice to mention here that while countries like US and Western Europe subscribe to the belief that public figures should have 'thicker' skin and therefore there's a higher threshold allowed for criticism, in Singapore because of the so-called confucian principle of having junzi and upright rulers, certain forms of negative "unconstructive" criticisms may result in defamation suits.

and of course we've the Speakers' Corner at Hong Lim Park - but there are restrictions too since you'll need a license to speak there. Amongst other things, you've to be Singaporean, and you can only speak between 7am-7pm without a microphone, and registration must be completed 30days in advance. The crux of the matter lies in licensing - the Police has a discretion to refuse your application, and chances are, there aren't many avenues for appeal/review unless they have acted unreasonably in refusing your application (fyi, "disorderly behaviour" is a one-for-all reason for rejection). To date, the success of the Speakers' Corner could probably be measured by the number of pigeons cooing in the cool evening breeze.

there's so much more about free speech but i'll leave this to another day, when the national daily provokes me enough to talk about free press (the lack of) in Singapore.

assembly.
Section 141 of the Penal Code states that an assembly of "5 or more persons" is designated as an illegal assembly if their common object is to do certain (illegal) things. Further, under the Public Entertainment and Meetings Act, a license is required for certain gatherings. In 2005, Ms Chee Siok Chin attempted to stage a peaceful protest outside the CPF building with 3 others - though this could not constitute an assembly in terms of numbers, the quartet were still charged under the Miscellaneous Offences Act for public nuisance.

'necessary and expedient' restrictions: food for thought
It might raise an eyebrow or two to know that our 'fundamental liberties' could be so easily limited by law passed in the name of 'necessary and expedient'. Should licenses to speak be necessary for a declared democracy (albeit authoritarian) like Singapore? Does that mean that tomorrow we could all lose our right to have our own opinions so as to curb the spread of terrorism - an act of expediency? Singapore has never been well known for its liberties and civil rights movements, but one must not assume that law is static. As the current situation stands, the Parliament is all-powerful because of its law-making function. A simple majority is required to pass new laws in most cases, but the check of the opposition is still but a myth here due to the lack of numbers. Singapore is maturing surely, though slowly (held back?), and for the liberals out there who are convinced that more could be done for free speech in Singapore, all hope is not be lost - because outdated laws and mentalities cannot last forever.

"Follow the System"

2006-09-06T10:30:00.000-07:00

Just the other day i attempted to use the public toilet at Clarke Quay MRT station. Yet before i could step in, the Malay toilet attendant stopped me with a gibberish exhort. I couldn't really make out what she was saying as it was in some kind of broken english (not Singlish). Only when i was near enough for her to shove the mop in my face could i barely make out the three words "Follow the System".

In her exasperation she had to point furiously at the sign bearing the toilet cleaning times before i could collect myself from the rude shock and nod in reluctant understanding. I wasn't really mad at her for prohibiting my use of the toilet though i was in high tide indeed.

What really shocked me were the words she used, "Follow the system", used almost like an almighty command that was supposed to set me walking away in obeisance just like any other Singaporean. The choice of words she used despite her seemingly poor command of English is amazing. She could just as simply have said "Toilet cleaning" , "Out of order" or plain uttered "Cleaning" and any Singaporean would have got the message.

But No. She said those three words "Follow the system" that still rings loud and clear in my mind everytime i recall that bizzare incident. Ok it may seem really weird why i'm bringing up such a trivial issue that i should have just dismissed like my friend who was my co-witness did.
It's just that those three words seem to resonate very much in Singaporean and modern society, where we face a non-organic, mechanical and supposedly impartial, dispassionate System in many aspects of our daily life and we are expected to adhere to the rules and instructions administered by the System for our day-to-day dealings.

Even in the aforementioned case, although there was technically a very much living and agitated female toilet attendant shouting the instruction to me, i see her more as a tool of the System. The system uses her to keep out people like me who are ignorant of the stringent cleaning times(Who memorises them man?), who have stepped over the line and are attempting to upset the System due owing to my private agenda that is insignificant as compared to upholding the sanctity of the System's cleaning timings.

Well in fact, i was following the System. Perhaps she was not, for she didn't display the mandatory 'Cleaning in progress' sign in bright yellow, which if i had seen i would get the message and skip that toilet immediately. No issue. But no. She stood at the door with a mop and perhaps thus upset the usual System of recognising whether a public toilet could be used.

Moving on from this trivial issue, which i see as a reflection of a larger general mentality that the State adopts when it deals with individuals who attempt direct contact with the State. Ever tried to consult your MP for a personal issue? Well first you got to find out and be sure who is the MP directly in charge of your district is. Then you have to email (You'd be surprised how some organisations respond to email faster and are more receptive to them than phone calls) the administrative personnel to ask for available dates. Finally you may be given a slot based on the urgency of your issue, the nature of which must be revealed and screened by the administrative personnel. You might start wondering if you're actually consulting your MP at all, almost able to imagine his briefers whispering notes to him while he flips your docket right before seeing you after a long wait. How's that for increasing attempts to bridge the divide between the masses and those who rule over them and are supposed to hear and voice their popular concerns?

Yes it may seem only reasonable that a system is developed so that our overworked part-time MPs are not burdened by citizens with unjustifiable petty concerns or simply inundated by too many consultations at once. But to develop a system so entrenched in systemic efficiency that it ironically succeeds in expanding the divide between the citizen with concern and the powers-that-be, i guess this beckons a re-thought.

Here's a more extreme example of Follow The System. Quite a while back i found my library card missing and reported it to the good librarian immediately. Since i had lost it on the same day of reporting, i thought i was safe even if someone had borrowed it. Yet the good librarian was sorry to inform me that a Malay title was borrowed using my card just minutes before i had reported the missing card. Although i tried my very best at verbally explaining how i had lost it only a few minutes ago and that i had no reason to cheat good NLB of a cheap Malay title that i didnt understand, the good librarian said he had to go "law by law, book by book". I noted the nice pun but i was still furious. The good librarian dispensed me saying that i stood a better chance writing a formal letter to the head of the Branch rather than him as he was just a part-time frontdesk employee who held no influence.

A formal letter i wrote indeed to the Branch Head, which i also forwarded to the relevant NLB manager who was technically the Branch Head's superior. ANd i think this neat little trick did the trick and got me off the hook, given my understanding of the hierarchical relationship in governmental bodies. The fact that i couldn't settle the issue straight away at the Branch customer service desk was just amazing. What's more outrageous was that i had to type out a powerfully-worded letter of 'appeal' to a manager who would probably have been briefed even before the letter lands on his desk, in order to maintain organisational integrity and a common stand on issues. Well the greater point is how this was quite an extreme example of people following the System purely for the mechanical sake of following the Sytem. The very fact that the craziness and frustration such behaviour creates for end-users evades the administrators who perpetuate is just hard to comprehend. It's probably the kind of issues that hit you so hard you feel the need to just go and lie down to catch your breath.

And these are just 2 seemingly ordinary experiences from me. I'm sure somewhere along the line you have experienced this Follow the System mentality in-the-face. Sometimes i guess it is the ignorance or acceptance of such ridiculous attitudes that helps to perpetuate their constant existence. Sometimes we can reasonably accept it as a characteristic of a modern state and economy where the government and adherent organs of state are expected to posesss business-like efficiency. Yet when this seemingly impartial attitude is applied wholesale to all of society, some conflicts may arise and it is up to us to be more conscious of them to avoid being entrapped in systemic jargon that may inadvertently ensnare the unwitting citizen who crosses the line.

breaking news for the Deaf

2006-09-06T00:08:00.000-07:00

“MEDIACORP IS PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE THAT FROM 25 SEPTEMBER 2006, TV VIEWERS WILL BE ABLE TO READ WHAT THE NEWS PRESENTER IS SAYING.

The captions which are the scripts for prepared news stories, will appear at the same time as the presenter reads the news. We have introduced the captioning service, provided with the support of the Media Development Authority (MDA), in response to requests from the general public and the deaf community.

English news will kick off the captioning service on 25 September with the 9:30pm news bulletin on Channel 5. Chinese news at 10pm on Channel 8 and Malay news at 8pm on Suria will introduce captions later in December 2006. We are still exploring options for captions on Tamil news.

... We will be pleased to have your feedback on the service, to ensure that it meets the needs of the deaf community.”

This is wonderful news for the Deaf community in Singapore, having campaigned for captioning for many, many, many years. Apparently Mediacorp has not issued an official press statement yet - I received this through an internal circular - but it should be coming up pretty soon.

In recent years the voices of the 'disabled' are finally being heard and acted upon. A simple small step of including captions for news broadcasting would mean that the numerous deaf people will finally be able to watch, and understand, the news. The wheelchair users, in particular, achieved some significant steps in making Singapore, their home, a more accessible place to live in. Do note that 'wheelchair-bound' is an extremely derogatory and insulting term - and apart from 1 additional syllable, it's not that difficult to use the term 'wheelchair user' instead.

These positive steps taken by the Authorities bring cheer to the community of the less-privileged, though there is still plentiful room for further improvements. Inevitably, members of this community face more unfavorable job prospects - which is probably the main concern of most - and in order to make Singapore a more humane and caring country for all to reside in, the Authorities must also initiate more active policies for employment and education in favour of this community.

After all, we are ONE people and so ideally, if, as the PM says, no one should be left behind because they aren't good students, then similarly no one should be neglected merely by virtue of their physical or mental disabilities.

So do remember to watch the news on the night of 25th September :)

The Culture of Denial

2006-09-05T20:18:00.000-07:00

“A Singapore culture is unlikely to emerge - not even in the next few hundred years, predicted Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew yesterday.” Straits Times, 6th September 2006

To gain a better understanding of what our MM has predicted for the country in the “next few hundred years”, we must first have a firm grasp of the meaning of a Singapore culture. What we are evoking is the idea that there can be an expression of traits, characteristics, behavioural patterns and arts that is special to Singapore. While doing the “Uniquely Singapore” campaign and the Singapore Tourism Board a huge disservice, the MM has also signalled to the nation that he does not view having a Singaporean culture as important.

This is highly confusing, especially after years of national education telling us how we must be proud of how the nation has come back from the dead and progressed miraculously from Third World to First. I can almost hear the strains of “We’ve come so far together/our common destiny…” ringing in my head. Doesn’t forging a strong bond with the nation and feeling close to our roots (however shallow) as Singaporeans go hand in hand with developing a unique cultural identity for ourselves? Whatever happened to “We are Singapore… Singaporeans…”?

Of course, by now we well know that “our common destiny” is fast becoming making more money and “We are Singapore” because we run our country like a business. Anything that doesn’t serve an economic goal gets ruthlessly cut away. Our MM himself reiterated that “societies like ours have no fat to spare. They are either lean and healthy or they die.” Having grown up when Singapore had already achieved its affluence, I am inclined to believe this. The oft-repeated argument that Singapore is small and vulnerable and has no margin for error also comes to mind. But there is intrinsic value in forging a culture that we can identify with. It appeals to an almost primal instinct for a need to feel that we belong somewhere. To deny that we have something to call our own is to deny us from feeling attached to the nation.

This divorce of nationalism and cultural identity puts us as citizens in an awkward position. Sure, we can take the whole loyalty to country thing and try to prescribe to it, but there must first be something about our country that we be loyal to. The idea of a country does not stand by itself. The pillars that prop it up are its history, traditions, in some cases religion and ethnicity, but most importantly, culture. These ideas are dependent on one another; remove either one of them and the whole sand castle comes crashing down.

Is it then so hard to understand why Singapore is afraid of brain-drain? It isn’t a matter of there being too many push factors in our country and pull factors in another. Sometimes, there’s just nothing here that keeps us from wandering away from our home. Having been taught that a better life is what we should strive for, can Singaporeans be blamed for being a “quitter” if they see that Australia provides them with that better life? Thinking that there is no Singaporean culture to identify with leads to our country being no different from another, and it is no wonder then that some of us do not feel that it is emotionally difficult to leave this so-called home. National pride is just not enough without cultural identity.

In his argument, the MM has forgotten, or chosen not speak about, something very fundamental: Language is the root of all culture. Lest we too forget, we already have a language unique to Singapore – Singlish. While steadfastly trying to weed out the use of this colloquial way of communication, the government has also curbed the development of what could become a Singaporean culture. Of course, I speak of culture as if it is well-defined. We all know that not to be true, especially in Singapore’s case. But, cultural identity being a vague idea shouldn’t prevent us from developing and thinking about it, much less deny its existence.

Up for a Sabbatical?

2006-09-05T04:52:00.000-07:00

Circular No. C19-23435-GH1
Classification: Secret

RE: Sabbatical for Teachers with 12 years of Service

As per the recent policy changes effected as a result of the Minister’s directive that more should be done to keep teachers in the Service, the following announcements were made in The Press (5 Sep 2006) following the earlier pronouncements made in The Speech (dated 1 Sep 2006):

But from next year, some 8,000 teachers with at least 12 years of service can take a full term off at full pay to study, do a work attachment or research.

This circular (No. C19-23435-GH1 dated 5 Sep 2006) is released to offer guidelines for the implementation of the above policy changes. It is meant to give School Authorities a sense of the how the policy changes that govern the Sabbatical for Teachers with 12 years of Service should be interpreted. As we are all busy members of The Service and are far too pre-occupied with making sure that teachers are making sure that students are making sure that everything is well and good, the Ministry as developed the following scenarios that are meant to guide the School Authorities in implementing the aforesaid earlier mentioned policy.

Scenario 1: Mr Tan Gu Gu is a teacher who thinks that he has 12 years of Service. He applies for the Sabbatical.

Mr TGG. : I started teaching in 1994. That should mean that I have 12 years service. I’d like to apply for the Sabbatical.
School Authority: Well, let me first check your records. It says here that you took 4 days no-pay leave in 1995.
Mr TGG.: Well, that was when I got married and before the Ministry started the compassionate leave scheme ...
School Authority: And it says here that you took two-weeks no pay leave in 2000 ...
Mr TGG.: ... but that was to extend my stay in the US because the exchange program that the Ministry sent me on lasted longer than the June Holidays ...
School Authority: Sorry, Mr. Tan. You do not have 12 years of Service. No Sabbatical.

Scenario 2: Of course, not every case is as easily handled as Mr Tan's. More complex cases can arise. For example, Ms Chin Bo Liaw is a teacher who has more than 12 years of Service. She qualifies for the Sabbatical but wants to “do her own thing”.

Ms CBL: As I understand the circular and the term "sabbatical", I should be allowed to take ten weeks paid leave, no questions asked. How I spend those 10 weeks is up to me.
School Authority: Ah, yes, in theory. But I need you to think about how you can Value Add during those ten weeks. Would you like to do a job attachment with a leading firm in one of our nation’s new high-tech industries so that when you come back you can share your experiences with your students during School Assembly? Or would you like to teach in another school during those ten weeks, learn some Best Practices and come back and share with the staff during Contact Time?
Ms CBL: I just want to stay at home and look after my plants.
School Authority: Ah, yes, that sounds like a good plan but don’t you want to consider how the Sabbatical might be part of your Upgrading Portfolio? When the Staff Assessment and Ranking Exercise comes around, it would be nicer for me to say to the District Superintendent that, “Yes, Ms Chin went on an attachment with a firm. Actually, come to think if it, he called me yesterday and said that one of our cluster schools have a shortage of Maths teachers and that we can post you there for your Sabbatical, to cover the shortage for a few weeks ....”
Ms CBL: I'd rather NOT go then!
School Authority: Ok, your choice. But we offered you a chance, ah.

Scenario 3: Mr Wah Bo Eng is a Head of Department who has more than 12 years of teaching experience. He does not want to go on the Sabbatical.

Mr Wah: I’m far too busy next semester. I’m teaching three O level classes, I have to mentor the newly posted teachers and I have to oversee the transition to the Integrated Programme that the school is moving towards. How can I go on Sabbatical?
School Authority: Yes, yes. But you’re the only teacher who has 12 years of experience in our school. Actually Mrs Wee would have been another one but she just quit last year. So you’re our only representative.
Mr Wah: I thought that it was a voluntary programme that was meant to encourage teachers to stay in the Service. I’m not leaving the Service anytime soon.
School Authority: Yes, yes. But I heard that the other Ps of our cluster schools talking at the last meeting and they all have people applying for the Sabbatical programme. I tell you what. I put you on the Sabbatical programme but you just continue your work as per normal, okay? Like when we send people on course but ask them to come back after the course in the evenings to catch up on work. Then, our school also can say that we have someone on Sabbatical.
Mr Wah: But when I go Sabbatical I want to do something meaningful ...
School Authority: Are you saying that what you're doing now is not meaningful?

The above listed aforementioned scenarios are by no means exhaustive. Indeed, they are meant to serve as guidelines rather than strict procedures. However, in view of the numerous concerns that School Authorities have expressed about the issue and the rapidly changing Educational Landscape that is a result of these fine-tunings of policy, we have started the Going On Sabbatical – School Issues Portal (GOSSIP), which is meant as an on-going forum for School Authorities to share experiences and tactics they use to overcome difficult cases. The use of GOSSIP is explained in circular C19-211111-GH23 (dated 7 Sep 2006).

Another circular, governing the implementation of the $400 or $700 stipend will be released shortly. Please make sure that you shred this circular after you have read it. The last thing we want is for it to fall into less enlightened hands and start circulating on the Internet!

Regards,

First Permanent Assistant to 2nd Deputy Secretary to the Minister

Wanted: A single brand for S'pore

2006-09-03T07:19:00.000-07:00

Extract from The State's Times, 2/9/2006.

Uniquely Singapore. City in the Garden. Global City, World of Opportunities.

These branding campaigns have been used at some point or other by various government agencies to promote Singapore, often with sterling results.

But there is just one problem: Having each agency brand Singapore based on its own goals results in a fragmented image of the country.

So Singapore is now embarking on a search for a single, solid brand that will present the country to the world.

No wonder Singaporeans are always in one identity crisis after another. "Who are we?" "Where do we come from?" "Where do we go from here?" "Is racial tolerance the same as racial harmony?"

Even our dear fatherly Government cannot seem to make up his mind about what kind of overall identity we want Singapore presented as, much less us citizens who are already busy enough worshipping money and worrying about whether our work presentations needed for tomorrow has enough attention-grabbing visual aids.

For a citizenry that usually passively awaits and follows the Government's recommendations on everything from which overseas Special Economic Zone to invest in, to the type of bright tropical smile all 4 million citizens should maintain during the IMF-World bank meetings, we might be totally overwhelmed and confused by the different Government agencies' disparate branding of Singapore.

What's interesting is that this branding campaign takes on a very commercial function. Phrases like 'marketing image' and 'solid brand' seem to hint at a language of commerce. It seems that this new, unified image the Government so desires is made entirely for commercial consumption by the rest of the world. This of course reeks of crass pragmatism that we are so very used to. In fact, if i were asked for my opinion on how we might brand Singapore, I would say we are a pragmatic cosmopolis that listens to the demands of the 'world' and of the Government. Of course by 'world', what imean is those parts of this world that are internationally recognised and have important economic links with Singapore, be they neighbours or not.

Which brings me to my next point: Why aren't the local folks here being asked about what they would like their own country's unified corporate image to be? Hullo, i know not all of us have an MBA or a degree in economics, but i'm sure indigenous opinions carry a certain degree of importance and significance to such a branding campiagn. Imean hey, at least put out an online survey or sumthing, make it look like the folks here are actually being consulted on this issue, it may not be as potentially life-changing as the casino issue but at least it deserves the same veil of citizen consultation.

But no...What does the Government consciously choose to do instead? A tender bid is being put up by the Government for a consultant for this umbrella brand positioning. The cost for the exercise is capped at $3 million.

Oh yeah, do it in the way that seems most transparent. Nowadays it seems like the Government is holding open tenders for almost everything it wishes to be seen as open and aboveboard. The 3 lowest bids requirement instituted across the Civil Service and even the Army. Everybody who's experienced the 3 lowest bids system before knows the quality of goods/services you get in the end. But thats not my main point.

Hullo, instead of asking the folks here for opinions and in the process pacify the worst critics, our Government decides to throw 3 million bucks to any marketing agency able to come up with the most pragmatic, business-like and cohesive brand name for Singapore, that will perhaps last for at most 3 years before a name brand change is required to suit changing 'world' demands? 3 seems to be the magic number for the Government here, so i'm just following like a good citizen, and no prizes for guessing if a local marketing agency would actually clinch the deal if the Government in the first place discounted the cost-free views of its citizenry.

This also reminds me of one little-known fact about how the Government earlier on also went on a hunt for consultants to re-name/re-brand the Marina Bay area in preparation for the exciting IR and Marina reservoir developments there. So apparently millions were paid out for the marketing campaign but in the end the 'experts' concluded that Marina Bay was its most suitable name after all. If you haven't forgotten, even a 'reknowned feng shui master' was brought in to comment on Marina Bay's excellent feng shui during the IR hype.

What i find interesting is how a seemingly confident Government that professes the political will to chart its own foreign policy is so dependent on marketing/branding experts for affirmation of present images or the construction of new, abstract ones that bear great success to alienating the populace. And we may safely assume that these branding experts the Government has in mind are foreign ones. This perhaps exposes a socially nervous psyche that we posesss, one that is hungry for external affirmation but puts up a strong, stoic front that we are proud of our right to self-determination and our hard-earned economic success.

Why is it that we are so dependent on foreign opinions of ourselves? I guess that is a question all Singaporeans have to ask themselves from time to time. Do we judge ourselves based on a generally Western point of view or do we adopt an indigenously Asian perspective?

While the Government busies itself with closed-door meetings where open tenders are held, perhaps it would do us good to ponder what kind of image we are presenting to the world in the process of anxiously trying to re-brand ourselves time and again. Perhaps we could also have a good laugh about how the little autonomy the Government privileged the various self-serving agencies with has resulted in this identity tangle and mini-crisis that the father has once again to come out and iron things out.

Rallying Point

2006-08-31T20:36:00.000-07:00

This being Teachers’ Day in Singapore, I thought I’d say something about the profession that is so close to my heart and experiences as well as comment on the Prime Minister’s Teachers’ Day Rally address.

A Channel News Asia report said the following :

To achieve this [develop leaders for Singapore], he recognised the need for good quality teachers, promising government support and backing.
Mr Lee added the government will also provide teachers with resources and better career advancement.
The Prime Minister said MOE will help the teachers learn and develop professionally throughout their careers.
This will be done, for example, via training courses.
The aim is to keep teaching as an attractive career.
MOE will give details of its plans to do this in a few days.

So I guess this is what hard-headed engineering solutions look like when they’re applied to Education. If there appears to be a shortage of teachers because many leave the profession, throw money at the problem by promising “better career advancement”. If teachers don’t seem to be keeping up with changing knowledge trends, just send them off on another “training course”. There seems to be nothing new in the Ministry’s bag of tricks.

The last time that a Prime Minister addressed teachers in a similar setting was in 2001. I happened to have the bad luck (or good fortune, as it turned out, given the rather novel nature of the eventual address) of being made to attend the thing. Anyway, that Prime Minister actually took a different tack to get across to the teachers: he connected by telling a tale of his own relief teaching experiences after he finished his A-levels. By telling the anecdote he expressed his gratitude to teachers for their willingness to endure the numerous challenges of teaching, which he only briefly glimpsed at during his brief relief teaching stint. And connect he did. By the end of the speech, there were people in the way-back-in-the-corner stands were I was seated waving frantically to him as if he were their next-door-neighbour. The comic aspects of the memory aside, my point is that what REALLY gets teachers usually resides in that zone of altruism normally (and vaguely) termed “not the head but the heart”. I dare say that most teachers become teachers primarily because they belief that they can touch young lives and be a positive influence. And for a brief moment, during that Teachers’ Day Rally in 2001, the room was rife with altruism. Yes, yes, teachers grow cynical, political, bureaucratic, autocratic, and painfully pedantic along the way but I think that what keeps many teachers going is the belief that they’re doing something good.

While the Ministry continues to pay lip-service to the idea that teachers can indeed impact young lives positively, its policies (summed up in “career advancement” and “training courses”) actually deny any true expression of this possibility. In the end, teachers are caught trying to avoid the pitfalls of the system (and hence advance their careers) and trapped in yet another meaningless, faddish “training session” meant to make up their quota of training hours (an privilege, they are told, but one whose enjoyment is somehow always compulsory).

A simple suggestion. Allow teachers the time and freedom to do what they’re passionate about even if it doesn’t fit into the Ministry’s pre-ordained schema of what’s productive. If a teacher reads a book (any damn book ...), count that towards his “professional development”. If a teacher keeps a blog and writes about what she loves, that should count as well. If a teacher’s thing is to hang out with students in the canteen over endless cups of coffee, why should that bother anyone? Of course teachers need to be responsible. But this should never obscure the fact (as it now does) that teachers are first individuals who each have something unique to offer rather than digits that need to be accounted for. If teachers are allowed to do their own thing in place of the meaningless forms that chart their careers’ progress, if they’re allowed to just teach to their strengths instead of adopting yet another silly and irrelevant pedagogical schema (most probably dreamt up by individuals without much classroom experience but an eye on the profits to be made off “the education industry”), much good would be done.

In order to be great teachers, teachers need the space and time to connect with their own hearts. One Prime Minister knew this and he used it to soften and inspire an oft jaded group. This Prime Minister? I don’t think he’ll be telling any relief teaching anecdotes anytime soon.

Neil in the House

2006-08-29T09:40:00.000-07:00

Neil Humphreys came to my school today to give his last speech cum autograph session before leaving Singapore for Australia, having lived on our island for the last ten years. Had always wanted to pick up his books after reading a chapter of his first book in Borders by standing in a corner and pretending to flip through it. Cheapskate, I know, but I never pretended I was rich. Anyway, I was pleasantly surprised that they were selling his books with a 20% discount and coupled with the fact that I could get them autographed by the man himself, it was a done deal for me. You can see me looking very pleased with my purchases after Neil had signed them. Neil was looking very pleased himself, maybe due to the long snaking line queuing up for his autograph.

In his little talk that lasted for about an hour, he covered various topics like journalism (funny how his little sharing session has restored a little faith in me about working in the Singapore media industry), his experiences in our tropical island (the man is hilarious, and the situations unbelievable), and of course he touched on issues like how his permanent residence application got rejected after the authorities took offence with a certain article that he wrote for the Today newspaper. I guess it really takes an outsider, or Ang Moh in this case, to see things in a different light and from fresh perspectives, especially when it comes to topics that have been ingrained into our stream of consciousness so much that we are unable to see anything else.

His Singlish is wicked, by the way, for an Ang Moh. I was quite impressed by his pronunciation and syntax, not to mention timing of certain Singlish phrases. He must have said, “Steady, lah!” at least two times at just the right moments.

When he took a question from the floor about whether he had received any preferential treatment as a foreigner in Singapore, he gave us the straight answer: Yes. He went on to describe how the country seems to have this post-colonial hangover which basically meant that the white man must be right, no matter how dubious his background is. He also mentioned how despite his success in writing in Singapore, there was always the doubt that he made it due to his skin colour, which was one of the reasons why he was shipping of to Australia so as to, in a manner of speaking, “make it on his own”. Ironic that a white man had to tell us in our faces that this was what he noticed about us. Maybe he was really being very clever by appearing to be sincere so we would buy more of his books, but upon reflection there is no escaping the truth in his words. Those words seem to ring ever more ominously what with the recent announcement that we are opening up our doors to welcome more foreign talent than ever.

The recent MOE initiative to attract “native speakers” of English to come to our shores to teach comes to mind. After all, being a native speaker of English is not enough, it seems like it is equally important to pick the right country. It seems to me that with the declining population being a major problem hanging over our heads, we are adopting a stance that anyone foreign will inevitably do the job better than us. I’m guessing it manifests from the fact we feel that none of what is in Singapore is original, and whatever that comes from the supposed place of origin will be better than what we can find here. So Ang Mohs will inevitably speak better English than us because they spoke it first. Apple Ipods will always be better than Creative Zen players because Creative is just trying to ride on the success of Apple. Local movies will always suck, because we’ll never be able to reach the pinnacle of excellence that is Hollywood, never mind the fact that local movies are usually about telling stories about Singapore. The list just goes on.

Anyway, back to the topic of native speakers, I guess this video says it better than I do. If you have no idea what the hell Eagle Eye just said in the above paragraph, have no fear! Just watch this extremely funny video.

Indignation 2006 - TCP - Ruby Pan

Feeling Singaporean?

2006-08-27T12:58:00.000-07:00

From TODAY 24th Aug Thursday :

THE good news first, as Singapore steps
up its search for new citizens: Nearly nine
out of 10 young Singaporeans say they are
comfortable working alongside someone
of a different nationality.

But when it comes to the question of
whether they would encourage these same
foreigners to settle down and take up Singapore
citizenship, only 63 per cent said
they would.

These lines from an article in TODAY caught my eye and have caused certain thoughts about how foreigners fit into the perceptions of young Singaporeans to coalesce into the following.

In meeting up with people over the three weeks when I was back home, a common theme that emerged was a concern that foreigners were being given too many incentives to come to Singapore. “Too many” being defined by the fact that qualified and talented Singaporeans were being pushed out of jobs and had opportunities for career or academic advancement taken away from them. Here are three anecdotal examples, which cover three major groups of “foreign talent” that Singaporeans have the most concern about:

1. A former student who has just moved into a Hall of Residence at NUS claimed that Chinese students who have come to Singapore on scholarships appear to be the most well-off students in the Hall. He said that with their University tuition paid for and an allowance to cover living expenses, these students end up being able to afford more luxuries in their rooms: mini-refrigerators and special computer gaming equipment, for example.

2. A friend cited a specific company that enthusiastically hired Indian nationals who claimed to be highly-qualified with specialized computing skills, firing a large number of long-time Singaporean employees in the process. As it turned out, the Indian nationals were not as qualified as they claimed to be and couldn’t do the work that they claimed to be able to do.

3. A former lecturer of mine was talking to me about the prospects of teaching Lit at one of the local universities and hinted that having the right skin and hair color (most certainly not mine) gets foreigners of dubious talent into lectureships.

Against these instances, there are the “63%” who seem to be happy to welcome foreigners to come to Singapore and become Singaporean. Of course, 63% is already a pretty neat majority, but in the land of “80% or more”, it surely is a disappointing statistic and indicates that the government will probably put in more effort in changing these “narrow-mindsets”.

I think it is difficult to quantify, without extensive data and studies, whether foreign talent deprives the average Singaporean of opportunities. The standard government claim is that with more foreigners in the country, it doesn’t mean that there is less to go around. In fact, the government has repeatedly claimed that foreigners bring with them more economic investment: the economic pie gets larger and everyone gains. But this isn’t really the issue that I want to get at. I want to consider the emotive side of things: the lingering perception that canvassing for foreign talent to come to Singapore puts Singaporeans at a disadvantage, despite the immense propaganda campaign (including close-ups of distinctly non-Singaporean Chinese faces and shots of Ang Mohs in almost every scene of the latest National Day Music Video ...) to get Singaporeans used to the idea.

Of course having foreigners who live and work in Singapore is not a new phenomenon. When Singapore had to scurry to find some kind of quick form of economic sustenance in the 60s, it opened its doors to the MNCs and large expat workforces. Even the public infrastructure that Singaporeans are very proud of, owes a lot to foreign talent. The tunnels, for example, that make up the MRT were the result of the tunneling expertise of New Zealanders (I believe). Also, there has always been a large number of domestic and construction workers who are foreign. But these sections of Singapore were never really considered as integral to any sense of the nation’s history or destiny.

I think what now irks Singaporeans is the fact that “being Singaporean” is now easily traded, as if it were a commodity. I think that Singaporeans who disagree with government policy feel that extending citizenship so easily to individuals who come to Singapore for plainly economic incentives is a act that might lead to all sorts of unintended consequences. How will these individuals change social norms? Will foreigners be “loyal” to the country or merely use Singapore as a springboard to other lands and richer opportunities? Perhaps there is also a sense of betrayal: after almost four decades of telling Singaporeans that there has been something unique in the manner by which Singapore has managed to overcome the odds of political fortune, the turbulences of its own multi-racial past, and the obstacles of being “a small island with no natural resources”, that there is something unique to be of Singaporean stock, the government now seems all too eager to inject Singapore with a healthy dose of “non-Singaporeaness”, as if it has lost faith in its own populace.

Of course, I bandy the term “Singaporean” about as if it were a clearly defined notion or at least an emotive rallying point that moves the heart in a specific direction each time it is used. It is certainly much more ambiguous, complex, open to manipulation and re-definition than this. And it must necessarily remain in this state; otherwise, it becomes merely an administrative expedient that just affords certain perks to those living in Singapore akin to the quick passage through the immigration lanes of Changi Airport.

In ending, I will refrain from offering what I think a more genuine approach to solving Singapore’s need for more talent should look like. Instead, I’d like to suggest that behind the irritation that newly naturalized “Singaporeans” will gradually play a more active role in defining the economic and social norms of Singapore is a more deep-seated sense that “being Singaporean” doesn’t really mean much to the powers-that-be. Despite the enormous fanfare that accompanies each National Day spectacle, I don’t think the powers-that-be very interested or open to a genuine dialogue or contestation over what “being Singaporean” means.

Mee Siam Mai Hum

2006-08-26T08:00:00.000-07:00

Since when did Mee Siam come with Hum?!? That was the first thought that sprang into my mind (I’m sure it was the same for any self-respecting Singaporean) as I watched the Prime Minister delivering his National Day Rally Speech to the masses that he ruled. For the record and the uninitiated, this is the exact excerpt, verbatim I might add, of which I have since come to take offence with.

PM Lee: "So, last year, for the rally I showed two little clips, in a very small way putting my toe into the water … Tau Gay Not Enough and Tau Gay Never Enough. That's a harmless form of the new media. But in fact we have some serious decisions to make because we have to decide how far to go, what tone to set. And it's not just all fun and games. I give you an example. You put out a funny podcast, you talk about bak chor mee. I will say mee siam mai harm. Then we compete. Then what will I do? I will hire Jack Neo to be my National Day Rally adviser. It'll be a fun time, we will enjoy thoroughly, go home totally entertained. But is this the way to deal with serious issues? And the problem is it won't stop with fun and games. You'll go to distortions, you'll go to half-truths, you'll go to untruths. The tone of the debate will go down. Eventually, you race to the bottom."

Mee Siam is a spicy dish with Bee Hoon and maybe a hard-boiled egg sometimes. I’ve never, ever, in my almost 21 years of holding a Singaporean passport, even heard (let alone tasted) of Mee Siam with Hum. Hum is Hokkien for cockles, an ingredient that comes with many dishes popular with the general population, dishes like Char Kway Teow or Laksa. But Hum with Mee Siam? Was the Prime Minister trying to invent a new national dish? Does his personal chef actually serve him the said dish with cockles thrown in for good measure? More importantly, what was he thinking?

I guess he thought he was being funny, but little did he know the joke was on him.

I’m sure the online community has pretty much flamed his comments in every way possible, so I’m just going to stop my frivolous rant here. The serious implication only comes when the laughter has subsided and we sit back and think about how the whole hoo-ha started in the first place: Which Singaporean thinks that Mee Siam has Hum?

It seems anal to insist that my Prime Minister knows that little bit of trivial, but I find it disturbing that he doesn’t. In an attempt to connect with the masses by talking about something close to the hearts of everyday Singaporeans (food) and showing that he has a firm understanding of little details of our lives, he has succeeded in doing exactly the opposite. While saying that he has turned every Singaporean against him with his remarks is probably too extreme, suggesting that he has alienated himself from the general population doesn’t seem too far off. The Prime Minister is always eager to soften his image and prove that he is a man of the masses, but when he tries to do that, even the smallest things matter in order to maintain the image of a bona fide commoner. It seems that this time around, it was indeed the smallest of details about the smallest of ingredients that did him in. The phrase “It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than open your mouth and remove all doubt” comes to mind.

So every time you settle down at the coffee shop located at the void deck of your HDB block, and if your favourite breakfast dish happens to be Mee Siam, you might want to consider asking the Prime Minister along to educate him about something so trivial it seems silly not to know.