Sam's thoughts

Rationalising hawker food

2011-12-11T16:36:00.001+08:00

Old news, but Minister for Environment and Water Resources Dr Vivian Balakrishnan (cue the mix chorus of booing and guffawing) has suggested that hawker centres should be professionalise, on top of being “nationalised” – i.e. “next generation of hawkers in new hawker centres must also be Singaporean.”

And in a typical Post-General Elections 2011 move that is as unsurprising as the accusations of nepotism and cronyism, which are of course officially ill-informed, MEWR (RAWR!!! Purrrrr……) has conducted a consultation exercise to gather public suggestions. Nothing wrong with that, because most Singaporeans are fairly acquainted with hawker food.

Balakrishnan shared his views, “It's not as if anyone can just walk off the street and say I'm going to make the world's best char kway teow. There's an element of training, exchanging of best practices and recipes. And we need in a way to professionalise our hawker centres and our hawkers."

What strikes me most is the word “professionalise”. It invokes a systematic rationalisation of the hawker trade.

For those familiar with George Ritzer (or Max Weber), it’ll come as no surprise that as a highly urbanised (and continually modernising) cite-state, the symptomatic drive to control and standardise eventually extends to an “everyday life” domain and industry that is the hawker centre.

The PAP government also employs the very populism it condemns, and in saying the next generation of hawkers must be Singaporean, effectively spews the kind of nationalist rhetoric it believes will help win back the votes it is entitled to.

One component of the existing set of controls hawkers are subjected to is the National Environment Agency’s food hygiene grading. On the one hand, it represents the government’s leadership in ensuring continual good hygiene practices in all food and beverage outlets here.

On the other hand, the idea of control and grading is characteristic of a highly intelligent and rational(ised) state, steeped in Confucian principles as it remains subscribed to the same “meritocracy” that has driven, for example, our education system (renowned for its streaming and differentiation of students).

This is a language the establishment understands. A citizenry, that is socialised into this language, not only understands it too, but also abides by its rules and stays within its discursive parameters.

What is “good” or “passes” according to a set of prescribed standards, concocted by a select few, mostly and mostly likely to be the privileged and elite, will be accorded a certain grade or status others believe to be superior.

We understand, in isolation, that an A grade is higher than and superior to a B grade. That order seems logical, thus accepted. However, we don’t question the sets of rules and reasoning that necessitates grading and tiering. We also don’t question how the bases for grading may appear to benefit a certain group, a certain aesthetic and so on. It is deceptively reasonable, logical and rational.

I am also interested in the use of professionalisation as a front for standardisation. To employ a “purist” foodie stance, one steep in culinary nostalgia and gastronomical romanticism, the evolution of “good food” (subjective nonetheless) is premised on competition, improvisation and well-kept secrets. Standardisation curtails this.

George Ritzer conceptualised McDonaldisation, a phenomena that characterises modern society and it pursuit of efficiency, calculability, control and yes predictability. With standardisation, we have predictability (and control, of course). These are the symptoms of a highly rational society.

The respective conceptualisations of rationalisation and McDonaldisation by Weber and Ritzer, are reactions to what they perceive as the process of modernisation in the Western context. Come on, as if there is an idea of an era preceding the modern, right? Well, modernisation (and its dehumanising qualities) and the values ascribed to it are just as socially constructed as the values people ascribe to “purist” ideas of nostalgia, romanticism and irrationality, or anything associated with being “human”. Let’s call a truce until the next paradigm arrives.

Why does good food taste good? I believe in the properties of differentiation, improvisation, competition and secrecy, as these ensure the next generation continues to get “good” food.

Maybe the government’s idea of innovation and creativity does not extend to the food and beverage industry, specifically the hawker industry, and this doesn’t figure in the grand scheme of “progress”.

There is this constant obsession with finding the best practices, benchmarking and standardising, so that we can sustain something we think is good for everyone else. This is corporate Singapore, but do we understand the implications of our decisions and actions? Or are the problems created by our decisions best left for the next generation to solve?

Professionalising and nationalising the hawker trade need not be bundled together. If the PAP government wants to win votes based on invoking populist nationalist sentiment, it should articulate in isolation that hawkers be mostly Singaporean. As for “professionalising” and ensuring good “standards” and practices (which essentially point to standaridsation), it is a whole different story altogether.

George Ritzer assessed that while the process of McDonaldisation is a highly rational(ised) one, it begets irrationality, in the form of excessive red tape and resultant lower quality of work.

The professionalisation and probable standardisation of the hawker industry will result in easily replicable but nevertheless good and rational practices which ultimately can be done at a lower cost – use foreign talent!

Based on my interpretation, professionalisation and nationalisation here seem at odds with each other. Perhaps Balakrishnan will explain more in the future as to what he means by professionalisation and its parameters.

By the way, the bak chor mee stall I regularly patronise is manned by Chinese nationals, and I somehow crave the same good taste at a consistently low price.

Josephine Tay's letter not encouraged or endorsed

2011-12-03T08:20:00.001+08:00

(unpublished - Nov 26, 2011)

I read with disgust Josephine Tay's letter "Why orchid for Elton" (Nov 26, 2011).

She insists there are "other celebrities and dignitaries more deserving" than Elton John and his partner, following the naming of an orchid after the famed performer.

She furthers this by questioning the government if homosexuality is "openly encouraged and endorsed".

I see this differently. The naming of an orchid after Elton John is an honour bestowed upon, first and foremost, a talented and successful musician and performer.

It is disgraceful that even today we have Singaporeans who openly condemn the sexuality of those who we choose to believe are different from us. Does that mean no matter how huge the contribution to society and the world, lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered people deserved to be ignored, trivialised or condemned?

As a father, I see no issue with Elton John's sexuality. It would be more important to me if he and his partner, as high profile persons, can provide a loving and nurturing family environment, and set an example for others.

It churns my stomach when prejudices rule our hearts and minds, leading human beings like Josephine Tay to associate a sexual identity other than heterosexuality with all things bad.

I also do not encourage and endorse people who, guided by such bigotry and hateful prejudice, abuse their privileged positions and make hateful remarks against sexual minorities.

What is far insidious is that she has the audacity to suggest that the government and public do things that are eventually aligned with their prejudices. If the government ever has to be involved, they should be more concerned about hindrances to peace, harmony and diversity, such as the exclusionary homophobic letters that populate our mainstream media.

I assume Josephine Tay is a heterosexual, and as a fellow heterosexual Singaporean, I wish to express my disappointment at her and her condemnable letter.

Ho Chi Sam

Teasing the ism from race and religion

2011-11-23T09:50:00.006+08:00

And there's the case of Donaldson Tan, re-posting a picture on Facebook, which is obviously offensive to Muslims.

But does this act of re-posting constitute sedition?

The picture is already publicly accessible, and not created by Donaldson. And even in re-posting it, I personally feel that no assumption can be made that he has the intent to incite.

Furthermore, he has described the picture as "flame bait", which indicates his understanding of the action and its context. So, in my opinion, that's a parody.

In its entirety, to incite the anger and potential disharmony is a condemnable act. But if a comparison has to be made, put alongside Jason Neo's photo and caption, I feel Donaldson's re-post is less severe, or even relevant.

There will be segments of the community who will dismiss Donaldson's act and person as childish, frivolous and hence not worthy of any attention, as there are (already) segments who are offended and incensed, wanting criminal action to be taken against him.

But thanks to Donaldson, people are, among the anger and condemnation, talking a little bit more about race, religion, governance and censorship. The measure however, is extreme for most (myself included). But to break the silence that is essentially an ethnic Chinese elite brand of Singaporean multiculturalism, such an act (with highly insensitive content) proves a little more effective to provoke (not promote) discussion.

It will be a travesty if the case closes on the "racist" internet postings and Singaporeans remain "chilled" and quiet, and not thinking about the differential protection and governance accorded to different segments of Singaporean society, or about the mechanism of parody. Furthermore, what is behind our anger and angry reactions?

(Any way, do the nonreligious get the same degree of legal and social protection as those of faith?)

It's a generic Islamophobic opinion widely known, rather than one that is targeted at local kindergarten children and accorded the description of terriorism. Condemnable acts in Singapore.

Personally, I condemn acts and speeches which puts at a disadvantage or incites hatred against a community in Singapore. I don't condemn based on the possible repercussion if such acts go unnoticed, nor do I do it based on fear of unrest and violence reactions.

The fear of violent disruptive reactions is a stereotype we project on the offended - making us a little bit more complicit in the very hate we are fighting. e.g. I condemn the statement which says girls are over-sensitive because I fear they'll over-react at that statement and there'll be disruption because I assume girls are more capable of doing that - well, that kind of logic we may uncritically have.

Although there is one statement "No to racism", there are many motivations behind it. Some of these motivations are based on inherent racism or racist stereotypes.

Any way, again, Jason Neo's comments on the kindergarten children as "young terrorist trainees? (with a question mark)" propagates the Islamophobic atomisation and misrepresentation of Islam as violent and hence Muslims are such. It is an original photograph taken by Jason and an opinion expressed by him publicly. Come on, children? What did they ever do to you?

As for Donaldson, there is nothing new here. The comments he has shared about governance, censorship and religion are not new either. They constitute a discourse that is international and has been discussed in great detail for at least a decade.

Given its timing and "flame bait" comment, I think Donaldson's repost is a parody.

Unfortunately, not many of us appreciate parody (many men can't laugh at or see the irony of their "macho-ness" any way), and given the many decades of silence we have on race and religion, we are not ready to face parody or commentary of the racial and religious sort.

It is not that parody trivialises or misrepresents race, ethnicity or religion (and we shouldn't be spending 100% of our attention condemning its trivialising properties), but it allows us to reflect on the trivialisation and misrepresentation, and the social mechanisms and attitudes which drive the trivialisation and misrepresentation.

For me, I think playful actions sometimes pave the way for mature dialogue, but as long as we have strict social and legal policing of such matters, dialogue is heavily impeded.

---
By the way, the mainstream media has published photos of Donaldson and Christian Eliab Ratnam, but has the photo of Jason Neo been published?

Condemning Jason Neo's offensive photo caption

2011-11-17T20:21:00.003+08:00

I got a shock when I saw a photo on Facebook of a bus with children in it. And it was captioned "Bus filled with young terrorist trainees?"

It's so outrageous I thought it was a hoax, but after following the news, I realised it was legitimate. More can be read from The Online Citizen here.

The photo may be accessed here.

The Young PAP, of which the perpetrator Jason Neo has been a member, has issued a statement here.

In any context, the caption is disgusting and disgraceful. I condemn this act, and this racist and feel he has no place in Singapore society. His act is a hindrance to peace and harmony.

He is also a disgrace to ethnic Chinese like myself, as well as among those who acknowledge and appreciate our privileged position in Singapore society, and are also active in supporting or advocating a peaceful and harmonious coexistence for all.

It will be very difficult to accept any apology from a person like Jason, who's capable of publicly making such ignorant yet hateful remarks.

Looking beyond his Young PAP membership and the fact that PAP and YPAP have distanced themselves from him (which doesn't exactly solve the problem), the act on its own is deplorable.

The caption and the fact that it is publicly accessible shows that he is a bigger extremist than the people he demonises.

Making change in Singapore

2011-10-28T22:45:00.000+08:00

Wow it's been some time now.

Let's see. New job and fatherhood. Same old problems with the world.

I fielded questions on the Singapore Queer-Straight Alliance yesterday, from final year university students writing a paper on activism.

It got me thinking a little more about not why I am in this in the first place, but rather how am I going to remain committed to what I believe in.

Essentially, belief is commitment, or at least that's what I would tell myself.

What continue to irk me the most are people going around telling others that, among many other things, homosexuality is bad, transsexuals are bad, wrong, unnatural, sinful, yada yada - I get the point.

That doesn't make the hatemonger is any better, but not that they know it any way. There will be people who think they know enough, or better, to speak for everyone else.

They'll want to lay claim to education, media, legislation, social norms and other mechanisms of control, to effect changes in our society that will eventually be ideologically aligned with what they are predisposed to, or already comfortable with.

That is destructive to the spirit of pluralism even our state is half-assedly committed too. (Well, I think our brand of pluralism essentially tilts in favour of the ethnic Chinese business elite, but that is just an opinion)

The curse of pluralism is the drawing of boundaries and battle lines, and when communities of uncompromising bigotry clash, and when the government fails to take leadership in social governance, it gets real nasty - we end up pretty polarised.

I still see myself as an ordinary anti-homophobe. I'm like "fuck your homophobia la" when I'm confronted with illogical arguments against LGB folks. It's a selfish thing, but I prefer to have a live-and-let-live approach to things, provided it doesn't impinge on the liberties of others.

A lot of "haters", -phobes, and fundies (religious fundamentalists) have an "us and them" complex. So too do most advocates and activists. So do I.

If people in the business of change (i.e. activists, advocates, etc.) adopt an "us and them" approach to advocacy, draw the bold lines and say stuff such as "you're wrong" and start prescribing to other communities what is the "right" way to think, feel and act, are they no better than the ignorant, the -phobic, the "haters" and all?

Different message, same kungfu.

I feel it is apt to leverage the (Singaporean) nationalist discourse (it is not entirely innocent any way) to focus on how different people and communities can co-exist. It requires the hard work of different stakeholders - an odd bunch of heterogeneous and/or overlapping communities able to agree to coexist and help one another; plus an active and supportive government willing to create and sustain more platforms for dialogue and all.

It doesn't work if the success of a collective is determined by the discrediting or invisibilisation of some communities.

Invoking more nationalist rhetoric - why must the Singapore story be written with omissions any way?

Coming back to the "us and them" mentality - between communities, between people and government - I feel some of the time and resources used to fortify the borders of indoctrination within a community, can be allocated to reaching out to others, or allocated to co-building platforms for stronger, constructive dialogue (NOT CONVERSION).

Speaking of conversion, if you still think homosexual people can convert your children, or that homosexuality is something you can learn and thus "unlearn" and discard, fuck you la.

Why give sexuality the same status as religious ideology? Well, I see it as the construction of an enemy or "devil" - it needs to have animalistic tendencies and a long penis, culturally recognised traits associated with all things evil.

To make people in your community recognise an "enemy", you have to 'zeng' the "enemy", like how Ah Bengs will add random accessories to their cars to make them look sporty and impressive and to show they don't have short penises, even though it is, in some cases, an extension of their masculinity.

Homosexuality, along with many other "ills", is something you have to make up as the antithesis of everything good that you believe in, every set of values you subscribe to. It doesn't cause it, but does exacerbates harmful mistruths and stereotypes of homosexuality being associated with sin, (un)nature, disease and other stuff you never want your children to be (which may include being unable to ascend the socio-economic ladder).

I personally think that good values, virtues and all the moral "rights/corrects" are not good enough to maintain ideological membership. Fear, hate and demonisation are necessary mechanisms to ensure the naturally permeable membrane that is the ideological boundary (if it even exists) is transformed into solid iron.

To use the government's globalisation rhetoric, we are living in constant change. Communities are not only characterised solely by strong bonds and fixed networks, but loose networks of mobile nodes. There is no place for "us and them". Bunkering in will only prove you are a hindrance to the collective. People with strong social prejudices will find it difficult to survive, without playing to themselves the same broken records of fear and hate (or tunes which sow such seeds).

If we are capable of friendship and be "colour-blind" at the same time - blind to physical differences, blind to religious differences, blind to racial differences - I think it is a good starting point for harmonious diversity. The same goes for sexual orientation and gender identity.

Who cares if that random girl is kissing another girl? Why can't your community address issues like 70, 80-year-old men and women scavenging our rubbish bins for recyclables? You want to create new enemies and problems? Try solve the existing ones first. Our very own prejudices and preconceived notions are existing problems to us and others who may be affected by them.

I am not an activist. I am not even half an advocate. I am just a digit, making an honest living, doing the best in different aspects of my life - familial, professional and recreational.

I somehow find myself in and out of the business of change. Got some battle scars - "freakiest gay in Singapore", "not neutral", "ignorant", "obnoxious", "not an activist", "patronising", "all brains no soul", "advocate of the cat holocaust" (that's a keeper), but that's okay.

Why in and out? I can never find a way to balance advocacy with my personal life. There are priorities and responsibilities I value more.

For me, activism, and more specifically, advocacy are embodied. When people within you circle make a needless and irrational transphobic statement, you could say "don't be a dick la" and that statement already indicates a stand for something, and against something else.

I also learned one thing along way, and that it is important to never take myself too seriously. Have a good laugh instead. I always feel that if people in the business of change take themselves too seriously, they end up, again, no different from those they try to change.

There has also emerged refreshing forms of advocacy which are characterised by the co-creation of platforms for different parties to come together to share ideas related, and even unrelated, to very issues that divide them.

Not all of us have the ability to lead, petition the government, mobilise people (illegal in Singapore), stage a march (illegal in Singapore), protest (possibly illegal in Singapore, demonstrate (illegal), picket (illegal), speak before the masses (illegal unless approved), and so on. But we have it in our own selves to embody the change we personally want to see.

We have the ability to make friends with those we disagree with. That is change too.

Personally, I was never inclined to mobilising or leading. I don't even fancy moving around, meeting strangers and all. But I do my best where I can

Balancing personal life and advocacy, I rationalised a little bit and tell myself, maybe I could commit 1-3 hours a week doing a little something - work on independent proposals to the government (they do listen, because the PAP wants to improve their vote share next election), read up or listen to talks, write to the newspapers, etc.

When people ask me about the Singapore Queer-Straight Alliance or talk about it, talk about membership and all, I normally say what I always feel, that any one who stands up against the nonsense that is homophobia, in any capacity, or any one who is "colour-blind" enough to co-exist with others regardless of orientation and persuasion, is already a member of their own queer-straight alliance.

There are many groups and individuals already working very hard to push for substantive equality for all in Singapore regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity, and they can do with the commitment of ordinary individuals, who live their daily lives being the change (hopefully not to abrasively or antagonistically).

If a substantial number of Singaporeans can come to terms with their prejudices, change at the collective level will probably be less difficult.

Now back to parenting.

Are Singaporeans who are easily offended more equal than others?

2011-10-08T20:08:00.001+08:00

(unpublished - Oct 1, 2011)

I follow with concern the recent hoo-hah surrounding the Abercrombie and Fitch advertisement.

I am concerned about our private and public governance pertaining to censorship and selective interpretations of what constitutes moral, decent or vulgar.

Does this episode, along with many other similar issues we have witnessed, mean that individuals and communities that are more sensitive and easily offended exert a stronger influence over government policy and industry governance?

I also observe that when it comes to issues of allegedly contentious morality or objectionable content, many of us are quick to incite accusations against corruptive western influence. This is ironic considering the wave of puritanism that has empowered some of us as prudish self-righteous trigger-happy censors did in fact originate from the West.

I plead for a more moderate coexistence of views and ideologies, populated by diverse and well-adjusted Singaporean communities.

It is vulgar in its own right that some have taken it upon themselves to determine what is good for everyone else, thus threatening the plurality many of us fight so hard to upkeep.

Coexistence and open dialogue beats complaining and having a bunker mentality that our society is headed for damnation.

There should be spaces for creative advertising and art in Singapore, as well as education and awareness of the intangible value these bring to our society.

If we can teach the values of plurality and coexistence, we are capable of raising our children as information-literate and world-savvy citizens.

How well-adjusted we are is displayed through our reactions towards what we may believe to be provocative. There is a difference between making a swift moral judgement and appreciating how content invokes one's imagination.

So do Singaporeans who are not very well-adjusted have a bigger say in things around here? When they make suggestions or protestations, are they more equal than others?

Ho Chi Sam

Me, myself and my Chinese-ness

2011-10-02T20:46:00.000+08:00

Forever enshrined as an OB marker here in Singapore, race (or rather, ethnicity) is a topic that always appealed to me. It's probably because far too many people take it far too seriously, and we are all happen to share the same (lack of) understanding of it.

I mean, we should be free to talk about race and ethnicity and how interaction on various levels of society have come to mould the lived daily realities of every Singaporean.

I am particularly interested in how something that is socially ascribed with a purpose to differentiate one person from another by one's physicality and cultural practices, as if we are indeed categorisable by an agreed set of seemingly heterogeneous parameters.

While these parameters have throughout history been often arbitrarily (re)arranged and (re)assigned to create a desirable authentic group of individuals who appear to be the "same", these herds have come to believe that the parameters are what determine racial difference.

With race, or at least our common understanding of what we think it should be, we have one more reason to feel defensive, to feel offended and perhaps one more reason to band together with those who we think are the "same" as us and incite violence against those we think are "different" from us.

We believe in race's authenticity just because we currently share, thereabouts, the same physicality and practice, thereabouts, the same cultural practices. As we believe it to be authentic, we feel it is something worth protecting, something meaningful.

When there is a symbol people collectively hold dear, take very seriously and observe it to be an essential (essence is punny) part of their identity and daily life, it becomes both a means for solidarity and an instrument of control and manipulation.

When people are confronted with the reality of differences, we some how feel compelled to create boundaries, as if there is some inherent need to do so or there is some value in doing it.

As an ethnic Chinese Singaporean (my given race and nationality - 2 more reasons to feel offended or die for a collective cause), I feel, in my experiences, that race has been used as a disciplinary mechanism to regulate my behaviour. I observe the same for other ethnic Chinese Singaporeans too.

Perhaps it is the immigrant Southern Chinese roots our community and our ethnic Chinese elite government continually want to remind us of. Along with it comes the immigrant and survivalist ethos of pragmatism, which has come to underpin many of our policies.

I am constantly reminded by my Chinese-ness on a daily basis. Maybe it is not unique to ethnic Chinese Singaporeans, but I think we have a very strong "us and them" tendency towards everyone else.

We strain at drawing the line between ethnic Chinese Singaporeans and those from mainland China. As ethnic Chinese Singaporean, we have reclaimed and conveniently labelled ourselves as "Chinese" and used "China" as an adjective to describe the citizens of mainland China. Surely citizens in China are ethnic Chinese and nationally Chinese. Nope, for the sake of distinction, we know them as China men, China women, China children, China students, etc.

Skin colour and ancestry are agreed-upon fixed indicators and parameters of "race", and they are ritualised with common behaviours, which include language and a common set of cultural practices.

I've often been lectured and reminded of my Chinese-ness with the phrase "Chinese ought to speak Chinese", or "Hua ren ying gai jiang hua yu".

The government has also reinforced my Chinese-ness by bombarding social and education policies with terms such as "mother tongue" and "bilingualism". Well, "mother tongue" does not in any way refer to the tongue (speak) of your mother, but to the tongue of your race as classified by the state, which is the Mandarin language as determined by the state to be the unifying language for all ethnic Chinese in Singapore. This is also a pragmatic approach to prepare Singaporeans, ethnic Chinese in particular (of course), for a future global economy dominated by the Chinese, a.k.a. China.

"Second language" does not possess the same manipulatively emotional appeal as "mother tongue" for a culture that has been historically predisposed to Confucianism and patriarchy.

Social sanctions also continue to exist, in order to police ethnic and cultural boundaries. Those who appear to be less able or less inclined to speaking Chinese or behaving in a way that is typically Chinese (however it is defined by a majority), will be teased/judged to be "losing their roots" as if that equally mattered to the "jiak kantangs" as it does to the purists.

Social policing is often done with the belief that differences in behaviour and in mindset indicates rejection of what is believed to be inherent or authentic, and rejection is a huge taboo. But hello, being different does not in any way equate to rejection.

I guess, as an ethnic Chinese, and perhaps a member of the ethnic majority, we can abuse our privilege position and make everyone else an outsider.

The idea of "roots" and "heritage" is actually the product of a cultural imagining of the power elite. They draw the lines and boundaries, shaping and defining what roots, culture and heritage should be, and these are defined based on the whatever political advantage the elite can gain. Our roots and heritage are not myths, but the manner in which they have been adapted and manipulated is indicative of their mythologisation.

Depending on the economic, political or social situation, the "once upon time..." rhetoric will change, as it sets about recruit and regroup the "right" members to be mobilised for any political cause.

The beauty of the state's reminding me of and reinforcing my Chinese-ness lies in its invisibility. We don't sense it at all, because it appears to be seamlessly integrated into our lives.

What I understand as meritocracy and multiculturalism are through my ethnic Chinese eyes and mindset. It is a meritocracy and a multiculturalism that is defined and shaped by a Chinese elite, that somehow does not create much disruption or dissonance to me as an ethnic Chinese - this is my privilege as a majority. No dissonance means no need to think about my reality with respect to that of others. It's a system that works for me and my family, and I am in fact grateful to the PAP government and the Chinese elite, if these two could be disentangled.

I am also constantly reminded of my Chinese-ness whenever there are population reports. Chinese Singaporeans are marrying late, not having enough babies and so on. There is a sense of urgency to top up "our" numbers. "Us" and "them" again, no?

Many of us ethnic Chinese Singaporeans are also subjects of a practice when our names have to carry both the dialect name and parenthesised hanyu pinyin name. If there would ever be an overkill in reminding ethnic Chinese Singaporeans of their Chinese-ness, this would be it. For instance, Tan Boonhuat John (Chen Wen Fa) - that's the full name. There's both the dialect name and hanyu pinyin name, unless in the most unlikely scenario, your dialect happens to be Mandarin.

One important contribution our ethnic Chinese herding and boundary-policing brings is that it creates a relatively safe environment to make assumptions - a function of taken-for-grantedness. In a tightly policed ethnic Chinese community, it will be safe to assume that any one of a particular appearance and physicality will speak the same language. If not, it is natural to feel curious, surprised or even offended that there could be difference within a presumably homogeneous circle.

I encounter many individuals who seem to tell me that they know more than me what it takes to be Chinese. It is as though there are a fixed set of characteristics to possess, internalise or exhibit that determines true Chinese-ness, when these are in fact romanticised cultural imaginings selectively put together by random opinion leaders throughout time based on what they agree to be essentially Chinese, and it just happens that there is a significant number of people of people who take this whole idea pretty seriously.

The worst thing about people taking things seriously is that they expect everyone else to take the same things as seriously as they do. In order to do that, you need a healthy dose of socialisation and indoctrination. One strong mechanism is to shame and use self-esteem to discipline the errant "Chinese" into being "more Chinese", in this case, you are expected to feel ashamed if you speak sub-par Mandarin, because you are less Chinese, a situation you should thus be ashamed of but need not to question why that is the case.

You know what happens when people take things too seriously? It can cause violence.

The communication of values and morals is also often couched in race, ethnicity and "roots", what not, as if the former are unique and inherent to the latter entities. Values and morals are selectively collated and attached to race and ethnicity because race and ethnicity are in serious need of distinguishable parameters before any one can start policing them in the first place.

I wonder any way, what does it say about our country, our leaders and our policies when we have to be reminded of and divided by our racial categories?

As for racial pride, or to be proud of something (an identity), we have to assume it to be true and to be real, that the traits that make up (racial) identity are unique, distinct, unchanging, unshakable, authentic and essential when they are in fact products of mythologisation.

The concept of "race", for me, captures the aspirations of an elite, as it remains supported and celebrated by many.

As a Singaporean, I don't exactly feel proud to be ethnic Chinese, but feel very lucky (and grateful) I am categorised as such. Being in such a category in this system comes with privileges and with a general sense of comfort in my daily life. There are many policies and social norms which benefit me directly, enough for me to take many things for granted. It is a multiculturalism, pragmatism and meritocracy that benefits the group I have from birth been told and expected to be part of. And that is enough to remind me of what I am.

When Dr Menon died

2011-09-30T22:54:00.001+08:00

I barely knew Ananda Perera and his reputation as an ex-news director when he was cast as a supporting actor on the set of "A War Diary" in 2000/01.

My parents were like, "Do you know who he is???" But of course, they end up telling me who he was. I still had no clue. Young and clueless.

He acted as a doctor in the drama, as a mentor to my character.

He was always patient and actually had a good time filming. We filmed together mostly in the studios and also on location in Seletar Camp.

It seemed to me that nobody treated him differently and he probably didn't expect to be treated differently either. He played the role of the actor well, listening to the instructions of the director and the crew. He knew his script well and spoke the most impeccable English.

He would answer when addressed by his character's name "Dr Menon", rather than "Mr Perera". And he always had a good laugh at random things, if not smiling all the time in the 3 months I got to work with him.

His character was captured and tortured by the invading Japanese (it's a WWII film), and died in the arms of his student, the character I played. I think we played that scene very well. For the very short time we've worked together, I think we worked out a good touching onscreen moment. It's a pleasure to have met him and work with him.

Bye Mr Perera.

Time to make marry in Singapore!

2011-09-28T22:40:00.000+08:00

Marriage rates are declining in Singapore. No shit, Sherlock!

Thanks to decades of result-oriented education, growing materialism, rapid industrialisation, and a heavy touch of economically driven social policies, we've become a highly rationalised society. But it's more convenient to overlook sociology and just isolate the problem to individualistic selfish ungrateful generation of Singaporeans we have today. It's after all less complicated if a generation of human beings (Gen Y, in this case) is identified as the problem, as compared to looking at policies and their social ramifications.

It's reported that global economic uncertainty is one reason for singles not wedding. That is interesting. It is even more interesting that no political leader has taken ownership and responsibility for the policies he (yes, it's a rather male-centric one) has passed that has dis/empowered a generation of Singaporeans into embracing a very rational and economically-driven approach to life.

This is a classic case of paying the price for decisions made by the previous generation of leaders. We clean up their poop, just like how the next generation will clean up ours.

Our over-rationalised kiasu nature is a product of a socialisation that is strongly steered by a series of incentive and disincentives. Love and marriage are now more logical and rational, rather than emotional and irrational (in a good, romantic, romanticised sense). Love and marriage are incentivised with perks thanks to policies.

Love and marriage are also extended and externalised as it constantly remains couched in the rhetoric of policy, politics, "national service" and so on. Marriage is now defined by its function and the ramifications if its numbers are insufficient. As such, we fuss a lot more over its form - we focus on age, race and composition (e.g. heterosexual composition) - and when we're happy with a certain form, more policies are crafted to favour it.

Speaking of "national service", isn't it very demeaning to women who make the choice to stay single or married or not to have kids, and we're telling them making babies equates to doing national service? "That's your biology, so do it." Thanks for representing women in Singapore that way. I'm sure sex-negative feminists like Thio Su Mien will be appalled by such logic, so shut up and sit down.

There's where the tyranny of youthful heterosexual procreative lawful union kicks in. You can add "educated ethnic Chinese" to that because the issues of a specific stratum of a specific ethnicity seem to matter to specific people in power, especially so in a political ecosystem historically dominated (very thoroughly) by a Chinese (business) elite. We can talk about race another time.

Back to marriage and of course, kids.

Let's put some of the pieces together first:
People are marrying later.
People want to be financially independent as early as possible.
Flats are more expensive.
Flats are smaller.
People have elderly folks to look after.
Elderly folks face limitations in medical subsidies and access to medical help.
Cost of living continues to increase.

So, what would rational Singaporeans do?

Take care of the people who are already in existence (elders). Makes sense.
Earn as much money as possible, be financially independent. Good way to feel in control in such a politically disempowered society.
Financial independence seem to be the new "sexy" in a materialistic age. Good way to hook up.
Speaking of hooking up, isn't it more rational to enjoy sex as a commodity (recreationally consumed) than having commitment which is emotional and less logical?
Since we have sex for recreational consumption, there's really no need to have marriage when polyamory empowers individuals with choice.
Well, we could have marriage to enjoy the perks provided by the state, but that may not necessarily result in procreation.
A childless marriage makes sense for those who want to enjoy their brand of independence and comfort. That's economically stable, and it's rational, right?

The point is, don't try to blame Singaporeans for being over-rational or individualistic. Let's look at the context and how we have been socialised into becoming this way, into feeling this way and into believing it is normal to feel this way.

The news report need not interview sociologists and give a watered down assessment of the situation. Our leaders just need to have a little sociological imagination, and they'll be less prone to blaming the products of their own policies. But some people think their shit doesn't stink.

So Singaporeans aren't marrying. Selfish.
Not having enough kids, prefer childless lifestyle. Materialistic.
Bring in more immigrants. Xenophobic.

Not bad, and we've a paternalistic state that some how wants its children to have low self-esteem with these labels, or at least the association with such labels. Sociologists will be giggling at this.

If the government wants to have a holistic approach to policy, it should first take greater responsibility of its policies and genuinely accept that its decisions, past and present, create the means for a society to exhibit such tendencies. Don't blame globalisation and westernisation and any other phenomena you think doesn't involve you.

A holistic approach also incorporates sociology. I'm very sure many sociologists will be very happy if a major segment of our politicians have a little sociological imagination or develop some sensitivity to the social aspects and implications of policies, rather than have impaired leadership driven by the economic imperative and a press that tokenises them (sociologists).

I think we're come to a point where our leaders have difficulty leading by example. While I personally prefer our leaders to show their personal and family man/woman side (have the press depict them as family guys), they'll probably be dismissed as socio-economically privileged folks living in comfort and have the means to have big happy families. That's political cynicism, which is on the rise, unlike our birthrates (no worries, next year's the dragon year and we'll get our ethnic Chinese babies).

I personally like to see Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong hold his wife's hand and show he's a family guy. It's symbolic, and it shows that despite the Lee household's rather comfortable combined income, family has a place. We are far too obsessed with professional performance and buttoned-up public personae, we forget about how marriage and family can have a place in this heavily rationalised mess.

I wanted to say "If you want to connect with people, you have humanise yourself and show you are just like everyone" but I think Singaporeans are generally less forgiving and expect you to be so much better than them in order to be a good political leader, but not so damn good to the point you're despised for being disconnected. Then again, how did we come to cultivate this expectation?

When a leader speaks poor English, we feel he/she is not good enough to lead. When a leader speaks good English, we feel he/she is unable to connect with everyone else. Don't blame the fickle electorate. It's time to do an after-action review of the policies that have caused us to see the world this way and given us this appetite for perfection and of course, our characteristic impatience.

Ah well, perhaps we'll have more "throwing the baby out with the bath water" metaphors from the Prime Minister next National Day Rally when he's talking about policies.

Kumar's coming out: An empowering and disempowering Ra Ra Show

2011-09-17T01:15:00.002+08:00

Entertainer Kumar has come out.

This is something I fully support, and given his celebrity status, I find it all the more admirable.

The New Paper reported his uncertainty prior to coming out. It's rather interesting for someone I believe to be a rather private introverted man who appears to not care what others think, yet is also concerned about being accepted.

He is human after all, and serves as an example that as human beings, while we are susceptible to fear, we are capable of the courage to conquer it.

With respect to Kumar's coming out, I worry about the uninformed segment of the Singaporean population, who constantly and willingly subject themselves to fear and never have the courage to break out of it - the homophobes.

The homophobic will most likely digest the news in the way they would understand. They will judge based on their unquestionable and warped sense of binarist gender logic, which is chiefly dictated by the essentialist notion that gender, sex and sexuality are (and are to be) strictly aligned (i.e. male-manly-man and female-womanly-woman).

Kumar is a drag queen by profession. In my personal understanding, when someone cross-dresses for a living (part-time or full-time to earn a wage), it would constitute as being a drag queen or king. At the surface, it is entertainment. Scratch deeper, it parodies gender behaviour and roles, drawing laughs. At a deeper level, as a parody and/or art form, it exposes the flimsiness of gender as we know it (it isn't inherent after all, *GASP*).

For me, gender is just a coherent set of culturally intelligible/recognisable actions and traits agreed upon by a majority of people and institutions, to be associated with a certain physical and biological sex.

Shucks. It's probably easier to understand if we all can sweep this back into the closet and assume it is natural, moral, just and correct to have our male-bodied manly men and our female-bodied womanly women as heterogeneous entities.

The homophobic Singaporean typically understands and subscribes to the following myths:

1) Gays are sissy men
2) Gays are men who want to be women
3) Men who dress like women are gay
4) Men who like men see themselves as women
5) Sissy men like to dress as women.
6) Gays are just women trapped in men's bodies, or have women's brains.

In academic speak, and I hope to shake off some rust, homophobes are very prone to:

1) Gender essentialist ideas
2) Dichotomous gender binarism
3) Traditional male-dominated constructions of gender
4) Believing that sexual intercourse is essentially phallocentric and only penile-vaginal penetrative sex
5) Heterosexism/centrism

Or, simply put it, the homophobe is prone to essentialist dichotomous gender binarism, constructed and enframed by historical and cultural male-dominated phallocentric patriarchal discourses. Because that's "natural", or "virtuous", or "correct", or "normal".

So, in the eyes of a homophobe, a drag queen coming out as homosexual may leave some myths unshaken.

Given the homophobes' lack of awareness and understanding, which are in a huge way caused by their spiteful hate-mongering yet ignorant oppression of sexual minorities for the longest time, he or she will come to a conclusion that upkeeps the harmful homophobic myths.

One damning myth is that gay men secretly want to be women.

A lot of people believe in these types of myths. Believing is easy; questioning is difficult.

There is no problem with a drag queen coming out. The problem lies with a segment of society that is vicious in its denial that humanity is a collage of different identities, sometimes fluid over time, fluid over space, overlapping, heterogeneous and uncategorisable. This segment does not have the courage to recognise this and to humbly accept they are just one speck of dust in the galaxy of (gender and sexual) identities.

Kumar's coming out, for some and for others, is empowering yet disempowering at the same time.

Even if some among the essentialist dichotomous binarist apologists were to - in their own way, logic, terms and enframing - accept Kumar and his coming out, it may come at the expense of individuals of different identities who are trying to come out.

I think this is a threat we face in the longer term.

In principle, in isolation, this is a good thing and this is the right thing.

Place it before a less understanding and less informed audience, it may be disadvantageous for those who don't fit the binarist mould (e.g. Macho manly man wants to come out, or feminine girly woman wants to come out - not many people can deal with these things).

To be honest, for the longest time, I find it difficult to come to terms with self-identified homosexual men who are muscle-bound and rather butched up in their mannerisms. I've been brought up to adhere to and preserve the system, and preserve the alignment of sex, gender and sexuality, and in the process of adherence and preservation, live to embody the alignment and feel it to be natural.

(Hey, if we fell out of line, we get disciplined. For example, the use of teasing to correct one's gendered behaviour such as calling others sissy in a derogatory manner or laughing very hard when a man introduces himself as "Vivian".)

It's jarring. Then I started to ask myself, why the fuck do we care so much about it? What do we care about who they are and what they do? Is this kind of difference and diversity a threat to me? (of course, if you have leaders and bosses who are homophobic and bigoted, I guess you'll need a little grace, patience and prudence)

Another interesting narrative from Kumar is that, prior to his coming out, he felt that identity, as in sexuality, is both a combination of nature and nurture. Hot discussion.

But the crux of diversity is not only to have a harmonious co-existence of identities, but also narratives. Kumar's narrative probably does not correspond with those of many LGBT and LGBT-affirming folks, does it? Again, does that matter? Must there be a "party whip"? (I'm not trying to be punny about parties and whips)

The disagreement within and amongst LGBT and LGBT-affirming circles is to me a reflection, or rather, a function of their very oppression by heterosexist homophobic discourses. In some ways, it reflects the low tolerance for diversity.

To a practical extent, the articulation of LGBT rights is made in the language mostly understandable to heterosexist folks who hold harmful homophobic myths, with a view to empower the latter as agents of change for a more harmonious diverse society. Empowering yet disempowering, again.

I still feel that high profile, or socio-economically privileged LGBT persons should come out and show that diversity to the wider audience, and also serve as an example and perhaps a role model, to young queer/questioning folks, that you can be comfortable with who you are.

It's very easy for a cisgendered heterosexual person with the relevant privileges to express this belief and make this call, but it'll be backed with support where and however he can commit. After all, the push towards harmonious diversity has to be championed by a diverse group, characterised by their uneven rights, privileges and predispositions.

Perhaps we live in a different age, in which role model LGBT folks are not exactly and entirely necessary, as queer and questioning youths can seek empowerment through many other means. I fully acknowledge this reality, and if there are means and platforms for queer and questioning youths to seek empowerment, please, in your own time and convenience, share them with those who similarly seek the same.

I don't support Kumar by saying "Yes I support you!", but instead say to those who make homophobic jibes at him or get into everyone elses' faces to perpetuate heterosexist homophobic essentialist gender binarist nonsense "Well, fuck you!"... but of course, I often prefer more polite and persuasive renditions.

add: I'm sleepy. I wanted to write a 300-word blog entry, a quick note. But I guess I overshot by a little bit.

The Grassroots of the "Neutrality" Problem

2011-09-04T22:02:00.002+08:00

Must I place a disclaimer and say that the views I express here are solely my own and are neither reflective nor representative of that of any organisation? It’s the climate of fear I now subject myself to, but I wish to state that the views and arguments are solely and wholly my own and are neither in any way nor intended to be representative of any organisation. So in the spirit of expressing an opinion in the capacity of a citizen, and in the interest of contributing to public discourse as an independent node in the network, I hope there will be no inconvenience, prejudice or harm directed at me, my livelihood or my family. (fear fear fear)…

In this week’s episode of “Sucks to be…”, we look at the unenviable task of communications management on the part of the People’s Association. This is with regards to recent public queries on the neutrality of the statutory board. The PA has been put in a potentially embarrassing position with these queries. It has since replied to clarify, but in its clarification, I personally read it to be justifying exclusion along political lines.

Imagine switching the fan to a higher speed when faeces have already hit it. You can look up, but just don’t open your mouth.

Government ministries and agencies are on paper, and according to protocol, politically neutral. But put in a politician who wants power, recognition, more power and carries with him or her the political agenda of his/her political party, you get civil and public service tainted with the white colours of the ruling party.

If there’s a plan to serve Singaporeans, it would be the PAP’s plan. If there’s a definition of objectivity and neutrality, it would be that of the PAP’s definition. Singaporeans still being served, right?

Serving people is a thankless job. But politicians are often quick to cite the good leadership and work they have done, laying down the direction and framework for civil and public service.

For instance, a Minister with a health and ageing issues portfolio (not referring to any one in particular) may publicly claim credit for his/her leadership in the area from policy all the way down to execution.

This is a case when a service to citizens is used to score political points. It is not a wrong thing to do when you put your report card up for public scrutiny, and let people know you were and are the right guy/gal for the job.

It is not uncommon, but there are segments of the public who do not receive well the manner in which the attempts to score political points are articulated. To make things worse, the citizenry has grown familiar with a political style that threatens them into voting for them, by emotionally blackmailing and guilt-trapping Singaporeans. I cite the view that poor political leadership will cause our women to go to other countries to be maids, and in that line of reason, since that has not happened, we can safely assume, with all the intelligence we have, that the ruling party has done a good job.

Moreover, being an Asian country (to borrow the essentialist explanations of the PAP state), the electorate demands humility from all political parties. Even though the Minister of any portfolio can rightly claim credit and vocalise his/her leadership and decision-making skills for his/her respective Ministry’s work, some bits of the population are a little less forgiving.

Sucks to be a politician. You speak too crisp an English language, you are elitist. You speak like how Chan Chun Sing was depicted and immortalised in Youtube (with the Hokkien and poor English), you are not taken seriously and your leadership is questioned. If you appear to make a fool out of yourself (everyone has the right to do so once in a while actually), you’re in the Tin Pei Ling hall of fame (but is she a bad politician? It’s still to early to judge, but we prefer a little prejudging, if you know what I mean).

It sucks to be doing communications management, and I would think in this case, crisis communications management, when the lines between politics and public service are blurred. Some of us will think public service is politics. Feminists, and many theorists of the same vein, will also have us know that the personal is political.

If anything at all, and if subtlety was thrown out of the house screaming, it should have instead been a PAP spokesperson explaining the rationale of the decision, since it was stated rather clearly that opposition MPs or members of the opposition parties do not fit the bill as grassroots advisers. It is an exclusionist practise by the way, underlying the challenges posed by different political affiliations towards government-sanctioned grassroots initiatives. Since the exclusion is articulate along the lines of politics, a politician would be more suited to explaining it. That is not to be and we have a technically politically neutral organisation that is the People’s Association, justifying the exclusion of non-PAP aligned persons, by invoking the rhetoric of support for and alignment with the “elected government”, when it could have very well been the “elected and ruling party”.

The People’s Association defends its decision to appoint non-opposition party MPs as grassroots advisers (is it “advisor” or “adviser”?). This automatically implies that opposition party MPs are literally opposition, as in the antithesis of all things good, wholesome and virginal that is government, a.k.a. the ruling People’s Action Party.

“You’re either with us, or against us.”

I am very sure that there is no opposition party in Singapore that is diametrically opposed to the PAP in every syllable of its political manifesto and approach to public policy. There are some points everyone can agree on.

So, to address the issue of possible misrepresentation of elected government, or rather, the elected People’s Action Party, an empathetic sympathetic apologist would be a best fit for the position of grassroots adviser.

Since a political polarity is created in this discourse by the People’s Action Party between themselves and the opposition, it would be logical, in this sense, to hire your bosom buddies, a.k.a. you fellow political party members.

After all, if the objective is to get everyone on the same page, why not hire someone who’s from the same gang, all other things being equal? Favouritism in favour of a more favourite choice. After all, the one plan to serve, to which the ruling party subscribes, has to be followed by someone who believes in it.

And since this is Singapore, where the concept of “face” matters, there are certain things we cannot articulate clearly and definitively with language. There is still a silent recognition that trust within the ranks of one organisation can be adopted into another organisation and fully embraced. That’s probably why some PAP members hold multiple portfolios and are among the directors in different organisations across different industries – it’s either they are that damn good and can follow the same plan to serve people, or there is a serious shortage of talent.

The bottomline is that the PAP still has a plan to serve Singaporeans. Well, even if it means jailing people without trial, clamping down on freedom of speech, or probably shattering my rice bowl and harassing my family after this blog post is published.

I’d like to simplify the following persons. There is a difference between a PAP supporter and a PAP voter. A PAP supporter votes for the PAP, but it is not necessary that a person who votes for the PAP may support it. This is an issue easily taken for granted.

PAP supporters genuinely believe in the PAP leadership and the hearts of the individuals who represent or want to represent other Singaporeans in political domain. Yes, if there is a time to invoke a historical and hegemonic Christian rhetoric taken for granted to be religiously neutral by most, it’s “the calling”. Same goes for the OMG exclamations, which validates monotheism. I’m just saying. I’m just saying…

One’s sense of duty to serve becomes streamlined according to party ideology when one joins the party.

In my opinion, when you believe in the PAP and its moral and political direction, it translates to votes, unless some goondu marks the X in the wrong box of course. A PAP supporter, in my definition, believes that the PAP will be able to serve him or her, and society at large. Life will be good for “me” and things will get better for “everyone”.

At the same time, I believe it is reasonable to say that the PAP voter may not necessarily believe in its moral and political direction, but in one possibility, its economic leadership.

“I vote for the PAP because its leadership and policies keep me safe, and will benefit ME. ME ME ME. Muah hahahaha! HUAT AH!” does not equal to “I vote for the PAP because it has the people’s interest at its heart, and everyone in Singapore will benefit”.

There are people who want upgrading in their estates based because they want the value of their flats to increase, more so as a reason than actually benefiting, say, the elderly and the children.

In this argument, the mandate to rule the land is given to the PAP based on its economic leadership (a good one and most of us can generally agree on that), and probably less so in the areas of moral leadership. For example, if there is no climate of fear, but an air of respect for the PAP, I would say it would be a decent measure of its good moral leadership.

That said, the PAP is not the be-all and end-all to serve Singaporeans. The service to Singaporeans does not start and does not end with a vote.

There are people who truly serve Singaporeans in ways that the government is unable to. If one pledges political allegiance to the ruling party, society loses one who is able to serve and reach out to Singaporeans in ways the government cannot.

When it comes to building the community and connecting it with the ceremonially consultative state, bonds have to be fostered and grow organically. The state can at the very most, lay the foundations for social capital to flourish. For example, what impede the organic growth of social capital are lax immigration laws, rapid urbanisation and high population and traffic density, highly rationalised populace herded by incentivisation and any other factors you can think of doing your JC General Paper or equivalent essay (I know some JC kids have been reading this ah!)

Unfortunately, the ruling party has only one plan to serve Singaporeans. It wants party members or supporters to be grassroots advisers and help Singaporeans understand public policy better, and this implies that the non-elected party members eventually occupy a more politically advantageous position, priming them for future elections. That’s politics. The strategy works for the PAP, and it makes them believe it will work for Singaporeans.

But when politics interfere with the neutral position of civil and public servants who just want to earn an honest living, it gets messy.

My opinion is, so be it. It does not matter if the organisation is neutral or not. It has one plan to serve Singaporeans. And for whatever it does not cover, there are platforms and programmes created by Singaporeans in civil spaces that also serve the purpose of community bonding.

This arrangement is (un)fortunately biased towards the ruling People’s Action Party. Politics is like a religious turf war, people will always believe that the best way to establish a peaceful happy society is execute a few strategies ideologically approved and eventually favourable to the survival of the ideology itself.

The PAP’s plan to serve people has long been articulated in terms of paper qualifications and to simplify it, the “exam smarts”. Lee Kuan Yew enjoyed using that discourse, since you cannot really fault him for believing and telling everyone that you need the capable intelligent people to lead the country. And fast-forward to today, you get the Workers’ Party eating it all up and spitting it out, fielding the right candidates before an electorate who believes they have found the capable intelligent people.

The next chapter in the PAP focuses on youth and consultation, but that is something the opposition has long been covering. So we’ll see how that goes next time around, unless they gerrymander and rezone the entire Singapore into Tanjong Pagar GRC.

In short, there’s no one plan to follow to serve Singaporeans. There is some degree of plurality, even though it tilts in favour of the ruling party. It’s historical and the opposition parties will always find it an uphill task to be in power.

At the same time, for me, the PAP has forgotten what it is like to be an underdog. If it appreciated its rich history, instead of using it to coerce modern-day Singaporeans into supporting it, it will be a little more respected, and a little less feared.

The question of neutrality, while very valid in the area of “fair” political competition, deflects attention away from the business of serving Singaporeans and improving community bonding. We should be more concerned if the people who run the platform strive to proclaim themselves as the only legitimate platform to serve Singaporeans. We can then do without such arrogance and power-hunger.

One way to deal with suspicions of neutrality, or rather, the lack of it, is to create spaces for plurality, as in allowing and supporting non-governmental and non-PAP related efforts to serve Singaporeans. But of course, we have yet to reach that level of political maturity. So for the time being, a forum letter will do.

A good government with little insecurities and less of that “why don’t people love me?” complex, in my opinion, is one that not only provides an imperfect official platform for people to serve people, but also allow and support the flourishing of plural spaces to serve the same function. An example would be that in the areas of charity, social work and welfare. It will not stand idly by when people abuse these spaces to propagate hate (e.g. using protected religious speech to propagate hateful mistruths against gay people and dividing society).

A helpful research in an unjust land

2011-09-01T00:11:00.003+08:00

There was an article by the Straits Times yesterday, reported by Melissa Pang, titled “Study looks at sexual behaviour of gay men”.

It reported that the Tan Tock Seng Hospital is conducting a survey to study sexual habits of homosexual men, with a view to improve preventive measures as well as the treatment of sexually transmitted infections. The questionnaire comes with a biological test.

The study has “good intentions” to ensure confidentiality and the meeting of research ethical protocol. The study also hopes to “understand the risk factors to come up with solutions”.

In short, the study contributes to sexual wellness of men who have sex with men.

The report does not say “men who have sex with men” (perhaps the most apt description), because that is a crime. The report has to describe the sample group as “homosexual men” and “gay men”.

You don’t have to be a self-identified homosexual man, or a gay man, to have sex with other men. Actions and beliefs don’t necessarily correspond with labels.

The Tan Tock Seng Hospital survey has good intentions, because the data collated may put the researchers in a better position to come up with suggestions and solutions which may influence outreach, policy, education and other domains, benefitting the community in some way.

Here lies the stumbling block. We have a discriminatory unconstitutional law in place which criminalises consensual sex between adult men.

Why discriminatory? Consensual sex between adult men and women is legal, so why target that between adult men alone? It is not logical.

Why unconstitutional? Our Constitution states that everyone is equal before the law. Yet this statutory law has privileged one group (people who have consensual heterosexual sex) over another (people who have consensual homosexual sex). That is Section 377A of the Penal Code.

Section 377A makes some people less equal than others. It also further allows stigmatism.

Advocates of the repeal of Section 377A have, like their hate-mongering homophobic self-righteous bigoted counterparts, have played the same old broken record over and again. The government remains in a state of indecision, not wanting to be responsible to ensuring that our statutory laws are in line with the Constitution.

The presence and imbalance of another law is the one that defends the “modesty” of women. Unfortunately, there is no male equivalent law to protect men from insulting gestures and speech. It is a discriminatory arrangement that is misaligned with the Constitution.

The research laments the poor participation rate, rightly so because they are conducting a study in the dark shadows of legal and social discrimination.

The research is the cart that is put before the horse. How are they supposed to reach out to, do research on, and help homosexual men in Singapore when nothing is done to address the very mechanisms that coerce them into silence.

Sexual wellness is always welcomed for any community.

I don’t think it is unreasonable to ask for a “social wellness” that is on par with that of adults who have consensual heterosexual sex. How about some “legal wellness”, or rather, equality for all regardless of the adults with which they have consensual sex?

At the very least, the study should be part of a multiprong approach to improving the wellbeing of self-identified homosexual people in Singapore, involving the sincere efforts from other Ministries, apart from Health.

Any way, the ignorant moral terrorists who are hell-bent on conquering the minds of everyone else and turning them into the very same hateful discriminating bigots that they are (phew, what a mouthful), would have qualms with such a study, perhaps highlighting its complicity in the moral corruption of children (a convenient excuse to cover up their insidious imperialistic political tendencies) and the overall destruction of the institution of the family, leading to the apocalypse.

You know what destroys families? For one, people who break marital vows and walk away from being a responsible spouse and parent. Don’t blame the queer. Being straight doesn’t mean we are more moral and more right.

Homophobes may also make the logical leap (yes they are capable of logic, at times) and associate the study with the endorsement of homosexuality. A study on homosexual sexual habits, aiming to get results to improving sexual wellness, would probably mean you’re endorsing and celebrating the “homosexual lifestyle”.

All fundie speak. Even the non-religious homophobes have grown acquainted with the normalisation of fundamentalist Christianity, not that the members of the latter would mind. I know a few non-religious people who describe whatever they perceive gay people to be as leading a “homosexual lifestyle”, implying that sexual orientation and identity are learned, cultivated and hence can be unlearned and discarded.

The arguments here are not original, but they remain relevant, even though policymakers continue to lack the moral courage to do anything to end the legal discrimination of sexual minorities. Never mind anti-discrimination protection, they simply lack the will and confidence to ensure people in Singapore, regardless of their sexual orientation and gender identity, have equal rights.

You want to talk about the threat of gay men. Gay men in no way pose any threat to me and my family. If there is any threat, it is the blinkers and hatred homophobes are trying to put on everyone else, further dividing our society and marginalising those. These are the people who associate an identity with crime and immorality, blackmailing other into believing that discrimination is justified.

It is odd that different arms of the state are not coordinated, in this case, to truly help men who have sex with men. But to give it credit, at least it is taking the lead by conducting a study (which probably isn’t new either). I’m surprised that the report has not received any attention from the gay-haters among us.

I observe that many homophobic individuals (who coincidentally happen to be biphobic and transphobic! WOW! What are the odds?!?!) are in fact fairly educated.

This is a great travesty. You use your bloody privilege of education to enforce continual discrimination against those who are of lesser social and legal privilege.

I strongly believe that if you have the means to articulate, to speak, to write and express yourself in any way that is testament to your good education, you can leverage your privilege to help the marginalised share the same privileges that others possess.

It is because of ongoing discrimination, hate and fear-mongering, and domination of political discourse by homophobic people of considerable political and economic influence, that we get a decent attempt in the survey, only in isolation, but and overall sluggish attempt to improving the lives of homosexual Singaporeans.

I’m not only talking about your middle-to-upper income English educated ethnic Chinese gay Singaporean stereotype, but those who don’t belong to that demography, in fact occupying multiple marginalities. Their issues and needs go far beyond the survey and raise many fundamental questions about our system of governance. This is the very same system whose inaction and inertia represents its insensitivity of the diversity and heterogeneity that defines our society.

Even if the survey does reach its target of 1,000 participants, how are the findings and solutions going to be articulated, and how so in an environment continually fraught legal discrimination and social stigmatism against sexual minorities?

These constraints are an embarrassment to our society.

I am not asking for more to be done, but merely asking if we have got our priorities right in the first place to “help” members of the sexual minority community here.

Ker-Yu's "Common Decency"

2011-08-27T23:03:00.003+08:00

The Straits Times, faced with decreasing readership (don't worry, I'm still a subscriber), can always bank on a few things to ensure a glimmer of hope for survival in changing media landscape.

Other than it being almost a monopoly of the English daily market (hence the boast of being the most widely read English daily. Hey, one out of one is still one), it has the propensity to publish flame baits of letters from members of the public.

I refer to latest letter by Ong Ker-Yu. She writes:

I am writing to request the removal of an indecent, giant poster plastered across the new Knightsbridge mall building along Orchard Road.

It not only makes no sense as an advertisement for a clothing brand (the man in it has virtually no clothes on), but it is also plain lewd.

A girl gets berated for letting slip the F-word in a speech ('NTU regrets use of expletive during speech'; Aug 1), but it is all right to plaster the giant picture highlighting a part of the male anatomy that should remain private, on the busiest shopping stretch on the island!

I have stood at the crossing between Ngee Ann City and Paragon watching passers-by as they catch sight of it, and every single person I have noticed has either looked away quickly, in what can only be embarrassment, or pointed it out to a friend for a quick giggle.

And let me pre-empt the usual counter eagerly dismissing Singaporeans for being so 'sexually repressed' as to tear it down.

This is a matter of common decency, plain and simple.

I will categorically and unequivocally state that Ong Ker-Yu is a jerk, plain and simple, and I am fine if there isn't any consensus on that.

I only respect her statement that she feels the advertisement is "plain lewd". That is her opinion, and that is fair enough. She further provides an assessment derived from her non-participant observation qualitative research to justify her statement. Fair enough, as she was in fact sharing her opinion.

But the statement that pisses me off the most is the last one "This is a matter of common decency, plain and simple".

Maybe the editors might have done some corrections, but I will assume with such a flame bait oozing utter selfishness and self-righteousness, its pristine form would not have been desecrated by the Straits Times.

There are people who fear their opinion alone cannot change things (to change the world and shape it in a way that's in line with their subscribed ideology would be the "common" scenario because it's rather rational to live comfortably without much opposition, right? Ask Lee Kuan Yew). And they eventually resort to the atomisation and simplification of diverse society, stuff their imperialist supremacist ideological catchphrases into every orifice of its, make the eventual proclamation of universality (it's good to show that your beliefs and views are aligned with yours idea of universalism).

It is a fair approach to discuss the limitations and implications of an issue, but Ker-Yu's sweeping statement is "plainly and simply" contrary to that. At least moral crusaders will hide behind their fragile idea of what the institution of children and family should be, and terrorise us with their "think about the children" rhetoric.

It is not about sexual repression, a point well and critically thought through by a possibly well-educated Ker-Yu, but about what I read to be the selfishness and arrogance in her concluding statement.

It is universalist claims like hers that further divide society, privileging those who happen to fall under the same ideological specifications as the claims, and marginalising the rest who may happen to have, in the case of the advertisement, a different opinion, morally and aesthetically.

The male form is often observed to be more offensive than the female form (historically too, due to physicality and sexual violence), hence (and ironically) the greater attention on how male bodies are to be presented, while gratuitous sexualisation of female bodies remain the default in our society. Even renowned self-righteous George Lim Heng Chye looked at boys and penises and wrote about them in his famous letters to the Straits Times. I'm probably more conservative than him and wouldn't do such a thing in my forum letters.

Coming back to Ker-Yu. I believe she probably represents a segment of Singaporean society, ready to assume and embrace the role of the moral police, because any one can safely assume she would be the among the "good guys" (sorry, can't find a gender neutral term.. "folks"?).

This is where educated people become divided. Some abuse their privileges to further their ideological cause or, often times, the cause of the socio-religious groups of which they are members, at the expense of people who have other beliefs. It is all about creating a bigger space for comfort, and arming yourself with people who think like you, so you can conquer and colonise the minds of others who don't.

Perhaps it is far too deep a reading into Ker-Yu's letter, but it has made me angry enough. I feel misrepresented and insulted every time someone publicly expresses a point of view and passes it off as universal or as part of the "majority".

In short, if you have a problem with something, say it in a personal capacity first and foremost. When you respect your boundaries, and the boundaries that separate you from people who may think differently from you, people will respect you for that.

You can have the right to be sexually repressed (if so), but your self-righteousness is more in my face than the advertisement is in your face. Not cool.

Ivan Lau's Agend(er): Transphobia

2011-08-13T17:24:00.004+08:00

As expected, a George Lim Heng Chye-ish self-righteous moral imperialist has to invoke his politically privileged position as the good responsible parent, in the form of Ivan Lau has a letter on cross-dressing bit at the National Day Parade 2011 published.

Here's his letter, titled "Drag wrong, guys", at the sensationalist inspiration of the editor (but I won't go any further on that or he'll boycott my letters, if they already haven't).

Watching the National Day Parade is a family affair for many Singaporeans. This year was no different for my family.

There was an impressive display from our national defence troops. Children from different schools as well as volunteers from various organisations put up a great performance, as was the fireworks display.

However, as a parent of three young children, I question the appropriateness of cross-dressing in the segment on racial harmony and nation building.

Prominent male comedian Gurmit Singh, known to young audiences in his role as a male alien in the television series Cosmo & George that airs on Okto, was sari-clad as an Indian woman.

Talented male actor Chua Enlai, known to children as a male host of many programmes on Okto, was dressed as a young, modern woman.

Was such casting necessary in the context of portraying racial harmony and nation building on national television? Or was it the organising committee's intention to portray harmony of another kind, namely that of transgender or transsexuality? It that was the intent, then the show should had been more aptly rated NC-16.

Ivan Lau

Transgender/transsexual harmony? Seriously? Just because Gurmit and Enlai cross-dressed? ...

Oh wait, we are talking about self-professed morally upright folks who are probably both transphobic and ignorant, hence the conflation of transgender, transsexuality and cross-dressing.

The fact the Straits Times and Singapore Press Holdings published this, further casts in stone this erroneous mix-up.

There are people who are trying very hard to educate Singaporeans about the differences and the implications of holding such ignorant beliefs/myths about transgendered persons.

Just because some guy who wears the hat and invokes the imagery of a concerned parent who wants to make a stand and be responsible, and shares his insecurities and transphobia (or rather hide them behind his children) with the dwindling readership of the Straits Times does not mean falsities like that can be perpetuated without a proper dialogue.

When Ivan Lau writes like that and goes unchallenged in a public domain that already does not treat transgendered and transsexual Singaporeans with equal dignity and respect as their cisgendered counterparts, it creates the impression that cross-dressing (itself a thing not to be taken seriously thanks to its presence in the domains of entertainment) can be conflated with transgender and transsexuality.

If we follow the parenting of Ivan Lau, I guess we all should close our minds, be stubborn, bigoted and tell our kids to impose their own ideas of right and wrong onto others. Don't only stop there, just associate bad things, things we don't really know much about with people who we feel and label are different from us.

I wrote a letter in response to the Straits Times Forum, but unfortunately was not published. Thankfully Leona Lo's letter was, even though it was rather short. Not sure if the editor had done some editing (it was indeed short, according to Leona). By the looks of the title "Crossfire over cross-dressing", it seems he has.

Here's Leona's response to Ivan:

Mr Ivan Lau suggested MediaCorp should have given the National Day Parade segment on racial harmony and nation building an NC-16 rating as it featured cross-dressing actors Gurmit Singh and Chua Enlai ("Drag wrong, guys"; Thursday).

Transgender and transsexual women are not cross-dressers. Neither do we enjoy being spoofed on national television. Rather than give us an NC-16 rating so as to keep us out of his children's sight, we would advise the writer to give them a lesson in respect and tolerance instead.

Leona Lo (Ms)

There are different views on transgender, held by different persons.

To use the term "transgender" loosely, cross-dressing is a form of transgender identity and behaviour (not behaviour alone). It is an identity that exists in a certain context.

Earlier scientists saw cross-dressing in the medical and psychiatric context, as pathological. Hence the term transvestism. Some believed that cross-dressing is fetishistic, and that transvestites derived pleasure.

In this view, to be break it down scientifically (and to dangerously simplify it), the form is cross-dressing, but it is medicalised as transvestism, and its function is to personally derive pleasure from it. Therefore, it is pathological, and it is believed to be curable, or can be rehabilitated to normalcy, whatever the institution of medicine decides to be "normal".

Here's another perspective, cross-dressing does not only exist in the medical domain, but also in the domain of entertainment. Here, we have drag. In the domain of the theatre or performance platform, we get people who imitate and mimic the manerisms and dressings of a gender that do not correspond with their physical sex, for the sake of entertainment. Same form, but different function.

This is also considered by some as an art form, which attempts to incite one to see the imitative nature of gender. Art does question. Again, same transgenderal form, but different function.

See the myriad of perspectives?

In other more damning perspectives, there are people (HELLO Ivan Lau!!!) who label pre-operative and non-operative transsexuals as transvestites (crazy, fetishistic, obsessive masturbatory ones at least) and/or cross-dressers because their mannerisms and dressing do not correspond with their physical sex (anatomical sex, normally) as how the tyrannical majority would have want.

A non-correspondence and "misalignment" of gender (mannerisms, dressing) and sex (penis/vagina, breast, etc.) is thus either wrong, unnatural, sinful, crazy or any of the combinations.

In the minds of ignorant self-righteous bigots, what is eternalised as wrong can be righted, what is unnatural can be punished and destroyed, what is sinful can be rehabilitated, what is crazy can be reinstitutionalised. Because these assholes hold very close and dear to their hearts the very flimsy fragile idea that gender and sex are the same thing and are essentialised. It does not help that socio-religious institutions and mechanisms are in place, and continually and uncritically defended by the state, that subscribers to this hegemonic and imperialist ideology think they will also be in the "right".

As written, I have shown only a few of the many different perspectives on transgender and in particular cross-dressing. Do note there are further positions on these, some viewing these positions as mutually exclusive heterogeneous entities, some don't. (If I had to put myself into one, I belong to the latter).

I disagree with the way transgender has been shown to Singaporeans. One common form is drag on mainstream television. It implies we can never take transgender people seriously, and we can laugh at them.

At the same time, transgender visibility has to start somewhere. For instance, heterosexual male-to-female post-operative transsexual women have attained visibility before their female-to-male counterparts, or their homosexual or bisexual male-to-female post-operative counterparts.

Their visibility is also steeped in a history of "Ah Kua" shows and the sex trade, and associated with drag and entertainment. To me, the visibility is a blessing as well as a curse.

On the other hand, I feel it is necessary to have cross-dressing as an art form, to continually remind us (above entertainment), that gender is imitative. This, according to some transgender studies scholars, is a dangerous position as the position appears to make us of transgender individuals and their lived daily realities as a selfish academic pursuit to prove the arbitrariness of gender, an outcome that does not help to improve the well-being of transgender people.

Still, I believe that these two positions, while at tension, do not in any way aim to belittle or atomise transgender realities, in the way Ivan Lau has done.

We may associate with or distance ourselves from particular types (to assume there are salient categorisable groups) of transgender, because we do so in a country that is full of ignorance and transphobia, which in turn hurt the livelihood, well-being and lives of individuals whom we have the audacity to label as "different".

Since the Straits Times has made the choice to publish Ivan Lau's letter, I hope they will have the social consciousness and journalistic diligence to continually educate Singaporeans on transgender issues and address the hurtful myths and transphobia. I thought the newspapers are to play a role in nation-building? The publishing of such a letter belittles and ostracises our transgendered citizens!

Well, here's my unpublished letter:

I refer to Mr Ivan Lau's letter "Drag wrong, guys" (11 Aug 2011).

In an effort to be a responsible parent, Mr Lau has questioned the use of drag at the recent National Day Parade. I disagree with him and do not condone his views.

First, drag for entertainment and comedic purposes, is not new to Singaporeans as artiste Jack Neo has endeared us to his Liang Po Po and Liang Si Mei characters on prime time television. Perhaps Mr Lau may want to consider reserving his slithery mixture of praise and criticism for Jack Neo too. What about Robin William's Mrs Doubtfire or Martin Lawrence's Big Mama's House, movies that have made many families laugh?

Second, I take issue with Mr Lau's transphobia and ignorance. Is he suggesting that transgender persons have no role to play in Singapore? As far as I know, Gurmit Singh and Chua Enlai do not have sexual reassignment surgery, thus rendering Mr Lau's insinuation of "transsexual" harmony a ludicrous overreaction. The fact that these two have made people laugh is a testament of their talents.

Third, as the context in which cross-dressing takes place in Singapore is often in the domain of entertainment, many like Mr Lau fail to see that it is an art form. Art serves different purposes to society, not only providing us with entertainment, but also social commentary and an opportunity to reflect on our lived daily realities.

Fourth, it is a common strategy to identity oneself as a parent to lend more weight to one's criticisms and demands. As a result, certain kinds of people exert a greater influence on governance and policy, even though items such as drag will probably have little or no bearing on their lives or future. I do not believe parenting can and should be used as a front for ideological domination and the suppression of other identities and viewpoints.

Fifth, while drag performances often create the impression that transgender people cannot be taken seriously, Mr Lau's letter further condemns transgender minorities to invisibility. This is something any human being with good sense cannot stand up for. Everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. Even if the portrayal of the sari-clad Indian woman was done by a male-to-female post-op transsexual Singaporean, I as a family man would have no issue.

We cannot define "harmony" with conditions and exceptions, and it extends beyond race, religion, culture, encompassing gender and sexual identity.

Drag or cross-dressing, or any form of transgender depictions, certainly do not affect our respective personal alignment of sex, gender and sexuality, nor do the creation and support for different people threaten our individual brands of "good" parenting.

I certainly do not want my children to be ill-adjusted and intolerant.

Ho Chi Sam

Let me ask you a question, Ivan. What are YOU going to do for the improvement of the well-being and lives of transgender and transsexual Singaporeans?

Erected Plesidency: Tony and others

2011-08-12T11:03:00.006+08:00

The media coverage of the Elected Presidency has brought to the fore several interesting observations.

1. The President of Singapore is actually an important person!
Blighted by a history in which the recently much emphasised "highest office" is actually decided via appointment by Parliament, we have been served the suggestion that while he (no she) has remained an important figure, the President has appeared to be a function of the political puppetry of the ruling party. That is not true on paper, but there are people who can believe what they want to believe. In the end, some of us do not see the President as important, powerful or relevant.

The President is the head of state, but when it comes to law-making and changes in the Constitution, he dispenses his duties in consultation with cabinet. Again, people don't see the importance of having an elected President.

Current President Sellapan Ramanathan, now 87, was the second elected President of Singapore (apologies for error when I wrote he was the "first". The late Mr Ong Teng Cheong was the first elected President, beating Mr Chua Kim Yeow in 1993). Mr S.R. Nathan was elected unopposed in 1999, and re-elected unopposed again in 2005 after the other Presidential candidates were deemed ineligible by the Presidential Elections Committee. After years of conditioning in a PAP-dominant political climate, we have grown accustomed to political contests (or at least what appears to be) on the national level, and probably see no difference in the Elected Presidency.

Now with four Presidential candidates, and in the aftermath of the General Elections 2011, I somehow see a change in tone of the Presidency - the kind of tone that the PAP uses to justify why they should be re-elected, why they should be in power again. We are now reminded that the President is a very important person.

The candidates have also spoken about representation and that they will be listening to the people, etc. etc. These approaches to the Presidential Elections have made the Elected Presidency relevant.

The moral of the story - competition is good, as it makes the contest a little more legitimate. (although I can't say the same for the liberalisation of the job market and lax immigration laws)

The idea of how serious and important the Elected Presidency is, is further reinforced by the slanted mainstream media coverage of candidate Dr Tony Tan. Not only has he media coverage, but also the endorsement from the clans (well, one clan) and unions. This brings me to the next point.

2. Unions and clans actually exist in Singapore!
Physically and in paper, they exist, but unions and clans do not really get the exposure and awareness today like they did in the mid 20th Century.

For clans in Singapore, they were steeped in Chinese nationalism and riddled with gang activity, so the early government did what they needed to do.

For unions, well, they lost their relevance a long time ago. We do have one of the better systems of tripartism in the world, but this means the unions are somewhat subjected to some degree of control by the state. It does not help one bit when you have a Minister without portfolio (or Minister in the Prime Ministers Office) as the labour chief. If we were to play word association, the first word that comes to my mind when I hear "union" is "supermarket".

So when the clan(s) and the unions come forward to support candidate Dr Tony Tan, it felt like a non-event and non-issue to me. Despite their large member numbers and the peoples they represent - an indication of their important roles - I feel no connection to these entities.

In a kiasu (scared to lose) bid to support Dr Tony Tan, seemingly heavyweight support from various segments of society is orchestrated for us, but it feels to me very much similar to the Singapore Kite Association endorsing any other candidate.

Yes, the Singapore Kite Association exists. http://singaporekites.com/

I cannot measure how much more relevant Dr Tony Tan will be as a Presidential hopeful, but I can sure tell from the recent media feature and profiling of the Federation of Tan Clan Associations in Singapore and the various unions that have endorsed him, these entities benefit a lot more from the exposure.

I mean they are no newsworthy demigods in the mould of Lee Kuan Yew, but the clans and the unions now seem a little more important. With the media descriptions of their form (membership, address) and functions (purpose, motto) in light of the highly newsworthy Presidential Elections (itself rendered very newsworthy thanks to an actual contest!), they somehow come into existence in the mainstream.

3. Do people really care about the Presidential Elections?
Hard to say. If change is what people want, they won't get it here.

Looking at the media, the free and the muzzled, there is a considerable degree of interest. Perhaps we are still reeling in the aftershocks of the General Elections 2011, which saw the PAP losing more of the popular vote. So an election on the national level, especially in an increasingly (economically) uncertain climate, will be good activity and distraction for the masses.

Everyday when we are served news of Dr Tony Tan and his many endorsements, some of us feel the "FFS!!" feeling. For Fuck's Sake!! It's that mainstream media trying to tell us what they want us to know and think!

Yes, he is a capable man and was a Deputy Prime Minister and his comb-back makes him a lot newsworthier than he already is, but this has come at the expense of the coverage of other candidates. He is qualified and we do not need to be constantly reminded that he is.

It is worth noting that in the process of the over-exposure and the subsequent over-rating of a nevertheless highly rated man, netizens and coffeeshop uncles (or those who occupy both categories) are fed up with the mainstream media, if they already are not. But when it comes to the democratic vote, the media campaign will still work for Dr Tony Tan, because those netizens and coffeeshop uncles are the numerical minority. There are many people who believe in the universe created by the mainstream media, and the universe created for us comprises "Dr Tony Tan" and "others".

---

In my opinion, the President should play a role not only in unifying Singaporeans, but also to maintain a confidence in the people during the economic uncertainty (we're talking about jobs here).

Then again, what's up with the "unifying Singaporeans" bit? During S.R. Nathan's presidential reign, we have had people who have been charged under the Sedition Act for making racial and religiously insensitive remarks, we had the AWARE saga, which is an indication of a mature fundamentalist Christian agenda (planted in our English-educated ethnic Chinese society in the late 70s to early 90s) to influence policy and governance, and we have lax immigration laws that lead to xenophobia and a dilution of national identity and sense of belonging. And someone "tried to do my best" and the Presidential candidates of 2011 have to take a jibe at him, huh?

NDP 2011 - a brief review

2011-08-09T20:46:00.001+08:00

The National Day Parade 2011 was a good effort, as are all NDPs over the years. The Parade has never fell short of disappointment when it comes to providing us with a good text for us to analyse. It's something you can jiggle your fun packs to.

Don't worry, I won't talk about lingums and yonis. Neither will I talk about how the Parade has always mimicked the Fascist ideals of a disciplined country which time and again glorifies its political leaders. Everyone's marching, stomping in step. I don't know what to say.

"The elephant there represents Lee Kuan Yew's impeccable memory when he sues everyone else for defamation." Heck, the helix bridge represents Lee Kuan Yew's unshakable belief in eugenics. Sieg Heil!

Unfortunately, we didn't celebrate Mr Lee Kuan Yew as much as we did in previous NDPs. Why not? You can't deny a large part of today's realities are engineered by him and his team.

A staple in our NDPs is the multiculturalism. The indexical representations of the various cultures are simplistic yet atomising depictions of their complexities and nuances. Ketupats, Pratas and Baos?

How about items which represent our social problems? In no particular order, substances to abuse, alcohol and obscene accumulations of cash...

"The Baos there represent the fruits of our labour, which are enjoyed very thoroughly by foreigners..."

Very cheeky, yet we are constantly reminded of our heterogeneous differences and the need to respect them. The problem with celebrating diversity is that you have to make explicit the differences that underpin this diversity.

The NDP shows us an example of coexistence and cooperation, yet doesn't show us how to get about doing it.

The NDP is all about overcoming adversity and challenges. We are reminded about the huge challenges the country has faced in past decades, and for a good 2 hours or so, we should forget about the lived daily realities and challenges we individually confront. 1% transport fare hike, any one?

Gurmit Singh and Chua Enlai in drag, so where's Suhaimi Yusof? Watch out for complaints from conservative Singaporeans who will probably question the relevance of the segment. Then again, the Shakespearean preference for male actors parallels Mediacorp's grip on the NDP. On another level, I feel pained that the transgenderal depiction of drag has to be in the temporary imaginary context of entertaining humour, furthering the notion that transgenderal depictions and persons need not be taken seriously.

Hip-hop was used to connect with the youth. Speaking of music, kudos to the creative director of this year's parade, as musically speaking, we have been treated to a collage of different musical genres.

The Mother-Son and Father-Son interweaving stories present an interesting insight into how a good disciplined nation should be.

Why is Lee Hsien Loong's nose red? He's in touch with his emotions.

Back to discipline. Discipline is listening to your parents and family, as the NDP has taught us. Listen to authority and don't get lost or distracted in the sea of dreams.

What's up with chasing the dugong? CNB won't like that imagery. Well, as long as we are not too socially or politically aware or involved, the powers that be will not mind us chasing any dugong. Give us liberties and leeway to participate in affairs which will ultimately have no bearing on governance and government - our opiate, but "chasing the dugong" sounds better.

Listen to your government. They know what's best for us. "Vote Tony Tan."

NDP can improve
Honour those who died for the country. Have a minute's silence. There are many ordinary Singaporeans who have made contributions and sacrifices (especially with National Service), but have either not been able to fulfill their dreams or haven't lived to do so.

Maybe it's too much to ask, but where are the segments depicting elderly folks selling tissue packets or picking from rubbish bins, or the homeless, I mean residentially challenged Singaporeans who sleep at void decks or at parks?

We're brave and bold enough to have one female NDP commander, to have Gurmit Singh in drag, yet sweep other things Singaporean under the carpet. Keep it G rating.

I have an idea. Why not scrap the Parade for one year and use the budget donate to charity? After all, from the experiences of many, the middle management of the Singapore Armed Forces (which happens to be an NDP organiser) often "asks" National Servicemen to make donations and targets are set. This is not unfamiliar in some schools too, right?

And can someone write a cheesy singalong NDP song? We've been having too much pop for the longest time. Keep the sentences and syllables shorter, use more conventional chord sequences, narrower ranges for melodies for easier group singalongs.

Well, any way, Happy Birthday Singapore, you fucking did it!

Vision 2030 - Tunnel, Double or No?

2011-07-26T16:50:00.002+08:00

Major General (NS) Chan Chun Sing has welcomed public feedback and suggestions for Vision 2030, a masterplan-ish strategy to develop national sports in Singapore, with a view to improve nation-building. Members of the public are invited to share their insights with the Vision 2030 committee, comprising 23 members.

The latest unsurprising adoption of a consultative approach by the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MYCS) is just one of many and definitely not the last of its kind, as the state seeks to symbolically involve the participation of Singaporeans in policy-making. Hey, how about equal rights for sexual minorities and legalising gay marriage in Singapore? You can seek my feedback and suggestion for that.

The Censorship Review Committee in 2009/10 similarly consulted the public too, although they could have been a little bit more diligent about their sampling. They should have done more cluster and stratified sampling to recruit survey and focus group participants, to appreciate the pluralism (and chaos) of diverse views and expectations.

This time, Vision2030 uses new media to engage Singaporeans. Unfortunately, while the web platform and its design allows for content creation by citizens (submitting suggestions) and voting, it somewhat limits the extent to which citizens can argue and convince others that there are fundamental policies and mindsets that will continue to underpin future failure in Singapore as a healthy sporting nation. The Singaporean government’s use of new media is similar to shoving a square peg into a round hole, but nobody’s better at shoving things into the orifice of the citizenry and very willing to believe they’re doing a good job or “what is right”.

Since we’re into metaphors, I liken the implementation of a comprehensive national sporting masterplan in a country with mightily imperfect social policies as putting lipstick on a pig – you can’t change the fact that it’s still a pig.

Seven predefined areas are identified for development and improvement.

They include:
1) Balance to the Rhythm of an Urban Lifestyle
2) Future Ready
3) Futurescape
4) Generation Z
5) Organising for Success
6) Silver Generation
7) Spirit of Singapore

Since there already exist predefined areas for development, I shall address them accordingly.

1) Balance to the Rhythm of an Urban Lifestyle. How may sports bring balance to our lives?
Here’s one fundamental problem. You get equilibrium when you successfully balance a 0.5g feather with another feather of similar weight. If you want to seek balance with a 1-tonne rock, you sure have to find another… wait a minute. Why is there a 1-tonne rock in the first place?

The urban lifestyle sounds swanky, but our lived daily realities are in an increasingly cosmopolitan, densely populated environment characterised by high cost of living and high stress levels caused directly and indirectly by a composite of trade, economic, educational, labour, housing and immigration policies. This is the 1-tonne rock with which I personally would not want consider finding a balance.

The improved standard of living suggestively invoked in the concept of “urban lifestyle” comes with the challenges and stresses of either the aspiration towards or the preservation of such a position – no easy feat for the majority of Singaporeans.

One fairly good move by the government to create this “balance” was to abolish the five and a half-day work week in favour of a five-day work week, although this caused many workers to work a disproportionately higher number of hours in 5 days than in 5.5 days a week.

Is there time for exercise for all? Or should we immerse ourselves in the “meritocratic” rhetoric and accuse those who can’t find time as merely lazy? What about families with children or elderly dependents? Are we going to go all douchebag on them and say taking care of these dependents constitutes an exercise (similar to the jerk-like equation of baby-making Singaporean women to national service)? In this case, can sport or exercise find a place in the lives of the said stakeholders?

I admit it is myopic to consider active sporting participation (or exercise) as an item contributing to “balance”, when being a spectator in a sporting event can provide that balance – cathartic or simply a good occasion for family and friends to get together. A sporting participant and a spectator both contribute to this country’s sporting culture.

A flaw in our infrastructure lies in our lack of sense of identity and belonging, which is in part a result of the policies previously mentioned. So sports and exercise are essentially isolated and exclusivised as the disenfranchised among the Singaporeans would prefer to do sports on their own or in their own groups. This does not affect people’s gravitation towards local events, races, group recreation games and other smaller scale sub-national events, activities and tournaments. The government can definitely look into these smaller scale events to foster growth that will develop Singapore as a sporting nation, and that is if they can critically reevaluate their tiered funding and inflexible funding policies. Right, Singapore Sports Council? Tier-ing your sports will result in the vicious cycle of deprioritisation, cutting of fundings and losing support for many sports here.

2) Future Ready – How may the value of sport help Singapore prepare for future challenges?
Sports are always good for authoritarian regimes, as they help foster solidarity, collective identity and allegiance to the national agenda.

The idea of healthy coordinated bodies dovetails with our economic imperative and the competence it continually demands, but you can always buy a foreign talent any way.

Leadership and teamwork are values and qualities we learn from participating in sports. But of course, it is a tall order to foster these qualities through sports in a country almost bereft of social capital.

I’m sure our political leaders will benefit most from the values of sport, such as sportsmanship and temperament. Surveillance of political opponents, detention without trial, suppression of freedom of speech, nanny state tactics – very sportsmanly, no?

3) Futurescape – How may we use space for sport in the future?
We are already using spaces for the integration of sports, rather than the using spaces exclusively for sports. So that is a good move by the government to use existing spaces such as parks, water catchment areas, commercial buildings and what-not for the inclusion of sports. No further comment.

4) Generation Z – How can sport do more for youth here?
What is more important than fostering a sporting culture among the young is the fostering of self-esteem and body confidence. One of the drawbacks of creating a sporting nation is the projection of desirable bodies onto people, including the young.

Instead of directly emphasising on health, we should emphasise on play, which is best explained by the one of the state’s slogans depicting Singapore as a place to “live, work, play”. However, it will be inevitable that certain desirable types of “healthy” bodies will be used as ambassadors of Vision 2030, just like the many posters of smiling lean and fit youths peppering McDonald’s restaurant walls.

Essentially, we should have a “sports for sports’ sake” approach, but in the case of Vision 2030 and many other state schemes and initiatives, it is all couched in the nation-building agenda. One of the qualities sports bring is the possible fostering of a sense of belonging to the sport and to the community, which the state sees as microcosmic to the sense of identity and belonging to the nation. Unfortunately, more work outside sporting infrastructure has to be done to make Singaporeans belong to the nation.

Don’t make sports carry the torch for this agenda. Sports only play a small role in fostering a national identity, but can do very little to unite a highly stratified and disenfranchised citizenry. Does Vision 2030 have its social, community and national economic counterparts, to make Singaporeans feel they belong? If not, we’ll just have healthy hearts that will see no reason to beat in rhythm with the nation’s.

Vision 2030 also has to take into consideration decades of over-rationalised education which has long placed great emphasis on academic success as an indicator of ability. This has come at the expense of sports and the value people see in it. Something needs to be done about this over-rationalised paper-chasing culture, which has impeded not only sports development but also the arts in Singapore.

5) Organising for Success – How may public, private and peoples sectors work together to deliver the Vision 2030 objectives?
First up, reevaluate national service. Allow young national athletes to defer national service until their late 20s to mid 30s, so they can be train professionally. If that doesn’t change, I think we will have a better shot cheering for female champions.

Of course, we can just focus on fostering a healthy community without champions, if the Vision can live with that.

There can be more corporate subsidies and rebates for their implementation of healthy lifestyle programmes or for the purchase of corporate memberships with gyms here.

As for the peoples sector, I think the People’s Association and Sports Council have been very active in organising inter-constituency and inter-club games. With respect to sports clubs, perhaps the costs of registration and other recurring costs can be subsidised by the state as a gesture of its support for a sporting nation at the grassroots level.

Introduce state dollar-for-dollar corporate sponsorship of local athletes, that is if we want to create and support champions in the first place.

Have more sports journalists and local sports news coverage in Singapore. A year prior to the Youth Olympic Games, I have observed that the Strait Times have been giving more exposure to our local athletes and sporting news, and that trend has thankfully continued till today. After all, for decades, the state’s approach to media control is that it assumes people are cultural dopes and can be shaped accordingly with the heavy hand that is “content management” (or at least until the last 4 years). With increased visibility of local sporting talents and personalities in the mainstream press, there is at least something for the public to get interested in.

As cynical as it may sound, gambling plays a huge role in generating interest in sports here. I believe part of the reason why football is popular here is the gambling undercurrent. In the case of football, I believe betting on teams reinforces the compulsion to actually watch them in action.

Why would there be discussions and pundits and predictions and odds all featured on television? It’s to cater to the gamblers among the sports “enthusiasts”. Perhaps we can liberalise gambling here and have more than one Singapore Pools?

6) Silver Generation – How sport may play a role in active ageing?
We should get our priorities right and look at what we are doing for healthcare as part of the multi-prong approach to active ageing.

The sports council already provides subsidies for senior citizens who participate in its courses. Perhaps the council can consider lowering the minimum age to 45, and cultivate active ageing at an “earlier” age. It is not about waiting for seniors to be old enough to implement active ageing initiatives, which defeats the purpose of implementing it in the first place.

More can be done for the communications and marketing of grassroots initiatives and exercise programmes targeting seniors.

While I support active ageing, I really wonder if active ageing is sustainable for seniors on the wrong end of the socio-economic divide. More importantly, “active ageing” should not be used by the state as a reason to say things like “if you’re old and sick, it’s your fault because we have provided all the infrastructure and facilities for you, so it is not our problem.” I hope not.

7) Spirit of Singapore – How sport may drive the Spirit of Singapore?
What spirit? Sports will never make Singaporeans feel a sense of belonging to Singapore. We must first acknowledge that the spirit of Singapore, if assumed to exist, has been shaped by policies independent of sport itself (same argument as in previous sections).

The Singaporeans who supported the Singapore football team during the Malaysian Cup days lived in times when they were made to feel they are part of the nation and building it. Do we live in those times now? Not quite. Singaporeans don’t even feel a strong sense of belonging to their own towns, which not only explains the poor S-League match attendances but also knowledge and involvement of their precinct/neighbourhood-related activities. They would have a better shot identifying with Manchester United.

We don’t have the policies and mindset that favour sports as a cultural and professional reality. We still remain trapped in an economic reality dictated by our government’s (or Lee Kuan Yew’s) brand of pragmatism, which is born out of post-independence industrialising Singapore.

The use of sports and creation of sporting culture do nothing for the political disempowerment of Singaporeans, and neither does it address the socio-economic realities faced by different strata of Singaporeans.

In fact, the invitation (or what appears to be an invitation) for Singaporeans to participate in Vision 2030 is just an illusory one which makes Singaporeans feel they are empowered to actually have a choice in decision and policy-making. The government’s “commitment” to a consultative approach in governance and policy-making is articulated in symbolic gestures such as the opening of platforms and avenues for people to have the belief they are actually participating, when in fact speaks more of the commitment to retaining political control through the calibrated yet reluctant use of new media platforms.

Digressing a little bit, the use of sports in nation-building is interestingly a characteristic of fascism. And the PAP logo happens to resemble the British Union of Fascists. Just an observation any way, but our economic and socio-cultural landscape is far from fascist. Relax.

The way forward for Vision 2030
The Vision 2030 committee should not have tunnel vision and be blinkered to the social, economic and political realities that affect the development of sports in Singapore. These are the limitations that have to be taken into account when implementing strategies to realise whatever vision the master plan sets out.

For Singapore to cultivate a healthy sporting culture, we need to address aspects of daily life and the policies that shape and limit it. Will Vision 2030 do this? Or is this merely a well decorated plan that is insensitive (bordering on ignorant) to the prevailing policies which have effected an anti-sporting culture mindset?

How are we going to improve the local media landscape to help facilitate the communication of sports here?

What are we going to do about National Service as an impediment to the nurturing of young male athletes?

How do we set about improving the mindsets of Singaporeans pertaining to sports (and also the arts)?

What can we do for Singaporean businesses, employers and employees to let them know that sports can be an integral part of Singaporean life?

These are few of the many questions outside the realm of sports that Vision 2030 has to first address.

All the best!

Singaporean lesbian, bisexual and transgender women’s concerns debut at UN CEDAW review

2011-07-13T12:04:00.002+08:00

(source: Sayoni)
(Sam: We need to address the elimination of discrimination against women by asking ourselves and the state if there are concrete measures/policies in place to realise this goal. Sexual orientation and gender identity [not gender/sex alone] should definitely be seriously considered and protected from discrimination by law. After all, we should have laws (statutory laws) which are in line with our constitution. Talk is not good enough, so our government has to do it the way they have been doing it - put it in writing and in policy. I hope other women's interest groups and NGOs in Singapore will see it fit, reasonable and just to include sexual orientation and gender identity in their lobby for the elimination of discrimination against women).

Media advisory

13 July 2011
On 22 July 2011, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women will review Singapore’s progress with eliminating discrimination against women during the 49th CEDAW session at the United Nations headquarters in New York City.

The State of Singapore and Non-Governmental Organisations have submitted reports and during the session, will engage in dialogue with the Committee. The Committee will then make its Concluding Observations, which identifies areas of concern and makes recommendations for progress.

For the first time, the concerns of lesbian, bisexual and transgender (LBT) women are represented by Sayoni during this process. Sayoni will highlight prevalent and systematic discrimination against women based on sexual orientation and gender identity across social, cultural, political and economic spheres of Singapore.

About Sayoni
Established in Singapore in 2006, Sayoni is a community committed to empowering queer women in Asia.

Follow
For updates on Sayoni’s participation in CEDAW, visit:
1. the website at www.sayoni.com and
2. Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/fbSAYONI.

Contact
For enquiries and interviews, please email jean@sayoni.com.

What is CEDAW?
The Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) is a comprehensive bill of rights for women.

It covers economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights based on the principles of substantive equality, non-discrimination and State obligation.

The CEDAW Committee is the UN body that monitors the implementation of the CEDAW Convention. It comprises 23 experts who represent the range of fields of competence covered by the CEDAW Convention, as well as equitable geographical distribution and principal legal systems.

Singapore and CEDAW
Singapore ratified CEDAW in 1995. It is one of two international human rights treaties that Singapore has ratified.

2007
In the last review of Singapore’s progress, the Committee had asked the State about how they intended “to prevent discrimination against lesbian women in the workplace, in access to health services and in society in general.”

The State responded that “Homosexuals were not discriminated against; they had the same right to employment, education or housing as everyone else.”[i]

2010-2011
During a pre-Session review, the Committee asked the State:
Please comment on reports with regard to prevalent and systematic discrimination against women based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the social, cultural, political and economic spheres in the State party. What measures are being undertaken to address these problems, especially with a view to destigmatizing and promoting tolerance to that end? [ii]

In the State’s response, it said that:
“The principle of equality of all persons before the law is enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, regardless of gender, sexual orientation and gender identity. All persons in Singapore are entitled to the equal protection of the law, and have equal access to basic resources such as education, housing and health care.”

“… Singapore’s employment legislation provides recourse for employees who feel they have been unfairly dismissed, including on the grounds of their sexual orientation and gender identity and they have recourse to appeal to the Minister for Manpower for reinstatement to their former employment. “[iii]

==================

[i] CEDAW 39th Session, Summary Record of the 803rd meeting—consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 18 of the Convention: Third periodic report of Singapore. UN Doc. CEDAW/C/SR.803 (A) (2007)

[ii] CEDAW 49th Session, List of issues and questions with regard to the consideration of periodic reports. UN Doc. CEDAW/C/SGP/Q/4 (2010)

[iii] CEDAW 49th Session, Responses to the list of issues and questions with regard to the consideration of the fourth periodic report. UN Doc. CEDAW/C/SR.803 CEDAW/C/SGP/Q/4/Add.1 (2011)

(source: Sayoni)

Supporting Pink Dot

2011-06-19T23:00:00.001+08:00

Pink Dot 2011 was my first Pink Dot.

After missing the first two due to conflicting schedules, I was glad to have been invited by the organising committee to be there, not only as a person, but also a representative and supporter of the Singapore Queer-Straight Alliance (SinQSA).

While I have always supported Pink Dot, its concept and messages, I have been critical of it. There are others, straight and queer-identified, who have their own criticisms of the event.

1. Pink Dot is highly commercialised.
It appears to be organised by a well-oiled machinery, with merchandising and all that. This does not appear to invoke romantic imaginings of the business of change that is LGBT activism (or at least how we expect it to be).

2. Pink Dot does not represent the victims of homophobia.
It appears to be too "happy" with its celebratory and carnivalesque atmosphere. There are youths who are abused, beaten or thrown out of their homes by people who do not understand them. Pink Dot does not reach out to these victims of homophobia (or biphobia, transphobia, etc.) And what does Pink Dot do about LGBT people who lose their jobs or cannot find work because you-know-why/what? ... Add in more questions of similar nature...

3. Pink Dot does not represent trans people and people of multiple-minority status.
Some trans persons feel Pink Dot tokenises them. After all, with "freedom to love" and rhetoric invoking sexual orientation and predominantly "gay" discourses dominating LGBT activism in Singapore, there is little room for discussion and activism for gender identity and trans rights.

In the "business of change", as I like to call it, in place of the more serious "activism", Pink Dot is necessary, despite its imperfections and limitations.

Pink Dot is not the be-all and end-all. It tries to target the masses with a message that encourages harmonious diversity, in this case supporting the freedom to love.

For LGBT rights in Singapore to progress another millimetre, it requires a nebula of different, divergent and often-times conflicting points of view and messages, most of which sharing a (more or less) common direction). Some messages resonate better with the masses, others less.

As a result of campaigning, awareness-raising and fighting stereotypes over the years, the mainstream come to know of LGBT rights movement as largely comprising well-educated middle-to-upper class gay English-speaking ethnic Chinese sissy men and muscled men who shout too much (combine that with other stereotypes religious fundamentalists will tell you).

We had to start somewhere, right? In the most romantic sense, I always believed it to be important that people or individuals in positions of privilege make use of their positions of privilege to share the message. People who fit the mould of the stereotype, ironically, are in a better position to be the first to be heard.

After all, in the business of change, one has to gain access to relevant elites and relevant majorities (considering we're, on paper, a democracy) in order to make change.

This is where Pink Dot comes in. It is doing its bit to make change by gaining access to the mainstream, appealing to the masses and in turn, making news and be picked up by the mainstream press. And from there, its message can be conveyed to the masses.

This strategy comes at the expense of people further down the LGBT political pecking order, as well as people of multiple marginalities. It is not so much about being a numerical minority, but it is relatively more difficult for a large-bodied Indian Muslim FTM pansexual leatherdyke to be accepted by a society which in the first place, does not understand sexual orientation, let alone gender identity.

Activism, or the business of change, or "fighting the good fight", is only as good as the intended recipients of the message. The message cannot be too complex, or too paradigmatically jarring/challenging/threatening. In the end, we get a very simple abstract message, which appears to be more oriented towards homosexual orientation than gender identity, more oriented towards monogamy, etc.

It does not sit very well with folks who have been sweating very hard for years, or even their entire lives, studying and fighting for diversity and equality for the minorities of the minorities. They've probably heard every argument in the book and see a grand media spectacle that is Pink Dot as a step back. But Pink Dot exists with respect to an audience, a citizenry, and a nation of multiple communities, who probably know little about LGBT issues and still harbour harmful myths and stereotypes of people like them/us.

LGBT rights can never be forwarded with one discursive swoop; it needs multiple voices that constitute its rich diversity. But for social integration or queer-straight harmony to exist, the message has to be simple, or "dumbed down". The advocate has to speak the language recognisable and understandable to the audience he/she wants to change.

I cannot make change if I went to Hong Lim Park alone, and start reading aloud research articles from "The Transgender Studies Reader" (edited by Stryker and Whittle). The idea is there, but will only be hampered by its execution.

In order to communicate with an increasingly disenfrachised Singaporean population nestled in a vibrant consumerist culture, the idea of Pink Dot and its multiple celebrity endorsements will seem more well-placed.

As for staying power, message retention and political follow-up, we may not be sure what Pink Dot can offer. But what plagues many groups and organisations in the business of change is the heterogeneous and divergent sets of expectations heaped onto them.

It is normal that different people and individuals project their aspirations onto platforms and organisations, but difficult to implement these ideas. For Pink Dot, they got their feedback and expectations from the community and beyond. However, there's one aspect of the idea of Pink Dot I fully endorse, and that is the push for visibility. I read Pink Dot to be saying "Okay, we are here. There are different people hanging out together and saying they support the freedom to love." I think that is one way to moving towards harmonious diversity. It works.

Pink Dot fights the media blackout of LGBT issues. Even if it means it will be featured in a small segment of the mainstream newspapers and television programmes, I consider it a huge progress. I cannot say more on how difficult it is for an LGBT or LGBT-affirming person to raise issues on LGBT rights and equality in the mainstream media.

People will disagree and continue to criticise Pink Dot, even though they themselves support LGBT rights and equality. I am one of them.

But there is no reason to feel angry or resentment to those who essentially agree on the same principle/goal that is equality in Singapore regardless of orientation and persuasion. We may campaign to the masses, write blog entries, "like" Facebook pages and articles, what-not, but all these move in tandem regardless of size and rhetoric.

Another point worth noting is whether we should be taking all these very seriously or personally. I feel that in the business of change, for example advocating queer-straight harmony (vague concept, but I'm ok with that), being firm about the message is one thing, but taking it too seriously is another.

If we take advocacy and the business of change too seriously, to the point we display anger, resentment or boycott those who share the similar ultimate aspirations as we do but happen to take a different route, we become no different from the same homophobic bigotry we have tried to address/fight in the first place.

It is also ironic that we show intolerance in the fight for greater tolerance, and that as we push for harmonious diversity, we show impatience with diversity in our own ranks. We become no better than our abusers (yes, straight people who stand up for queer people do get abused too).

I learned from many "veteran" advocates of LGBT equality that it is important to be able to not take yourself seriously as it is to take yourself seriously, as this eventually sets you apart from hateful homophobes who resort to abuse, threats, ideological terror and sometimes violence because they take their masculinity/femininity very seriously.

I personally believe that to be able to laugh at one aspect of your identity (e.g. my heterosexual masculinity) shows an understanding of it - its cultural, historical and textual dimensions. You can insult me "Sam, you're not a man" and I can laugh it off "You're right, but what's a man?" without feeling insulted, instead of reacting with anger and violence.

Some queer and questioning individuals have a history of abuse and when we speak of abuse, it often warrants a more serious approach. However, I feel that the seriousness has to be balanced in such a way that it is not too individualised, that the people to whom these issues are communicated do not feel distanced/disconnected from the issue, and do not come to the conclusion that "this problem is YOUR problem, not mine because I have nothing to do with it" - they don't connect with the aggrieved.

Supporting Pink Dot requires some degree of rationalising for me. It is easy for me to criticise it, but it has proven itself to be a platform for both straight and queer Singaporeans to come together, do something, put it in the public eye, and sharing a message that I fully support. So that is something worth supporting, no?

Pink Dot complements the many efforts we have, a sizable portion of which have been deemed to be preaching to the converted. In the business of change, it is about reach and relevance, and this some how works.

When straight people see families and other straight people (identifiable by their couple-dom) at the event, there will be a chance that they feel that Singapore is a safe place for straight people to support, stand up or even speak up for their LGBT friends and family.

You know the ThinkStraight project? (http://www.thinkstraight.sg/) It is spearheaded by a team of predominantly straight folks and their LGBT friends, if I had to use sexual orientation as a differentiating factor.

What has straight Singaporeans done for queer-straight harmony today? Or ask your straight friends, "What have you done for queer-straight harmony or harmonious diversity in Singapore today?"

If they went to Pink Dot, and played their role in making monetary contributions, volunteering or making the Pink Dot that the mainstream media picked up, they did something at least. If you're not homophobic, why not be LGBT-affirming and supportive of their rights (to be similar to the rights of straight people?)

I don't know if it is a good idea to say this, but I have spent $1210.10 of my own savings on the Singapore Queer-Straight Alliance badges and car decals, in the hope Singaporeans (and non-Singaporeans too) can display them in a way others will know that an alliance exists, that they support queer-straight harmony. It's more than just merchandising any way. Some of the money will be used to recover the costs, the rest can be used to help further LGBT advocacy. At Pink Dot, thanks to the generous (voluntary) contributions of the public, we raised slightly over $490.

Even if this is not "activism" by any means, it sure complements the effort of LGBT activists and rights advocates in Singapore. If advocating LGBT awareness and rights is recognised as a multiple-prong movement, shouldn't we recognise the fact that others in the same movement, may move at different paces, in different directions from us?

Pink Dot's not perfect, probably hardly constitutes LGBT activism (in the traditional and romantic sense), but it sure complements what we've been doing all along for equality in Singapore regardless of orientation or persuasion.

It represents a positive energy aimed at promoting greater acceptance, considering we live in a Singapore dominated by strong and bigoted opinion leaders who devote their time and resources to mobilising people into believing homophobic rhetoric and myths, spreading fear and hate.

It is also good to see teenagers and youth participating, making their rounds around the different mats and booths, and learning about the existence of advocacy and interest groups (definitely beats getting indoctrinated into uncritically embracing homophobic ideology), and hopefully going home and thinking about what they can do to make Singapore a little better.

Well, feel free to be part of the Singapore Queer-Straight Alliance, but more importantly feel free to do something on your own accord to making Singapore a better place for all regardless of orientation and persuasion.

The Genderal Elections

2011-06-16T23:32:00.000+08:00

The recent Singapore General Elections have provided a lot for us Singaporeans to think about. One interesting observation is the construction and varying degrees of (dis)approval of femininities in the political scene.

Given the high usage of new/social media, these femininities are constructed, enframed, replicated, memeified and heartily consumed in a matter of seconds, immortalising the projections of certain female politicians/political candidates, even if these projections may not fully and accurately represent the individuals themselves.

All these constructions are made in a domain governed by (general) people's paradigmatic demands and insistence on a certain set of behaviours and performativities they believe to be commonly associated with political discourse - our expectations are gendered, and we have a taste for desirable femininities.

The emergence and political participation of young women in Singapore politics over the years have often been greeted with sexist underestimations of their potential and ability to contribute to politics and the community.

As compared to their male counterparts, female politicians tend to receive more attention on their looks - almost indicative of the belief that they do not bring to the table the same quality of input as their male colleagues do.

Put in decent looks, youth and (desirable) female-ness into the political arena, you get the shallowly sexist construction that is the Tin Pei Ling-Nicole Seah diametric. It is a mere coincidence they happen to make their political debut in the same General Elections, in the same GRC. Any comparison would have been the convenient and inevitable.

People are heavily influenced by gender cues, demanding in the case of female political candidates, the right quantities and mix of femme and butch. Gender is one key variable in impression management.

Some like women to be womanly, not girly. Some like them confident and assertive, but not too loud or too butch. Like the treble and bass of a speaker or amplifier, people like to have just the right balance of femme and butch (just don't bring a napsack to Parliament).

Take for example the foot stomping mock-petulance of Tin Pei Ling in one of the YouTube videos, filmed long before the General Elections. In a certain space and time, it was permissible to act like this. During the course of the General Elections campaigns, the conscious "performance" of Tin Pei Ling's femininity, the slow, conscientious, calm and composed speeches/interviews, the absence of girlish and frivolous gestures, the lowering of the pitch of her voice, all depart from her YouTube foot-stomping heyday. (New media really cements one's gender, even those one's character will normally and reasonably be a little more complex)

Assuming that the foot stomping is part of her spontaneous reaction to certain things, there is a spectrum of behaviours that constitute the Tin Pei Ling femininity. Unfortunately, people do not expect and appreciate spectra and diversity. They believe that femininity, or at least the performance of gender, should be a consistent one across spaces.

The verdict on Tin Pei Ling's political maturity has been dished out pretty quickly based on that video. Her interview on Razor TV (i.e. the one about her biggest regret) did not help either, but then again, how many of us are spontaneous and quick-witted in interviews?

Gender is disciplined in such a way that the diverse representations of it by one person is not tolerated. Neither tolerated are the diverse representations of gender across space and time. People see it as destructive, in the sense that one Tin Pei Ling foot stomp in an old video connotes political suicide.

The political arena demands candidates to "butch up" and shed traditional and stereotypical feminine traits. This demands already creates a biased and sexist political environment.

Furthermore, we are today not helped by the historical fact that women are viewed to be less able than men to think logically, reasonably and keep their emotions in check. Most women haven't been taken seriously. Men on the other hand, are historically perceived to be able to separate emotion from rational thought, which makes them believe politics is their domain. (But of course, men have also been physically more capable of violence and that property plays a role in the male retention of political power)

This is further compounded by the historical ageism that plagues politics time and again. As much as it has been positively emphasised over the decade, youth still figures as a good enough reason to not take a political candidate seriously.

So when you have young women in the political mix, people start to feel really curious. Looking alone at their background and physicality, people will think these women are out of place (but their views would have changed accordingly to how the women spoke).

The actors/actresses on the political stage are not only the components here. We are talking about an internet-savvy audience, who have been exposed to the purportedly undesirable femininities of Mrs Goh Chok Tong (got hit hard in the nutsack, that one), Ris Low, Wee Shu Min (couldn't get out of her face), and some women at the AWARE extraordinary general meeting (depending on whose side you were).

You might think: What has their sex and gender got to do with being a prick (that's phallic, no?), an elitist, or so perceivably intellectually challenged that The Noose and Chestnuts have to lampoon a hole in your dignity? Everything.

These women (and the rest of us) traverse a gendered terrain pockmarked with norms of and desires for "right" kinds of genders. This is not news, but we demand correspondence and alignment of one's gender with one's sex in one's environment.

When the alignment is weak, people start to feel that their idea of balance or gender equilibrium has been threatened. We come up with the socialised reactions which serve as defence mechanisms for the gendered regime.

"That's not how a wo/man should act/speak/behave!"

Both men and women are pressured into conforming to unspoken rules of how to conduct oneself and to portray a desirable gender role. We are the canvass on which society and its unwavering predispositions paint. Even in our mothers' wombs, our parents (or at least most of them) are already thinking of suitable names that best reflect our sex (I think Althusser said something about that).

Going back to how society demands for the right amounts of femme and butch in a woman in particular settings, there is also the marcoscopic expectation. Depending on the climate, politics continue to rebalance the femme and butch order. By order, I refer to what people perceive their politicians to be, and not what the politicians actually are.

Take for example Singapore 1970-80s - Lee Kuan Yew, uber-butch; Goh Keng Swee, femme. The transition from Lee Kuan Yew's leadership to Goh Chok Tong's and then Lee Hsien Loong also signals the reordering of femme and butch. Lee Kuan Yew was all about shaking fists and pointing straight fingers (at least that was how he was portrayed), which are symbolic of the erect phallus. Penis is might. Very old school.

The second and third Prime Ministers began speaking more "gently", in terms of choice of words and tone, diplomatic and sensitive like a romantic construction of the desirable woman. They spoke and gesticulated with open hands. Lee Hsien Loong waves and smiles a lot more - very very femme in the forest of penises that is Singapore politics (I got that forest analogy from South Park by the way). Of course, he's never far away from his open hand slapping days.

When we approve of a female politician, we are in some way making an approval of her gender. Can't be too overweight because we might think she is too comfortable, distracted or not in control of herself (especially when there still linger masculinist impressions of women who most likely to have these qualities).

Can't be too girlish, because girlish/girly politicians cannot be taken seriously even though it may be rather difficult to confirm any correlation with girlishness and political ineptitude. To be less girly, you have to have firmer wrist ligaments, a slightly lower tone and show less emotion (although many political candidates during the General Elections 2011 did a 1965 vintage Lee Kuan Yew).

If these "rules"/expectations are not met, people actually see it fit to start questioning their ability to be a politician. Hegemonic gender's defence mechanisms are in our speediness to evaluate or judge the worth and character of someone just by how his or her gender identity is portrayed (with respect to his/her physiology/physicality).

These rules and expectations allow the continual dominance of men in politics (and also other areas such as science) because of the expectation of certain gender traits to be befitting a certain profession. Like the ancient Greeks, we demand a certain set of suitable behaviours of our adult men because they are citizens, not women and children, since they were believed to be incapable of mature rational thought. Thus, any display of traits commonly associated with children, adolescents or women in the political arena can be pretty jarring for some. (Of course, the Greek men also nurtured and had sexual relations with younger men, to show them the ways of responsible citizenry and manhood)

We also happen to subscribe to the belief that emotion and reason (or logical and rational thinking) are diametrically opposed - very strong European thought by the way. At the same time, these traits have for many millenia, been associated with specific sexes, and in turn socially reinforced/enforced as gender cues. Anything opposite, in-between, beyond, or spectrum-like encountered by society will be greeted with apprehension and defensiveness.

Can a female politician behave like a 1950s-80s Lee Kuan Yew (as we would have known him publicly)? Why not? But having a demeanour or behaviour which moves towards the other end of the hegemonic gender pole, would be a no-no in politics. People demand more traditional masculine traits - so please "man up" or "butch up" for politics.

As much as I believe it is irrelevant, a lot of people feel how a politician "performs" (in every gendered sense) is necessary for him/her to be taken seriously by the electorate. Necessary, but not entirely justifiable because politicians essentially make decisions, and decision-making in principle has nothing to do with how girly or how manly you are.

Decision-making exists in a gendered society (surprise surprise... not), and people want to see and experience the reassuring reinforcement of how men and women are expected to behave. Moving along these (il)logical lines, the "correct" portrayal of gender as to how society expects it to be, can play a big part in helping you gain moral authority (even before making any political decisions).

Societal expectations of desirable gendered behaviour are projected onto us everyday, and we somehow feel a sense of responsibility to comply, or risk alienation and the implications of swift judgement by the majority or the moral elite. It appears that harmonious integration demands compliance and homogeneity, despite in its romantic definition, integration primarily implies the existence of difference.

It is quite interesting when people speak of political "wayang" (acting, performance, in the most negative sense), the "wayang" goes very deep, all the way into how one consciously regulates one's gender cues. The purpose of "wayang" is to gain the trust and support of the people, similar to how female politicians have to strike the "right" balance of femme and butch to appeal to the masses.

Seldom do people actually challenge the justifiability of the policing (or fierce guarding) of gender boundaries. Why are we creating criteria for gendered behaviour in the political domain when it probably has nothing to do with how intelligent or how capable the politician is at decision-making?

Next time when we pass judgement on a female politician, do take some time to think to what extent does her femaleness play a role in our evaluation, and perhaps why we think this way and assume it to be a "natural" reaction. You don't know what to say, but you know what to think about next time.

An Open Letter to Minister Vivian Balakrishnan

2011-05-10T17:06:00.004+08:00

(Reproduced with permission)

An Open Letter to Minister Vivian Balakrishnan Responding to Channel Newsasia Report "Govt needs to improve communication with citizens: Dr Balakrishnan"

Dear, Dr Balakrishnan.

I wish you well. I am Richard Chua, an arts and culture worker in the Singapore arts scene. I am also a constituent in the Aljunied GRC. I read the online news report by Channel Newsasia (1) with interest. I find your medical analogy highlighting the importance of open discussion between a doctor and the patient fitting rather oddly with how conversation should take place between the state and its constituents, for the latter is carried out on levelled grounds as compared to the former: where the patient obviously is unable to treating him/herself out of an illness. His/her only choice is to either accept the doctor's treatment, or to reject it. More so than not, the patient -- in lieu of his/her survival -- is not given a choice. He/She has to rely on a doctor's opinion. If not, his/her life might be in danger. If a patient dies, the doctor assumes no responsibility, if proper treatment is given to him/her. Patients will not be able to make good judgement, for the discussion has high personal stakes. At the end of the day, the doctor has practically no risks.

However engagement between the government and its constituents is akin to parents deciding on whether their son/daughter should undergo a heart bypass, for stakes between the parents are equally high: the risk of losing their child. The quality of the conversation between the parents will be well-considered, informed, with consensus. Both parents assume equal responsibility for the child's well-being. Singapore is the government and Singaporeans' only child. Hence the government and Singaporeans are collectively responsible in the country's well-being.

A constituent's responsibility is to cast his/her vote wisely, to the right party, to the right government. Singaporeans have made their choice last weekend. Dr Balakrishnan, your constituents have exercised responsibility in casting their votes, electing you and your GRC team into parliament. There was only one vote per constituent, for a team of candidates running for places in parliament for the GRC. By having one vote per constituent electing a team of 5 or 6 people into the parliament is totally unfair. For they do not have the option to openly reject the team of candidates contesting in their constituencies during nomination day. Hence requesting constituents to exercise their vote to a group of candidates of whom they have had no say in individual candidates' nomination is fundamentally unfair.

Hence your opinion that George Yeo has lost his seat to Aljunied constituent's will is not well-grounded. For the voice of Aljunied constituents you referred to was a weak one. Aljunied constituents only have one vote per person. They can only elect one team of people, either from the People Action Party or the Workers' Party. They can't vote for the candidate of their choice. George Yeo might have won the hearts of many. Lim Hwee Hua might get my blessing, but in my opinion the new candidate Ong Ye Kung seemed to have a long way to go. Given the differences, and with only one vote on hand, as a voter, I had to exercise proportionate voting according to the number of potentially strong candidates in each party.

If the election results in Aljunied GRC happened otherwise, good Singaporean leaders such as Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim would be the country's losses too. Would you mourn for them? I seriously doubt so, and vice-versa, applying to Workers' Party too.

The problem therefore lies with the GRC system. As much as it is a fair system, allowing minority constituents to be well represented in a constituency, this fairness does not apply to Singapore's very own meritocratic system where the best shall be given the mandate to run the country. A constituent's vote can only be used once, for one group of able-people, not able-individuals. In the recent election, an able-individual George Yeo, from People Action Party, lost his chance to contribute to the nation, not to mention others -- Lim Hwee Hua and Cynthia Phua -- who suffered the same fate. One man's meat is another man's poison. People Action Party has been systematically castrated by its own flawed mechanism.

The GRC system is indeed problematic, and -- in my opinion -- it should be abolished. I sincerely hope that you will raise this issue in the new parliament sitting. If not, I will request my new members of parliament to do so.

Thank you for reading this open letter.

Best Regards,

Richard Chua Lian Choon

Notes
(1) Cheney, S. (2011) Govt needs to improve communication with citizens: Dr Balakrishnan. channelnewsasia.com. [Singapore] Retrieved from http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1127734/1/.html

cc. Mr Low Thia Khiang and Ms Sylvia Lim, members of parliament, Aljunied GRC.

Quoted: Young Faces Battle it out in Opposition Stronghold

2011-05-04T00:00:00.001+08:00

(Quoted: Straits Times. May 4, 2011)

Also available on this website. I shall provide my comments below.

The men in white are at a temple dinner in Hougang Avenue 5, and People’s Action Party (PAP) Hougang candidate Desmond Choo is pressing flesh and greeting senior citizens.

... ...

Wide-ranging interviews with Hougang residents threw up a number of local and national issues.

Top of the list locally is maintenance and upgrading.

In its first Hougang rally on Saturday, former PAP candidate and grassroots adviser Eric Low said Hougang had ‘become a slum’, and warned Aljunied residents that their neighbourhood would degrade if they did not ‘make a wise move’ on Saturday.

But that injured some residents’ pride.

‘Ouch, I live there, I have feelings too,’ quipped Hougang resident Sam Ho, 27.

More seriously, he added, such scare tactics are a distraction from the service - sufficient, if no-frills - that Mr Low has provided to residents over the years.

‘Non-Hougang residents should heed the advice to walk the Hougang ground - to see the work Low Thia Khiang and his team do, such as at Meet-the-People Sessions,’ said Mr Ho, who works for a technology start-up and has lived in the neighbourhood for three years.

...

---

May 8: Go MAN UTD!!! By the way, I was booing Pritnam Singh's Arsenal and Liverpool analogies.

Random thoughts: I think his WP teammate Toh Hong Boon is a United fan, so I'm sure he feels very uncomfortable wearing the Workers' Party light blue polo shirt. And I mean VERY UNCOMFORTABLE, like Vivian "OUT!" Balakrishnan uncomfortable, or Teo Ser Luck at the rally uncomfortable, or Wong Kan Seng Whitley Road uncomfortable, or Lim Hwee H... WHO ARE YA?! WHO ARE YA?!

Assessing GE2011 candidates

2011-05-01T18:24:00.004+08:00

http://vote.individualpreference.info/

The above site assess candidates on these multiple criteria using a methodology variant of what is used by the Public Service to award tenders.

Have a look at it. It's a little complex, but interesting nonetheless.

Workers' Party for Aljunied GRC

2011-05-01T01:00:00.002+08:00

"Emotional dilemma" is something Foreign Minister and MP/candidate for Aljunied GRC Mr George Yeo suggested the Workers' Party has put Aljunied GRC voters into.

I read this to be an insinuation by Mr Yeo that the Workers' Party appears to be manipulating voters for their cause. At the same time, it is very a patronising stance towards voters in Aljunied GRC, adopted by a Minister and a gentleman who is quite respected, competent and more importantly likeable.

In saying "emotional", you invoke its known diametric opposite - being rational. Are you trying to discredit any possible opposition victory as one that is based on an irrational electorate?

Well, let's talk about manipulating voters.

1. The Grow and Share Package and its very timely release.

2. Gerrymandering and the removal of the ineffective and unpopular Mr Yeo Guat Kwang from Aljunied GRC, resulting in thousands of voters being thrown in Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's Ang Mo Kio GRC. Never mind the disruption to the Workers' Party's work on the ground there, but voters feel cheated.

3. Conflating PAP votes with the support of the government, and justifying the uneven distribution of funds for public housing upgrade/renewal based on constituency. People fear their estates become Potong Pasir-ised or Hougang-ified, just by looking at media depictions of these old-looking estates. Manipulative tactic?

4. PM Lee's talk about "buying" votes in 2006.

5. Dangling carrots with very timely release of the masterplan for the Hougang area.

6. Dr Vivian Balakrishnan's homophobic insinuations of paedophilia and ephebophilia against a political opponent, playing on people's prevailing beliefs.

7. The timely release of "good news" pertaining to jobs and transport, and not to mention the return of TV licenses. Hey, even the ongoing construction of the river at Bishan Park is good news. Piss away people's money to make a river while withholding support for public housing upgrades for Hougang and Potong Pasir SMCs. These lopsided national, landscape and housing development initiatives serve to manipulate voters, and put them into a dilemma.

8. The media suppression of news on opposition candidates and rallies, minimising exposure, so that the less media-savvy and less technologically-savvy electorate will be manipulated into believing what the politically conservative (i.e. conservative to the PAP government) media wants them to believe.

9. Reminding voters about their "property value" and making connections with that and support for the PAP.

10. Having Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew to get Singaporeans to engage in a "yin shui si yuan" bonanza every once in a while. Now that is manipulative as it draws attention away from current and pressing issues, which spawn from ineffective policies and economic decisions. The ruling party wants to get freaky with voters' minds, with the systematic utterances of threats and doomsday scenarios.

11. Beating around the bush with Mr Steve Tan, who pulled out of the General Elections. (But we shouldn't be harassed by the desire to find out)

12. The alleged mobilisation (with transport and food incentives) of PAP supporters to attend and make up the numbers at PAP rallies. That does not happen for the 60 and 70 year old folks who walk 15 to 30 minutes to opposition rallies, on their own accord, but consumers of mainstream media won't be able to tell the difference. Their inability to discern may affect their decision to vote. Is that not manipulative?

When Singaporeans ask "why?" and "how come?", more smoke and more diversions are created. What does this say about the readiness to be honest, accountable and to stay in touch with various segments of society?

There are probably more examples of the ruling party putting voters in an "emotional dilemma", which opposition parties will elaborate in this General Election and beyond.

How can we have an informed electorate when the flow of information and the management of the mainstream media are all oriented towards the interest of a particular political party?

As for Aljunied GRC and Hougang, the 2 wards I have grown up in (since Cheng San GRC has dematerialised), I like to say that the Workers' Party, like the PAP, is imperfect. I disagree with a few of their beliefs. But the Workers' Party's sincerity, diligence, commitment and service to residents are things that don't go unnoticed.

My previous MP was Mr Yeo Guat Kwang as I previously lived in Hougang-Aljunied (which is now potong-ed and thrown into Ang Mo Kio GRC). One word from my family and neighbours sum up this man's presence in the ward - it starts with "S" and it rhymes with "hit".

As for Hougang SMC, I have the utmost respect for Mr Low Thia Kiang. He is a true servant to Hougang residents, and so is his team.

And more importantly, I look forward to being represented by Mr Yaw Shin Leong in Parliament.

But won't it be a sweet thing to know on May 8 morning, white hot Aljunied and Hougang will be a cooler shade of light blue?

---

add: Any way, I'm not quite sure if I have previously mentioned about Mr Yeo Guat Kwang being rude to my mum. Here are the instances, from her account:

1. My mum voiced her concerns to Mr Yeo Guat Kwang that people are littering, chucking trash out of their windows and onto the ground below. Mr Yeo told her to contact NEA herself.

2. My mum asked Mr Yeo Guat Kwang about the lift upgrading. She recalled him telling her that residents on lift landing levels "pay a premium". She asked if this was true, because she understood that everyone pays, and the higher the level, the higher the payment. Mr Yeo waved her off and said something along the lines of "Don't believe then don't" and left. The HDB officer who was tagging along with Mr Yeo later told my mum that Mr Yeo wasn't correct about the lift upgrading payments.

3. Mr Yeo Guat Kwang knocked on my mum's door in a visit, and the first thing he said was "You again!". My mum replied, "Ya, it's me."

When she votes, she'll be seriously considering the work her MP has done for her block and the neighbourhood.

Disappointed with Dr Vivian

2011-04-30T17:30:00.002+08:00

(Unpublished - April 26, 2011)

I read with disappointment Dr Vivian Balakrishnan and his GRC team’s statement demanding the Singapore Democratic Party’s agenda and political motive.

This demand is informed by their belief in an erroneously and deceivingly titled YouTube video, which also carries misleading descriptions, of a forum held last year.

This forms part of a series of insinuations by Dr Vivian about the SDP, with invocations of private and sexuality matters. He has previously talked about the SDP team being “strange bedfellows” and they should “come out of the closet” with their intentions. These are slurs uttered to antagonise others on the grounds of sexual orientation.

Further to that, Dr Vivian’s team has pressed the SDP to come clean as to whether they will pursue the “agenda”.

Dr Vivian’s actions here play on public perception of the homophobic construction that is the “gay agenda”. It is engineered by harmful myths that trivialise and demonise gay people as preying on the young, as capable of converting the sexuality of others, or simply threats to families.

If we can take any lessons from history, this will sow the seeds for a moral panic, with its growth all the more expedited by lack of understanding and constitutional protection of gay Singaporeans.

Not only is it an insult to the intelligence and good sense of many well-adjusted Singaporeans, but the association of “lowering the age of consent for boys” and “having sex with boys” with any person in the videoed forum is deceiving and slanderous.

It is all the more audacious and uncanny that these insinuations have to be associated with a political party at this point in time.

Dr Vivian’s actions represent a mentality in segments of Singaporean society, that continue to drive the democratic process at the expense of the constitution rights of gay Singaporeans.

It is rather infantile to reduce a discussion of constitutional rights of Singaporeans on the grounds of sexual orientation to one that is forwarding the “gay agenda”.

There exist people who are guided by myths that demonise gay Singaporeans. The lack of anti-discrimination laws and absence of statutory laws to protect the constitutional rights on grounds of sexual orientation allow these myths to perpetuate.

Singaporeans are not gullible to believe such insinuations to be true. I rather have an MP who champions justice and equality for all Singaporeans than one who makes slurs at others.

Ho Chi Sam

Add: There was no way the Straits Times would have published such a letter.

What's your douchebag agenda, Dr Vivian?

2011-04-25T22:00:00.000+08:00

The PAP has released a statement addressing the online video which it alleged the SDP is trying to suppress. The statement is below and undersigned by Dr Vivian Balakrishnan and his GRC team.

A video has been posted on the internet showing Vincent Wijeysingha participating at a forum which discussed the promotion of the gay cause in Singapore.

The discussion at the forum also touched on sex with boys and whether the age of consent for boys should be 14 years of age.

In the video, Wijeysingha was introduced as being from the SDP.

In addition to other comments, Wijeysingha stated: ‘I think the gay community has to rally ourselves. Perhaps one outcome of today’s forum would be, for those of us who are interested, to come together to further consider how we can address the 377 issue as well as further rights issues in relation to gays and lesbians.’

We believe that candidates should be upfront about their political agenda and motives, so that voters are able to make an informed choice.

The issue is not Wijeysingha’s sexual orientation. That is a matter for him.

The video raises the question on whether Wijeysingha will now pursue this cause in the political arena and what is the SDP’s position on the matter.

It is obvious the above release is aimed at smearing Dr Vincent Wijeysingha and the SDP team, trivialising and infantilising their efforts and reducing them to alleged advocates of an issue which homophobes alone in their own bigoted world find morally contentious - the "gay agenda".

I take serious issue with the sentence "The discussion at the forum also touched on sex with boys and whether the age of consent for boys should be 14 years of age."

This statement best exemplifies the hate-mongering tactic of conflating homosexuals with sex with minors, building on misinformation and irrational and ill-informed fears, to perpetuate continual social and institutional discrimination of sexual minorities in Singapore.

Moreover, the forum primarily discussed about Section 377A, and its constitutionality. "Sex with boys"? Seriously? The organisers called a forum, attended by intelligent people fighting for justice and equality and non-discrimination, just to talk about "sex with boys"?

To associate this despicable insinuation with a man and a political party says a lot about the human being that is Dr Vivian.

What is not new is the continual smearing of the SDP, lopsidedly galvanised by the lapdogs that is the mainstream media which has lacked the journalistic diligence and integrity. This time, the religious anti-gay narrative invoked in the form of the "gay agenda" is hurled at the SDP, displacing the dialogue real gentlemen and ladies in the political arena should be respectfully engaged in.

You know what? Even a reasonably media and information-savvy person like myself has negative imaginings of the SDP just by watching Mediacorp news and reading the Straits Times. These excuses for journalism (especially when it comes to domestic politics) have successfully coerced me into believing the SDP is a bunch of psychopathological headless chicken who are always physically aggressive, violently confrontational and are high level threats to domestic security. But information-savvy adults should be able to see beyond the blatant demonisation of the SDP over the years.

The title of the video already speaks of the person who posted it. "Gay Agenda" is being used.

Let me tell you something about the "Gay Agenda". It does not exist. The agenda is justice, equality, equal rights, recognition and respect for people, regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity. There is nothing "Gay" about it.

I am a happily married man who values my union with my wife, and values family, and I endorse the movement towards justice, equality, equal rights, recognition and respect for people, regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Gay people do not ruin my family. They do not convert me or my wife to adopt "alternative lifestyles". They are not the demons that homophobes make them out to be.

Dr Vivian, in using the video with an erroneous and misleading title and description, continues to validate and perpetuate the myth that gay people prey on the very young. This is tantamount to creating a moral panic.

Moreover, should the responses of people like myself or the opposition parties be silenced or played down by the mainstream media, the insidious fabrication will continue to go unchallenged in the mainstream and may augment the democratic process.

Dr Vivian is also very reductionist, and I have mentioned, is attempting to trivialise and infantilise the SDP. It is an insult to the efforts of the SDP team that they are deemed to be forwarding or pursuing one particular cause. To demand Dr Vincent to be upfront about his political agenda and motives, all the more speaks of the political agenda and motives of Dr Vivian, even if he may believe attention will be drawn away from his (Dr Vivian's) person.

It is also a cunning move to define the motions for discussion, and possibly cause the SDP to sidetrack from discussing the true issues at heart - Singaporeans in general. In my opinion, the SDP is open enough and Dr Vivian does not deserve any attention or have his question dignified with any answer. The PAP have their status quo to defend, and onus is on the opposition to provide and argue for alternatives. It says a lot about the political integrity of Dr Vivian and his team to play the sexuality card and push the buttons for a moral panic, instead of engaging SDP directly on its political arguments/suggestions.

So what if a candidate or an MP is gay? I rather vote for someone who does not play these dirty tactics. Falsehoods are being perpetuated about a man, which has implications on further dividing our society.

I am speaking up against Dr Vivian not because I care about the SDP or support it, but because I am deeply angered and offended that he can resort to such political tactics. To make such insinuations about Dr Vincent amounts to a personal attack.

I'm primarily interested in Aljunied GRC and Hougang SMC, looking forward to a clean and fair contest between the PAP and the Workers' Party. But with Dr Vivian's involvement in this preposterous fear-mongering and hate-mongering attack on Dr Vincent's character and political "motives", I feel it is important for me as an ordinary citizen, a straight man like Dr Vivian, to condemn homophobia and the wild and false conflation of homosexuality into "sex with boys". More importantly, it is important that we condemn such smearing in the political arena.

With your recent actions, Dr Vivian, I think you're in the wrong country, playing the wrong politics. Your maturity is not appreciated, and with respect to this issue, neither is your intelligence and good sense. What's the point of talking about 3G or 4G leadership when your political maturity continues to recede and regress?

There is no "gay agenda", but there's a douchebag agenda. Since you have taken the liberty to make your agenda known, Dr Vivian, you will have to duty to face the reactions of people who disagree with you, and those who may have lost their respect for you as a human being.

Dr Vivian, I'm sorry but I think you're a dick. Democracy, no matter how curtailed and restricted it is in Singapore, can do without people like you.

Homophobia in the General Elections

2011-04-24T19:05:00.001+08:00

There have been websites, YouTube posts, Facebook posts (allegedly by PAP trolls) and Twitter posts which have been engaging in gay-bashing, fear-mongering and hate-mongering against gay Singaporeans, as we near the General Elections.

The "votepap" and "fakeSDP" Twitter accounts have been circulating a video and posting comments about SDP and their "gay agenda". Worse still, the title "gay agenda" plays on the fears of people who probably know as much as the antagonists.

Furthermore, the description of the video states that the SDP is trying to hide the video, which is about "lowering age of consent for sex with boys aged 14 and repeal of 377A." This does not make sense at all.

S377A criminalises consensual sex between adult men. Its repeal does not affect me one bit, nor will it affect my family. Its repeal will only allow gay men to have the same right as straight men to have consensual adult sex. Perhaps it is the obsessive homophobic preoccupation and imaginings of gay sex that drives support for this colonial-inherited statute.

You know what is dangerous and damaging to families? Not gay rights, but homophobic bigots who raise ill-adjusted homophobic kids who see it is okay to indulge in bullying, hatred, fear-mongering and to some extent, violent behaviour.

The "gay agenda" is a concoction of hatred and fear-mongering, created by heterosexist supremacist bigots, who are not only ill-adjusted, ignorant, insecure, but are manipulative, only feel better about themselves by putting others down, and are essentially dangerous to society as a whole.

Since they claim to be straight, I like to say that as one straight family-oriented person, I think you guys are pathetic excuses for human beings. Your heterosexuality is just one of many orientations, but you have taken it upon yourself, by convenience of herd mentality and emboldened by a like-minded or brainwashed mob of homophobes, to suggest it is the one and only orientation, such that any identities outside this straight cosmos are illegitimate.

The "fakeSDP" account has the audacity to post the childish yet inflammatory tweet "fakeSDP: @thefakeSAF Watch out! @yourSDP will increase the faggots in the SAF... http://bit.ly/hKXz7H #sgelections @fakeMOE #sg KEEP SDP OUT!"

There is no point engaging in dialogue with bigots with rhetorical questions such as "what does his/her sexuality got to do with his/her work?" because homophobes will always use the sexuality card, in the most frivolous, irrational and ridiculous of ways, just to deny gay Singaporeans the right to participate, be represented, or simply be acknowledged or respected.

Even if, given the benefit of the doubt, these twitter accounts were meant to be satirical, it continues to play on the negative beliefs people have about gay people and continue to perpetuate homophobia in our nation.

These are the terrorists who demonise fellow human beings just because they are perceived to be different, further stratifying, segregating and dividing our society.

I am not surprised if their heterosexual inadequacies (e.g. not enough marriages + babies), moral insecurities, anti-social behaviours, and perceived moral problems which confront them as persons, have all been funneled and projected onto their homophobia and hate-mongering.

Our government is also standing idly by, and not speaking up against the fear-mongering and hate-mongering, because homophobia can always retreat back the fortification that is religion (namely socio-religious organisations and communities which legitimise this homophobic hate speech and behaviour).

At least, the Singapore Democratic Party has the sense to recognise Singaporeans as Singaporeans, regardless of orientation and persuasion. (By the way, I have no political opinion on the SDP, positive or negative)

Homophobes in Singapore constitute one of the many reasons why Singaporean democracy is what it is. A democracy is only as good as its people. That is why a progressive party like the PAP, progressive as in willing to deal with social changes only as they come because of the implications caused by the unflinching adherence to economic KPIs, has to occasionally use the excuse "... when Singaporeans are ready".

It is a pity that there exist moral inbreds who continue to dominate our political and moral discourses. They monger fear and hate with narratives like "slippery slopes", without understanding the slippery slopes of their taken-for-granted exclusionist discriminations.

They enter dialogue with the pre-existing, unshakable and uncompromisable position that sexuality other than heterosexuality, is wrong, bad and sinful, thus worthy of trivialisation, discrimination, hate and fear-mongering. Try doing that to women, ethnic minorities, religious minorities.

There are people in Singapore who work their socks off just to educate the public on sexuality and difference, only to be forbidden to speak, or shut up. And these moralising hooligans are abusing their privileges, and taking advantage of the absence of laws to protect the constitutional rights of gay Singaporeans, to not only air their homophobic views, but to launch irrational smear campaigns against individuals and organisations, playing on the fear most ill-informed people have about LGBT people. Furthermore, their actions, if gone unchallenged, will condone similar behaviour.

These homophobes are the ones who abuse democracy and continue the political and social discrimination of LGBT Singaporeans.

The behaviour, actions and words of these Singaporeans are disgusting, deplorable and should be condemned. Just because you're straight, it doesn't mean you are better or more moral.

Not mum about single mothers in Singapore

2011-04-22T15:00:00.002+08:00

As we put aside our political ephebophilic obsession with the rather arbitrarily constructed yet sexist dichotomy that is Tin Pei Ling and Nicole Seah, I like to focus on one issue that the opposition parties have highlighted - the rights and recognition of single mums in Singapore.

I think it might be of a stretch, but I believe that before we can even begin to recognise the importance of equality regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity and move towards a queer liberation, we have to address the institutional (and to some extent, social) inequalities that confront unmarried single mums in Singapore.

Why the link? Is there even a linear progression starting from the acceptance and integration of single mums into policy and society, eventually leading to LGBT liberation? Well, I think so.

The paradigms which drive the social and institutional marginalisation of single mums, also happen to perpetuate continual and systematic discrimination against sexual minorities.

There is an insistence on form over function when it comes to defining what constitutes a "family", and a staunchly heterosexist demand for a father, mother and offspring to form the "complete" family. Form determines structure. This is something we come to believe to be the natural order - that such a family structure characterised by heterosexual union is normal and thus right.

Policy thus favours the "natural orders" with which people have grown to be comfortable.

Single mums do not enjoy the benefits that married couples do. Here, there is the insistence on the institution of marriage to legitimise access to benefits and state help, and also to morally legitimise procreation, nevermind the existence and daily realities of individuals who are victims of circumstance or agents of their own fates.

Marriage has its heapload of moral ascriptions, and it is very unfortunate that policy is only as good as its people. In Singapore, seldom does policy take the lead in effecting social change, but often appears to only effect change in the favour of retaining power and continuity for those who benefit from the system. This is best captured in the PAP government's political rhetoric of "...when/if Singaporeans are ready" to justify the slightest effort of reevaluation of their own policies.

When we challenge these discriminatory policies, we create the opportunities to challenge the underlying and taken-for-granted assumptions that 'inspire' them. It is not an eye-opening awakening for anyone to fully and critically realise the existence of these assumptions, but rather small hints towards the awareness of the existence and implications of heterosexist norms, norms of marriage, gender norms, and how these norms inform policy and which in turn affect the lives of different Singaporeans.

There are people who fear the destabilising effects that single mums bring, not to society, but to the ideologies and the bigotries that are in the first place harmful to single mums - not exactly the most selfless concern, eh?

Some of the norms we hold to our hearts so dearly and without question, have consequences on the lives and realities of other families and individuals. We uncritically insist that what is normal is right and should be implemented across the board for everyone. Because of that, policy captures this aspiration and follows the "will" of the people. And since we have ascribed morality to norms, we have made ourselves susceptible to demonising individuals, narratives and discourses that fall outside our "norms".

At the least, single mums face similar challenges that married mums face. It takes a critical reflection of one's beliefs to recognise the reality that single mums, like married mums, are still mums, and that they face similar issues in necessities, infant/childcare, healthcare, raising their child(ren), real bread and butter problems and so on. And the reasons why one holds back from allow equal treatment are due to ridiculous moralisation and rationalisation.

If people want to talk about progress in society, look not to freedom of expression, or equality of sexual identity and gender identity, but to the better treatment of single mums first, in my honest opinion. As much as I personally believe in sexual diversity, plurality and equality, there are baby steps to make to effect such a progress. I wish to say that I'm not using the issue of single mums as a leverage to forward LGBT liberation, as I recognise in its own the importance of the issue and what it brings to society and its betterment. A change in policy can play a small role in addressing the social stigma that single mums have faced.

Provided that change for the better (i.e. fairer and more equal) treatment of single mums is not rigidly enframed within heteronormative narratives, which is always possible, it can lead to progressive changes in attitudes towards people who don't necessarily confirm to familial and heterosexist norms, or to norms that insist on marriage as a basis for procreation.

I think the issue on single mums might just be a mere footnote in the upcoming General Elections, buried beneath issues such as bread and butter, housing, foreign talents and the usual. But when it's mentioned, do give it a ear.

Yeo! Guat the hell is happening to Hougang-Aljunied? Curious CASE indeed

2011-04-13T16:30:00.000+08:00

I have been a resident of Hougang-Cheng San/Aljunied (GRC) since 1996, but in 2008 have moved to Hougang SMC, which I term with endearment "the red side of Hougang" - with respect to the Workers' Party (WP) red and yellow hammer logo, although light blue has remained the party's colour for quite a while now.

In contrast, I call Hougang-Cheng San/Aljunied (GRC) "the white side of Hougang", because of the the corporate colour of white that represents the purity and virginity of the PAP.

Speaking of virginity, I say that white/PAP Hougang is a real swinger. Very promiscuous indeed.

PAP Hougang is now part of Ang Mo Kio GRC! In the space of 14 years, PAP Hougang has been part of Cheng San GRC, Aljunied GRC and now, Ang Mo Kio GRC.

Gerrymandering in Singapore is like multiple plastic surgery - we're always seeking to have the best results for ourselves, but it eventually leaves everyone rather confused.

You may call PAP Hougang a nomad, moving around from one GRC to another in the last couple of decades. Or maybe a dirty whore might be befitting, given it once belonged to one of the more "dirtier" GRCs, in that it had a problem with litterbugs.

Hey, the smell of piss at my former place was a mainstay. Littering was really bad too when you have residents from the second to sixth floors randomly throwing sanitary pads, plastic bags containing water and flowers, bread, cigarettes, nasi briyani and unidentifiable objects to baptise the Hougang concrete or the unlucky passer-by. A serious lack of education there, no doubt.

What's more politically important is that the white side of Hougang appears to be rather supportive of the WP, which has contested in 1997 and 2006. The WP tried contesting Aljunied GRC in 2001 but due to some form-filling diligence issues, did not and could not.

Until we really know what have been the percentage of votes for the Hougang constituency in Cheng San and Aljunied GRC in the past elections, I think the opinions we have about the poor support for the PAP in this zone is at best derived from personal impressions and speculation.

The only constant in these 14 years is Yeo Guat Kwang, the member of parliament for the white side of Hougang. He's president of the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE- "CASE" could mean "Complaints are so easy" too).

The popularity of Yeo with Hougang residents is such that he has had the privilege of being part of the GRC teams led by Lee "kinda messed up the education system" Yock Suan, a very likable and respected George Yeo and now Lee "66%" Hsien Loong. This is such that gerrymandering is necessary.

The ghost of Cheng San in the 1997 General Elections lingers, with the Hougang zone "returning" to Cheng San, part of which is now under Ang Mo Kio GRC.

On an unrelated note, logic and geography are restored when the Serangoon North bit is now part of Aljunied GRC and not Marine Parade GRC. Gerrymandering takes no prisoners when it comes to bafflement.

I remember the 1997 General Elections when the late Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam (JBJ)-led Workers' Party team contested for Cheng San. Workers' Party had a rally at Hougang Stadium. The entire Hougang Avenue 2 was jammed with cars. Yio Chu Kang Road, leading into Hougang Avenue 2, was jammed. Hougang Avenue 8 was also jammed. Passengers got out of their cars, to make their way to Hougang Stadium to attend the rally. Awesome experience.

In the 2006 General Elections, there was a traffic jam on Yio Chu Kang Road leading to Serangoon Stadium, where the Sylvia Lim-led Workers' Party team were having a rally as part of their contesting for Aljunied GRC. There was no way we could drive there, so we made our 20-25 minute walk to the stadium, greeting and were greeted by motorcyclists donning the light blue Workers' Party silicone band and the occasional WP mini-flag. What a sight. (And at that rally, I can proudly say I started the Gomez chant too haha.)

People were starved for new and different answers, solutions and ideas. That was what made opposition party rallies more than well attended. I would say it was easily 100,000 people squeezing into that stadium and perhaps a few thousands outside the stadium.

To be fair to the PAP, it was more of a matter of continuity and renewal, and probably still is, that did not really capture the attention of people like the other parties. But continuity in a climate of change is equally as challenging a task as change itself.

I am really curious of what is the ground sentiment towards Yeo Guat Kwang and the PAP in PAP Hougang. My ex-neighbours were definitely not supportive (but of course, that doesn't necessarily translate to votes). Conservancy rates were relatively high in this GRC yet it remained one of the more litter-ridden places in Singapore, forcing the Town Council to initiate campaigns to make the place cleaner.

We can draw as many conclusions as we want in the wake of Hougang being taken out of Aljunied GRC and subsumed under Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's Ang Mo Kio GRC. This is obviously disadvantageous to the Workers' Party. Speaking of disadvantage, the few blocks at Hougang Avenue 7 were torn down a few years ago, which may also have implications on Workers' Party support.

If I remember correctly, Hougang SMC MP Low Thia Kiang was less than happy that he had spent resources upgrading some of the facilities and facade in this area, only to come to know in very short notice, that the flats would be torn down. The government reasoned that they did not know and will not know what will be of the flats even in a time frame as short as six months. So much for the relevance of masterplans and development.

The more obvious observations are that of public transport within the area. The tax-paying residents of Hougang SMC have had the shorter end of the transport stick, with literally one feeder service serving them, and let's just say that it is not the more frequent one either.

As with upgrading of lifts and flats, Hougang and Potong Pasir SMCs could empathise with each other. One thing that continues to greatly puzzle me is the ruling party's reasoning. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong appeared live in a televised forum last night, and suggested that the government will help those who support it. Well, something along that line, and it made tit-for-tat sense, but hello, your job is to serve the people.

It is really odd. People vote for their MPs based on a variety of considerations - from personal, residential, neighbourhood, national and perhaps international affairs. MPs, barring the party whip, don't necessarily always agree with government policies. At the same time, people may not appreciate the work their PAP MPs have done and have decided to vote for another candidate. We cannot totally assume that this is indicative of the lack of support for "the government".

Only a few PAP MPs are the government. Telling Singaporeans that not supporting the non-office-holder PAP MP equates to not supporting the government, says a lot about the insecurities of the PAP. In my opinion, if the PAP has done a good job, it does not really have to invoke such rhetoric.

Residents can indicate their disagreement with the PAP town council and the groundwork they have been doing, but that does not mean they do not support the government. Any way, there are Ministers and related office holders in every GRC, so the lack of votes may be read by the PAP as the lack of support for the government.

Lee Hsien Loong last night was just confirming the fact that the Singapore government practises favours. Zones or constituencies that support the opposition = they don't support "the government", therefore they deserve to be marginalised and be given the smaller slice of the public housing pie. In this line, it is hence logical to hold the interpretation that government agencies are suspiciously partial, even though they are clearly serving Singaporeans, regardless of residency.

But politics is politics. Opposition Members of Parliament probably have a smaller bargaining power when it comes to upgrading of public facilities and amenities, which again indicates the partiality of the government agencies. How can a first world government do this? Such a strategy threatens and starves Singaporeans into voting for the PAP.

If the PAP is unafraid of the opposition, Cheng San would have remained. Or Hougang-Aljunied would have been still part of Aljunied GRC. Flats in Potong Pasir and Hougang will not be among the last to be upgraded. These changes are symptoms of insecurity, burning feverishly in various departments of ruling party every 5-6 years.

As a middle-class, middle-income Singaporean, and the public education and public housing I have, I am very grateful to many PAP policies that have to various extents personally benefited me. But you see, it is not enough because the education has made me aware and sensitive to some of the limitations of the PAP government. At the same time, I am aware that it is important to have opposition party representation and participation in Parliament for the betterment of fellow Singaporeans.

The PAP grassroots has done a lot for Singaporeans, and the PAP government too has done a decent job creating the infrastructure for the majority to live and progress. But there will always be a blackness behind the PAP white - something that every person fears, grows to fear and cannot do anything about it. Just look at the decisions made against the people in Potong Pasir and Hougang. Might I respectfully suggest the principle of warning against "complacency" be applied to Parliament and for the benefit of Singaporeans, the interests of Singaporeans will be safeguarded against state complacency when we have at least a GRC or two run by the opposition. We can also do without the doomsday rhetoric painted by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew with regards to PAP losing its power.

With respect to Hougang and Yeo Guat Kwang, the voters in PAP Hougang will now be told that if they did not vote for the PAP, they are not supporting the Prime Minister and the Singaporean government - rather abstract, don't you think? It could draw attention away from the work done in the area by Yeo since the last General Election.

Going by the trend, decisions from the government are normally made independent of public views. We have a "do first, pretend to consult later" approach to governmental decision-making. Hence, when it is insinuated that voters in their respective constituencies are voting based on the consideration of the governmental policies beyond and above the level of their constituencies, it is quite a stretch. Among many reasons, people vote to indicate their approval of their local MPs and the work they do. It ultimately does not really matter if people approve or disapprove of wider governmental policies, because they can not do anything about it without getting silenced or arrested.

While most of Singapore may be politically apathetic (thanks to our education system, and Lee Yock Suan had a role in it for while), we remain information-savvy. Singaporeans will be able to decide what they think is good or bad. But then again, we measure good/bad just like how the PAP does it, so you can probably forget I said it haha.

And if your MP is doing a really good job for you, think about that first before thinking about national issues, because national issues are most probably handled and decided before you can even put pen to paper.

What on Earth is the Ground?

2011-04-10T00:00:00.002+08:00

I must say, I've been really out of touch with the political ongoings in our sunny (and occasionally rainy) island. I guess I'm becoming one of those highly rational Singaporeans whose preoccupation with their occupations have come at the expense of their political curiosity, awareness and/or consciousness.

My soul, depending on your religious orientation, has somewhat been sucked, and I find myself somehow foolishly contented with the routine and drudgery of wage work as an educated proletariat. Weekends are spent recharging and consuming, so that I'm ready for another 5 days of work to fund the recharging and consumption. Rather dehumanised and agentless for 40-50 hours a week, with family and sleep serving to restore the balance of something that doesn't really have to be imbalanced in the first place, but we're all coerced into it somehow or another.

The only thing keeping me "connected" with the political ongoings is the roll of paper that's shoved between the grills of my gate before 6am every morning. And of course, there's the occasional tweets and articles from various bloggers and websites.

In the midst of the lengthy and gratuitous media foreplay leading to what it looks like a late April early May General Election, I figure it's important to talk about the things I don't really know about, in particular, the "ground". What on earth is the "ground"?

When people from the PAP and opposition parties speak of "walking the ground", what do they mean by "ground"?

Is the "ground" represented by (a combination of the following):
- The people who appear at your Meet-the-People session with the respective Members of Parliament?
- The people your grassroots colleagues (and underlings) speak to and survey?
- The people you see and interactive with in your daily routine around the neighbourhood?
- The people you interact with in your walk-abouts and house visits?
- The people who share with you feedback and comments via email, calls and letters?
- The people in the stories the newspapers and media report?

When it comes to the "ground" in political discourse, it seems to invoke a less socioeconomically privileged class of people who do not have sufficient access to resources, opportunity and help, nevermind if they are victims of policy, circumstance, pathology, or according to the beliefs of some, their own choices.

"Grassroots" all the more seems punny now. It is a political no-brainer, that for one to be democratically elected into Parliament, other than joining a PAP team to "walkover" a newly gerrymandered GRC, one should win the hearts of the people in a legitimate democratic process.

But the vote of a person from a less privileged position in society equals the vote of a person from the upper socioeconomic stratum. In a society like Singapore's, the public discussion of and alignment with issues faced by the upper social stratum are often low-key, if not frowned upon. Judging by the political discourse over the decades, if political opinion had to be indexed, the bigger weightage will be attributed to those in the lower social strata. This leads me to think, "Am I part of the 'ground'?"

At the same time, one only needs to be in power with the majority vote, so one's political strategy will always be aimed at capturing that, rather than be a catch-all. Different strata and ethnic/cultural/religious communities receive manifestos and policies differently. There has to have some degree of plurality in these policies. With respect to that, I think the PAP has done a decent job to receive (or in Lee Hsien Loong's words, buy) the majority vote.

The funny thing about plurality in Singapore is that while it does exist, it is grossly limited. Plurality extends to multiculturalism, yet for instance the public housing policy of ethnic quota condemns ethnic minorities to minority votes.

Yet, to exercise plurality, who do you choose to be included in your policies? We're only plural when it comes to race, religion, gender and class - are those enough? I think they're enough to get you into Parliament.

I think what some fail to understand is that no political party in Singapore is out to please everyone. Imagine if the ruling party comes up with policies that totally marginalises the lowest 2 income quintiles of society. It will still remain in power, even if 15% of each of the upper 3 income quintiles are disgusted by such social injustice perpetuated. What then, is the "ground" here? Or rather, is the "ground" in its romantic sense, relevant in this case?

Democracy is such that doing things to lose the vote of a minority is forgivable and tolerable. So technically, the "ground" is whatever and however we make it out to be, so long as it represents 51% (for a 2-horse race) or a relevant majority of the votes we intend to receive.

The "ground" can include the rich, educated, English-speaking and privileged in many ways, but by convention and political correctness, the mythologisation of the "ground" involves the exclusion of the "privileged" minority. See, that's where plurality explicitly ends, although there are economic, social and trade policies that create conditions that favour the privileged.

When individuals/leaders are being charged with being out of touch with the "ground", what does that mean? Are we painting a picture that Singapore's is socioeconomically a pyramid (with a diamond top), that the lower strata of peoples form the big base of society and that's where the majority of votes are coming from?

How do we imagine the "ground" any way? What constitutes a grassroots problem - no minimal wages or no freedom of expression? What does it mean to be in touch with the ground - understanding the problems of the lesser educated low income resident or the problems of his relatively more educated and higher income neighbour?

The word "ground" invokes a sense of altitude, and social strata inevitably becomes central to the discourse. Because it is such, we start imagining certain classes, cultures, religious affiliations, languages, skin colour, fashion sense, familial structures, gender identities (beng is a gender identity, by the way) and so on, and associating these traits, or rather ascribing these traits to the word "ground'.

Any way, what is it about us, our society and the way that it is structure that leads us to imagine the "ground" this way? (symptom of democracy and capitalism, any one?)

Again, in a democracy, does the "ground" in its romanticised definition, represent the political majority? If the government is charged to be out of touch with the ground while it continues to stay in power, what does that say about the minority/majority status of the "ground"? In the end, is serving/pleasing the "ground" (the mythologised one) relevant to being elected into Parliament in Singapore?

I really don't know what the "ground" is, because judging by the way things are run here, it appears to be much less relevant than the bottomline, which is to garner the majority vote. Yet, many continue to emphasise the importance of "walking the ground".

This is probably why we simply cannot let one party to run the whole show. Given the mix of different political leanings and ideas as well as how differently defined the "ground" is with more opposition participation in Parliament, more of the "ground" will be covered.

Any way, good luck to all! Keep it clean! And to all parties and their candidates, except for the homophobic ones, all the best.

The daftness of complacent duds who love peanuts

2011-03-05T22:44:00.003+08:00

Every now and then, Singaporeans are blessed with the memorable quotes from prominent public officials or related persons. These quotes (and their sources) become the subjects of wisecracks and ridicule, gaining momentum for prolonged periods of time, meme-like.

In a socio-political climate characterised by trademark ruling party scoff and scorn of ideas from the island-state's political nether regions, there is - and people know and believe it - little room for people with non-PAP political persuasion to speak freely and to be taken seriously.

Subversion of the dominant political discourse manifests not only in the alternative discourses championed by opposition parties, but more saliently in how ordinary Singaporeans (especially the netizens) seize upon the oratorical gems excreted from the mouths of public figures associated with the establishment.

Remember the hits like "peanuts", "complacency" and "daft"? These words, phrases and rhetoric are immortalised - burned into the Singaporean consciousness. They are now reclaimed and owned by most Singaporeans, who are ever ready to take a jibe - or two - at the PAP government.

The reiteration of these words serve to remind people and also the ruling party, that the state is not perfect. So, what's new?

Is this a culture in which people continue to cling on to the words and fluffs of the state? I think this culture (internet culture, mostly) ultimately reflects our condition as politically disempowered citizens.

Yes. I'm being pessimistic.

Well, there are a couple of positions we could take as we assess the culture of (re)claiming the words and rhetoric of the imperfect authoritarian state - and converting them into overused jokes.

1. Reclamation.
On the one hand, it is (or could be) indicative of empowerment when people use new media and create content to seize the words from public officials and create their own counter-discourse. This exercise is done with a view to obviously mock the state. Nothing wrong with that, especially when citizens believe the government is mocking them.

2. The illusion of empowerment.
On the other hand, empowerment is such a dirty word. If we assessed the context in which these reclamations are made, converted into memes, thrown back into the wilderness that is the internet, just to draw a good laugh at the state, we realise we still subject ourselves to the dominant political discourses of the state. In fact, these memes (I can't think of any better word at the moment) could perhaps create a noise that stifles alternative political discourses. The "daft"s, "dud"s and "complacent"s essentially pose no threat to the prevailing political discourse of the PAP government.

Furthering this argument, I believe we should be asking ourselves why some (or most, whichever your imaginings) Singaporeans have this kind of reaction towards authority in the instance some insensitive, inflammatory or down-right stupid statements are made by public officials. What does this reaction say about our condition and position as Singaporeans?

I can't help but feel aligned with the belief that this is a tactic subsumed and defined by the overarching strategy that is the political discourse of the PAP government. For the sake of political pluralism, I am most happy when the reclamation leads to creation of and/or opening of alternative discourses that challenge the dominant socio-politico-economic ideology.

It still appears that the PAP government sets the agenda. Heck, the government blazes the trail for the many catchphrases we have come to love/loathe and play over and over again for our amusement.

This is not a new concept, i.e. locating sites of resistance/subversion within domains of oppression. Lee Kuan Yew (and a good team) got his British education and used it to help Singapore gain independence from the British. Many of the critics of the Singaporean government have the Ministry of Education to thank for as they have grown up as subjects of MOE's educational policies. There's even a discourse, characterised by the devaluation of discussions of problems and complaints, and the heavy emphasis instead on solutions - sounds very rational, the solutions are ultimately subjected to the measures dictated by the ruling party!

The PAP government has created a system that has spawned generations of over-rationalised result-oriented goal-driven Singaporeans, some of whom have turned around to criticise the very system. Of course, I've also missed out the part on the generations of politically docile and apathetic Singaporeans - credit to the system.

Somehow, observing internet discourse over the years, and how certain internet communities have latched onto the quotes of our public officials, I feel our reactions are indicative of our political docility. Perhaps, we do play a part by highlighting the gaffes made by the state, creating platforms for opposition parties and alternative viewpoints. But again, who starts it all and who are the ones reacting? Who sets the agenda?

In my observation of the content from many Singapore-related socio-political websites and aggregators, the number of posts in reaction to state and mainstream media agenda and releases overwhelms those that are created and championed independent of the state agenda and its timing.

While there is a need to address the political/state/media agenda du jour, it is also important that they be balanced with discussions of issues that are independently championed by various stakeholders.

To be fair, there are concerted efforts to not only seize the rhetoric of the PAP government, but also use them to create opportunities for Singaporeans to reflect on their lives and beliefs as subjects of PAP dominance. For instance, http://www.amiadud.com/. I am not totally against taking those "peanuts" and "complacency" and throwing them back at the government and leaving it like that; rather, I believe we should use these to create platforms for more discussion and dialogue, and make other Singaporeans aware of what is happening and what are the implications of these happenings on various aspects of their lives.

Well, the next time we are confronted with a word or statement that has the potential to be frequently used to satirise-to-death the establishment, we should enjoy with moderation our moment with the satire and "move on" (very Wong Kan Seng-ish, by the way) and either keep our ears peeled for alternative discourses or start one ourselves.

Singapore political parties’ positions on LGBT concerns – General election 2011

2011-02-27T01:09:00.010+08:00

Dear friends and readers, I wish to share with you the following.

The LGBT community in Singapore has sent a letter to various political parties, seeking their position on issues concerning sexual minority citizens.

I urge queer and queer-affirming Singaporeans to seriously consider the questions raised and addressed before exercising their right to vote in the upcoming elections.

I also take this opportunity to appeal to all queer and queer-affirming Singaporeans to share with others what the following group of concerned individuals (from PLU.sg) have written and compiled.

You may also find the letter here at http://www.sgwiki.com/wiki/Singapore_political_parties%E2%80%99_positions_on_LGBT_concerns_%E2%80%93_General_election_2011, and at the PLU website (http://www.plu.sg/society/?p=223)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Seven members of the LGBT community in Singapore sent a joint letter to six political parties requesting a clarification of their position on selected issues of interest to LGBT Singaporeans. The letter was sent in mid-September 2010 with reply requested for end-October 2010. The aim was to provide information to LGBT voters as to the stands taken by various political parties.

The seven signatories were: Russell Heng, Jean Chong, Sylvia Tan, Choo Lip Sin, Irene Oh, Alex Au and Alan Seah.

The same letter was sent to (in alphabetical order) the National Solidarity Party, the People’s Action Party, the Reform Party, the Singapore Democratic Alliance, the Singapore Democratic Party and the Workers’ Party. The parties were informed that their replies would be released to the LGBT public.

None of the parties responded to the complete list of questions. Nonetheless, three parties provided a reasonably clear outline of their stand with respect to LGBT concerns. The People’s Action Party did not reply at all, nor even acknowledge the letter. The Singapore Democratic Alliance acknowledged the letter but in the end did not provide a reply.

Of the other four parties,

The National Solidarity Party said “Individuals’ interests and rights should not supercede the core values that the society holds”, but will give their Members of Parliament the freedom to vote on Section 377A according to their conscience. On jobs, the party “advocate Equal Opportunities for all . . . and even sexual orientation.” On media policy, the NSP said that “we do not think Singapore is ready for equal promotion of alternative lifestyle” nor do they think that Singapore is ready to “legitimize same-sex marriage.” Overall, the party’s position is that “Singapore’s social core values, at this moment, only recognizes family unit with heterosexual relationship. In principle, NSP has to respect such core values held as a society.”

The Reform Party in its reply said that one of their “central tenets is that there should not be any discrimination between individuals based on gender, race, religion, age and sexual orientation” and that they are “committed to working towards the repeal of Section 377A and the decriminalization of homosexuality.” As for the additional issues raised by our letter, they did not have time to consider their position.

The Singapore Democratic Party referred us to position statements they had previously made on their website. One said “Section 377A discriminates against a segment of our population and that discrimination, in whatever form, has no place in society”, calling on the PAP government to repeal the law. In another, the party reiterated its stand on basic rights and equality while responding to an outsider who queried why the party supported the repeal of Section 377A.

The Workers’ Party replied by saying that they continue not to have any position on gay-related issues, as was the case in October 2007 during the parliamentary debate over Section 377A.

.
THE OUTGOING LETTER

The letter sent out to all the parties read:

Enquiry about your party’s position on gay-related issues

The signatories below have been active in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) community for some years; you may know some of us. We sense that LGBT voters are keen to know the position of your party on various issues that are of interest to them, but which you may not normally address in your overall manifesto.

Recognising, however, that the onus is also on us to bring these issues to your attention, we have prepared a set of eight questions/discussion points in Annex 1 attached. We would be grateful if you could revert with your views on these issues by the end of October 2010.

A similar letter is going out to other political parties as well, seeking their views.

Precisely because we do not expect all parties to adopt similar positions on all questions, it would interest us to know what each party’s thinking is and where your comfort levels are at this present time. Naturally, one should allow that positions can change over time, with evolving realities.

Our intention is to release the various parties’ responses to the LGBT community at an appropriate time, with minimal commentary on our part. We have lined up various gay media for this purpose.

It is possible that the mainstream media may take an interest when the time comes, but at this moment, we have no plans to involve them.

Thanking you in advance for taking the time to consider these issues and responding,

The text of the annexure to the letter (we decided to err on the side of greater detail than leaving the questions vague, especially since this is the first time we are asking political parties to address the issues):

Questions

1. One of the foundational principles of Singapore is the concept of equality. In your party’s opinion, does the concept of equality include lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) persons and their interests?

2. In October 2007, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said there has to be “space for homosexuals to live their lives”. Does your party agree with this?

3. The LGBT community feels that Section 377A of the Penal Code limits the space that they have, thus undercutting the equality that they feel they are entitled to, for example, in the following areas:
• the law legitimises social stigma and discrimination;
• through (a) above, it is used to justify media censorship;
• it constrains the needed degree of health intervention with respect to HIV.

What is your party’s position on these effects of Section 377A?

4. Speaking to Reuters in April 2007, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said Section 377A “eventually” has to go. Expanding on his thoughts, he said, “if this is the way the world is going and Singapore is part of that interconnected world and I think it is, then I see no option for Singapore but to be part of it.” In August 2007, he repeated his sentiments to the International Herald Tribune, saying, “Yes, we’ve got to go the way the world is going. China has already allowed and recognized gays, so have Hong Kong and Taiwan. It’s a matter of time.”
(a) If a bill is before the next parliament to repeal Section 377A, will your party support it?
(b) If not, when do you foresee your party being able to support one?
(c) Is this a matter for which your party may consider necessary to lift its party whip?

5. Section 377A aside, on the question of equality in employment,

(a) Would your party support legislation promoting nondiscrimination in employment on grounds of race, religion, sex, disability and age?
(b) Should such legislation also include among its grounds sexual orientation and gender identity?

6. Currently, media policy severely restricts the portrayal of “alternative lifestyles”, which deprives Singaporeans of a balanced view of LGBT people and their lives. This deprivation reinforces negative stereotypes and further stigmatises LGBT people, holding society back from progressing.

(a) Does your party believe that LGBT themes, characters and content should be treated fairly and equally in media policy?
(b) To be more specific, does your party believe that there should be parity in media classification between films and art with LGBT themes, characters and content on the one hand and similar material with heterosexual themes, characters and content on the other, e.g. a same-sex love affair is classified the same way as an opposite-sex love affair?

7. What does your party consider an appropriate level of formal recognition of same sex relationships (agree/disagree on each sub-question)?
(a) no recognition as existing;
(b) provide a public register of same sex partnerships;
(c) recognise a same-sex couple in the same household for taxation purposes;
(d) recognise a same-sex couple as family nucleus in respect of public housing;
(e) recognise the rights of a same-sex partner for medical visitation, medical decision-making (in cases where the ill partner is incapable of deciding for himself/herself) and as next of kin;
(f) recognise a same-sex partner as equivalent to a spouse wherever insurance policies and employment benefits recognise a spouse;
(g) recognise a same-sex partner as equivalent to a married spouse with respect to succession intestate;
(h) recognise a same-sex partner as equivalent to a married spouse with respect to immigration.

8. Same-sex couples with children exist and are gradually increasing in number in Singapore. Present legislation and policies do not formally recognise them as a family unit, which is detrimental to the welfare of the children. Does your party agree that in the best interest of these children, there should be formal recognition of such a family nucleus?

.
THE REPLIES

Below are the replies, if any, received from the parties:
—
National Solidarity Party

Reply received via email on 12 November 2010

On behalf of National Solidarity Party (NSP), I thank you for your email dated 15 September to enquire about our Party’s stand on the issues of LGBT.

The questions that you have raised in your email have given us a great opportunity to closely examine and discuss about LGBT issues in general as well as sorting our thoughts on various universal issues of equality and human rights.

Upon reflection, we come to the following general conclusions:

1) NSP is made up of a wide spectrum of individuals with different inclinations, from extreme liberal to ultra conservative. However, the mean score index is skewed towards the conservative position. We believe that this composition of NSP is more or less representative of the Singapore society at large.

2) Although NSP will be fighting for a broader base of equality and rights for Singaporeans in various segments of legislation (eg. Equal Opportunity in Labour law etc), the isolate issue of LGBT rights will not be NSP’s main political campaigning focus for the foreseeable future.

3) However, NSP will not restrict its members or future Members of Parliament to express their views or vote according to their own inclination with regard to LGBT issues.

4) NSP may not be able to answer each and every question that you have raised but we would like to address these questions in a more general approach at this moment.

5) Your questions could be categorized into 4 broad areas i.e.

A) Section 377A & Equality

B) Equality on Jobs

C) Media policy and promotion of alternative lifestyle via media

D) Recognition of Same-sex marriage

.

5A) Section 377A & Equality

NSP recognizes the existence of LGBT community in Singapore. NSP also recognizes the enactment of any laws should be in accordance with the principles and core values that the nation holds as a people. Individuals’ interests and rights should not supercede the core values that the society holds.

If a law is to be repealed or changed, it must get enough support from the society at large. NSP strives to have a more diverse representation within its rank and file so that different views could be heard and presented within. For the issue of Section 377A, with due respect to each different individuals in the party, we would let our members decide on their own as this is the not the key political focus of the party. It would also mean that future MPs of the party would have to exercise their own political discretion and judgment in deciding whether to vote for or against the repeal of Section 377A, in accordance to social sentiments of that time.

.

5B) Equality on Jobs

In principle, NSP is against discriminative employment practices. We advocate Equal Opportunities for all, regardless of race, religion, disability, age, sex and even sexual orientation.

.

5C) Media policy and promotion of alternative lifestyle via media

In principle, we do not think Singapore is ready for equal promotion of alternative lifestyle. However, we do not discount the fact that social mindset may change over time. It will depend very much on the social acceptance of Singaporeans on promotion of alternative lifestyle over the media.

.

5D) Recognition of Same-sex marriage

We do not think Singapore society is ready to legitimize same-sex marriage. Most of the issues raised could be dealt with by other legitimate means like writing Will or empowering LGBT partners by means of Attorney of Power.

Singapore’s social core values, at this moment, only recognizes family unit with heterosexual relationship. In principle, NSP has to respect such core values held as a society.

Goh Meng Seng
Secretary-General

—
People’s Action Party

No reply

—
The Reform Party

Reply received via email on 1 November 2010

Thanks for sending this questionnaire to us. I am aware that these issues are of overwhelming importance to the LGBT community. Please be assured that the Reform Party is a liberal secular Party. We believe passionately in freedom of expression and association. One of our central tenets is that there should not be any discrimination between individuals based on gender, race, religion, age and sexual orientation. We are committed to working towards the repeal of Section 377A and the decriminalization of homosexuality.
However we have not had time to consider our position in detail on the additional issues raised by you. Rather than asking for our position, it might be more productive if you would send us a list of the policies you would like to see adopted. Better still, you could join us and work on getting us elected to Parliament or contribute to our campaign. Unless you (like other Singaporeans) are prepared to stand up then there is very little chance of change.
Regards,

Kenneth Jeyaretnam
Secretary General

—
Singapore Democratic Alliance

No reply to the substantive questions. Last interim reply was received via email on 29 October 2010, saying:

My sincere apology, was preoccupied with SPP & SDA’s internal affairs, hence may not able to give you any official reply before SDA Supreme Council meeting which
likely to be hold on 12 November 10.

Because, I need to table for discussion with the Supreme Council.

With regards
Lim Bak Chuan Desmond
Secretary General

—
Singapore Democratic Party

Reply received via email on 2 November 2010. The reply contained three hyperlinks, which have been expanded here inside [square brackets].

Rather than respond to the questionnaire, the Singapore Democratic Party would like to reiterate its stand:

We support the repeal of Section 377A. We made our stand clear in 2007 here [http://singaporedemocrat.org/articlegayrights3.html] and defended it here [http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/articlegayrights4.html]. We have embedded in our website the following statement: “As a nation, we must not only show tolerance but also acceptance of our fellow citizens regardless of their race, religion, sexual orientation, or political persuasion.” (see here [http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/the-party/what-we-stand-for]).

Thank you.

Chee Soon Juan

Secretary-General
Singapore Democratic Party

—
Workers’ Party

Verbal reply via telephone, from Sylvia Lim (Chairperson, Workers’ Party) to Alex Au, midday, 31 October 2010.

The gist of Sylvia Lim’s reply was that the WP would not be making any formal reply to our letter, because despite discussing it at council meeting, WP’s position had not changed [since 2007]. “We have no position on this,” she said.

“Is this response on record?” Alex asked her. She said yes.

#
I thank PLU for sharing this with me. Now let's share this with concerned LGBT and LGBT-affirming Singaporeans.

You may also find the letter at http://www.sgwiki.com/wiki/Singapore_political_parties%E2%80%99_positions_on_LGBT_concerns_%E2%80%93_General_election_2011, and at the PLU website (http://www.plu.sg/society/?p=223)

Are Singaporean buses blind-friendly enough?

2011-02-11T22:39:00.002+08:00

Note: Ok. The following post has been sitting around since late November 2010. By the way, I'm not dead, or silenced by the ISD, or told by the ISD that I'm not dead or silenced by them.

Nov 27, 2010.

As part of the work I do at the location-based service start-up, I get to meet and listen to the opinions people have about our products and services.

In the mid-week, we got to meet a gentleman who was visually impaired. He shared with us insights into how a blind person like himself uses technology, namely his smart phone. At the same time, he told us his aspirations and expectations for technological as well as transport policy improvements.

I'll leave the technological considerations in the office, but in our short discussion, I learned how blind-unfriendly the public transport system is in Singapore.

To be fair, the train stations have improved a lot in the past few years. With the inclusion of elevators and more slopes in place of stairs, as well as guiding plates being installed on the floors of every train station, plus the station name announcement, the blind are able to be use the train system a lot more independently and confidently.

However, buses are lagging behind. While a sizable number of buses are "wheelchair-friendly" according to non-wheelchair-bound people, they have yet to make changes to the bus system to make them blind-friendly.

Some of the suggestions brought up by the gentleman we spoke with are definitely useful to facilitate the visually impaired travelling on buses:

1) Buses could have a similar technology to that of the train system, where there would be an automatic announcement stating the upcoming stop within, say, 500m of the stop itself.

2) Bus-stops could also have an audio announcement, stating which bus would arrive in 1 minute and which bus has arrived.

These ideas benefit those both the blind, the elderly and also persons unfamiliar with their surroundings.

Considering we want more visitors and that we are facing an ageing population, it would justify spending to improve this aspect of public transport.

Unfortunately, most Singaporeans are trapped in the belief of the dualism of government spending and taxes. If we were to implement such technological solutions, taxes will have to increase, hence we shouldn't do anything and should just stay where we comfortably are. You know, to cut the PAP government a little slack, part of the taxes we pay today, do go into the creation of infrastructure when we're old (apart from elaborate ceremonies like the Youth Olympic Games as we prostitute ourselves to the rest of the world).

Well, the government could fund institutes of higher learning as well as local companies to research and work on this as a project. And this would be well within one of the many grand masterplans we have for Singapore to be innovative and also to boast a truly first world transport system.

I think it would be money well-spent. And I hope the Land Transport Authority considers implementing this technology, if they already haven't.

The gentleman we spoke with shared with us the anxieties some visually impaired people have boarding our buses. Among them, they fear missing their stop, and also fear the instant when the bus driver forgets to alert them to their stop.

The funny thing about Singapore is that the government puts in a lot of resources (and effort) to make this country meritocratic. Infrastructure, facilities, skills training, subsidised education, subsidised healthcare and other related perks and opportunities are all established for Singaporeans to be independent. Such that when failure occurs, in the form of poor health, poor financial management or unemployment, the problem is reduced to the individual and the state is absolved of blame. Meritocracy what!

But in the case of the public transport system (specifically buses), the government is not doing enough to make it blind-friendly. The visually impaired want independence too, but there is insufficient effort (and resources) committed to creating more blind-friendly infrastructure. Perhaps they suffer because we take some things for granted. So who is more blind then?

I hope the government will continue to engage the visually impaired (and more seriously), and many other differently-abled Singaporeans, with a view to actually improving infrastructure to facilitate their independence. This is not a political baby-kissing photo extravaganza, but a legitimate issue in need of addressing for years now. We can and should build and develop our transport infrastructure based on the feedback of stakeholders, of different ages and abilities.

Rationalising our problems

2010-11-29T21:49:00.001+08:00

The reaction towards MOE scholar Jonathan Wong’s arrest for child pornography possession is as equally interesting as Wong’s arrest itself.

It would take something really serious in the form of a child pornography crime to alter the rationalisations of many a Singaporean.

From Wong’s case, we are exposed to the schizophrenia that has plagued many a Singaporean whenever they are confronted with different problems and issues. This is however a story compelling enough to flip that switch in the Singaporean psyche, alternating between two forms of rationalisations – the internalisation versus the externalisation of the problem.

When the news of his arrest broke, Singaporeans had a field day rationalising Jonathan Wong.

Some sought to internalise Wong’s problem, associating and reducing it to psychological traits. This is reinforced with news of him having been punished for being a peeping tom.

In reducing and atomising a problem (i.e. psychologically reducing it) to Wong, most we are able to distance ourselves from the “pervert” and “deviant”, as we continue to insist on being normal ourselves.

The internalisation of problems impedes any possible suspicion that problems could have a social nature.

It is a habit well-cultivated in a meritocratic society. With every resource, infrastructure and opportunity created, so too is the illusion that everyone has the same platform to succeed.

Any failure in terms of health, employment and well-being, would be readily rationalised and internalised as an individual failure – laziness, lack of diligence and other traits believed to be confined to the individual. Factors such as policy and society are ignored.

However, it is not that bleak after all. From their assessment and questions, Singaporeans appear to have developed the externalisation aspect of rationalisation.

They are asking questions about policy and the processes that have allowed Wong to slip through the system.

Singaporeans are able to see that Wong is but a unit or a member of socio-political and economic context. He is where and what he is – partly – due to his membership of the processes that also shape us.

It is because we are also involved in the same processes and inhabit the same contexts, we begin to question the institutions and processes with which he has engaged.

These discussions by Singaporeans are an indication that we can see that Wong – the person and the circumstance – is a function of the institution, as much as his behaviour is a function of his personality and psychological well-being.

In raising questions about the scholarship selection processes and whatnot, Singaporeans no longer stifle discussion on and rob attention from the social and political dimensions of the issue. It is just a tragedy that we have to wait for such a crime to be uncovered for us to develop newer perspectives.

Mas Selamat saga: Communications management by the government and media

2010-11-23T20:43:00.005+08:00

In the wake of the Parliamentary revelations concerning Mas Selamat and his seeking refuge with relatives following his escape from Whitley Road Detention Centre, we see a textbook public relations management executed by the government and the media.

I believe Minister of Law and recently appointed Minister of Home Affairs K Shanmugam handled the situation well and firmly. He also provided the necessary reassurances concerning national security, homeland security and religious and ethnic relations.

It is often rare for this government to act in anticipation, and be proactive rather than reactive. Unless there are serious issues concerning race, religion and political opposition, the approach would often be reactionary.

This time, closely tagged to the accounts of Mas Selamat's relatives harbouring him in a HDB flat in Tampines is the continual reassurance that the actions of his relatives are not representative and cannot be projected onto the Malay-Muslim community.

The mainstream media is also diligent (or careful) enough to report the facts revealed and discussed in Parliament along with the remarks, reassurances and soundbites of prominent religious/faith leaders in the country.

The challenges faced by the government, in this instance, are highly complex and I infer can include the following:

1) Some Non-Malay/Muslim Singaporeans may possibly become suspicious, fearing that there could be Malay-Muslim Singaporeans who "do not know better" and could have the moral capacity to harbour individuals who could pose security threat.

2) Some Malay-Muslim Singaporeans may be thrown into the spotlight again in view of national interest/security versus kinship ties.

3) Some Malay-Muslim Singaporeans may see the act of harbouring a relative in a different moral light.

4) Singaporeans in general might fear being racially profiled.

The last thing the Singaporean government needs is suspicion between the communities, as well as doubt within the Malay-Muslim community concerning their negotiation of their status as citizens of the country and as kin to their respective relatives.

These are very sensitive issues and the state, in the form of K Shanmugam and the Members of Parliament who asked him questions, has not only shared the facts, but also their word of caution and assurance.

The mainstream media too, long charged by Lee Kuan Yew to be integral to "nation-building" however he defined it, did a fairly good job to report in a way that anticipated what a misinformed readership might probably have misread. They had a duty to define the boundaries for "inference", "interpretation" and "imagination" of the escape and refuge.

This concerted communications management by the state and media are aimed at preventing (or minimising) any wild inter-ethnic/religious imaginings communities might have of one another. They do what they can in their control, and the rest is left to society to decide for themselves.

What makes this communications management exercise potentially effective and successful (unless the media becomes oversaturated with "national education" again), is not only how well the message and the medium are well-calibrated and controlled, but appointment of the messenger is crucial.

I cannot imagine Wong Kan Seng saying what K Shanmugam had said. He lived through the fiasco and security failure, and is obviously still disgraced by it. No amount of externalising the problem (saying Singaporeans are "complacent" and bestowing upon us that favourable adjective in the process) can remove the taint.

K Shanmugam, new and also more importantly, non-Chinese, had to very difficult task to deliver the news. The same message carried by an ethnic Chinese man, and all the more a Chinese man who has lost a little bit of respect from some Singaporeans (and most netizens), will be taken differently from that carried by a non-ethnic Chinese man.

Apparently, identity plays a huge role. I believe it would be a little more convincing if an ethnic minority could tell us possibly implications (or not) on ethnic minority communities, rather than a member of the (ethnic) majority saying the same thing. Perhaps, K Shanmugam's ascension to the role of Minister of Home Affairs has been very timely, and highly beneficial to maintaining good and peaceful relations between communities in the country.

Well, we should give credit where it's due. The government and media have done a decent job framing and fencing discussions pertaining to the latest episode of Mas Selamat. It has always been their primary responsibility to ensure peace and security, and they have done the necessary, in my opinion.

---

It is quite interesting that the latest installment of the Mas Selamat saga has occurred at the same time as the discussions on the "maintenance of parents" bill/act.

We see how issues of the family are being dictated by the state.

The state wants you to take care of your elders.

At the same time, the state expects you to cease when it comes to national security/issues.

Our sense of familial belonging is determined and articulated in terms of the interests of the nation. The state tries to inculcate in us that sense of belonging, telling us how we should love and care for our elders and relatives, telling us that the family is the bedrock/building block of society, yet at the same time tell us these values are secondary to national affairs.

Another paradoxical gem sociologically unearthed...

Furry the rabbit: My first pet

2010-11-21T21:50:00.001+08:00

You know, one of the most emotionally draining things you can do is to dig up snapshots of the past. You not only see the younger versions of yourself, your brother and your parents, but also everyone else who have played a role, small and big, in their lives.

As I trudge through 20-plus photo albums, and flipped through those moments as they were in the 80s and 90s, I see the people I know today as they were yesterday, as well as the places that have served as the backdrop for the captured memories.

The photographs also tell me a few things about my parents, not merely as parents, but as individuals living out respective chapters in their lives, of which I was probably too young to understand.

Some of the people in the photographs have now gained weight. Some of them have lost weight.

Almost all of them have gone grey and grown more lines in their faces.

Some of them are no longer living, people and animals.

I dedicate this post to Furry, a wonderful white rabbit we got from the animal farm (in Jalan Kayu) in 1991. We fed her well and she grew pretty big, and probably had to endure the ongoing "rabbit stew" jokes thrown at her.

My mum loved Furry a lot and carried her like a baby. She listened to my mum too and could obey simple instructions like sitting on the stool when my mum had to wash the floor. Furry would follow her wherever she went and stand on her hind legs, begging my mum to pick her up, carry her like a baby and rock her to sleep.

I guess my mum is not only a mother to me and my brother, but also to the animals she has cared for for most of her life.

In 1995, we had to move and could not keep Furry. We had to care it off with my uncle's sisters. We visited her only twice.

In 1997 (or 1998), Furry died of old age.

But Furry lives on. Here she is:

Of Knives and Child Pornography

2010-11-20T22:49:00.002+08:00

It is indeed a frightening scenario when we have individuals and groups – not only youths – carrying knives with them and are not afraid to use them to resolve any differences.

The Singaporean media has done a good job to bring greater awareness to gang-related violence (just like they are actually doing a decent job raising the profile of local athletes for the past 18 months [see Youth Olympic Games]).

A very recent case of a slashing at Ang Mo Kio central, where my friends and I used to occasionally hang out and have dinner, has stoked debate as to whether the sale of knives has to be regulated.

In another case that has contested for our attention, other than the forever-impending General Elections, Jonathan Wong has put Singapore in the limelight for the wrong reasons – possession of child pornography. And suddenly the opinions of psychiatrists and psychologists are emphasised to be really really important (and helpful).

Child pornography is generally socially unacceptable, outright legally wrong, and in most discourses, morally wrong. The media will be milking Jonathan's story for all its worth – bright scholar with dark side *insert puns and wisecracks*. It is a horrible mistake to make, and highly condemnable considering he's playing a role in the problem that is the child pornography trade - driving demand and driving supply for it.

Child pornography is deemed a serious crime (and cybercrime) and we have governments and international agencies (like Interpol) working really hard, spending time and resources to put an end to it.

Consumers of child pornography are heavily punished as a deterrent. The suppliers of child pornography – film-makers, producers, distributors etc. – are also being hunted down to put an end to the exploitation of children. Governments are doing what they can to reevaluate (not change, because “change” is a scary thing for any incumbent) their policies that concern age of consent, and protection of children and minors – however they are defined. At the same time, there are campaigns to educate and empower the relevant stakeholders possibly affected by child pornography.

What the suggested regulation of the sale of knives and the ongoing concerted efforts to tackle child pornography have in common is that while they are aimed at solving an identifiable set of problems we have at hand, they do not spend an equal amount of time and resources (or more) into making changes to the contexts from which these problems derive.

For the suggested regulation of the sale of knives in Singapore, coupled with the stepping up of police patrols, it is indicative of the effort, money and resources being spent into putting an end of gang violence, and possibly gangs (or assemblies) with the capacity for crime and violence.

But is the same amount of effort, money and resources being spent on policies and education to prevent youths from being in the “wrong” company?

An individual would eventually find himself/herself in a gang capable of crime and violence, because of a host of socio-economic issues – lack of or poor parenting, “negative” peer influence, lack of job opportunities, “negative” reinforcement from school environments and authority figures, lack of the presence of or access to “positive” role-models, boredom, disenfranchisement, disillusionment (nothing to live for), etc.

These items exist in the same socio-political and economic realm we inhabit. The privileged have more choices; the not-so-privileged (you don’t have to be financially poor to be one) have fewer choices. Because of certain social circumstances, individuals are coerced into stepping beyond the boundaries of what is legally right.

In view of the abovementioned host of possible reasons for youth criminality/delinquency, it appears that the idea of regulating the sale of knives does not really solve the problem and might be the easy way out for the government to appear to take responsibility to make society a better place.

Singaporeans, after all, do enjoy the occasional “symbolic” gesture, but these moves do not in any way address the socio-economic issues that spawned the problem that is youth delinquency and crime. These moves do not address the policies that have created these the socio-economic issues and allowed them to fester.

If you want to put an end to gangs and gang violence in Singapore, you must do something for the youths (and their families) who would probably find their way into these gangs and into situations of violence.

The same argument goes for child pornography. So much effort is made to track down producers and consumers of child pornography. But is there anything done to improve the socio-economic conditions of children (and their families) such that child pornography will never ever be a consideration for income? For lesser developed countries, I believe the attention and money spent on building schools and infrastructure to improve the lives of children (and their families) should match or exceed the amount invested in enforcement against child pornography.

Child pornography is a problem also related to human trafficking. We may one day put an end to human trafficking and child pornography, but what about the people who would have been affected by or involved in these activities? Will we be spending any money and resources to make sure these people have an opportunity to earn a decent living (free of crime)?

We have to question our perpetual insistence on crime-fighting and open our eyes to the socio-political and economic conditions that have coerced individuals, families and groups into “crime” itself. Crime, more than just a pathological implication in most cases, should also be seriously considered a symptom, in Singapore’s case, of rapid ubranisation/modernisation, policy, turbulent economy, higher cost of living, faster pace of life, you get the drift.

Standing and fighting against a symptom is much easier than fighting to change the conditions from which the symptom manifests.

People are in situations they are in not solely because they are just lazy or crazy, but because they also find themselves coerced by the social, political and economic conditions they inhabit to do what they do. There are a host of reasons worthy of attention, and we cannot take the easy way out and solve just one problem.

Enforcement is often not in tandem with policy and the law, which is forgivable, given that we are in a situation in which policy and law appear to be inadequate, ill-informed and misdirected. An equal amount of effort and resources should be invested in tackling violence and child pornography, as well as helping the affected parties who would have found their way into these.

###

I recently read an interesting story in The New Paper about a cinemagoer (it’s recognised as ONE WORD, can you believe it?) who got punched. The police have classified this as a non-seizable offence, and the victim of the punch had wasted a lot of time pursuing the matter, filing a magistrate’s complaint and so on. This is not a new problem. Singaporeans have been discussing this for years, but nothing is being done about it. Perhaps we can vote in individuals and parties that would actually do something about it?

The law is just, but there are far too many impediments to justice – time, money for lawyers and the many processes to seeking justice.

Vandals get arrested and possibly fined, jailed and caned even though they have caused no harm to any human being.

A person who verbally threatens someone else can end up in jail. You say things to insult the modesty of a woman, you could be fined and/or jailed.

But when a woman slaps you, you have to file a magistrate’s complaint and there might be no justice done for the assaulted.

When a guy gets punched in the cinema, nothing happens, because it is a non-seizable offence. The police cannot protect the victim as they cannot arrest the assailant. In most cases, the aggrieved have to file a magistrate’s complaint or seek civil action – and it is not guaranteed that there will be justice.

So why are we spending money and resources to protect property and not human beings?

Another issue I have with acts of violence that end up labelled as non-seizable offences, is that it coerces people to take matters into their own hands. For instance, retaliation (whether it constitutes self-defence or not).

What about victims of violence (no broken bones = non-seizable offence) who are too poor to afford a lawyer, or not savvy enough to pursue justice? Will the police help them?

It is a double whammy if a victim of violence is left alone to seek redress. Anyway, most victims (as reported in papers) have been men.

When victims of violence act in self-defence, both the assailant and victim can be arrested for a variety of reasons, including rioting. What the fuck is going on?

We are only too reactive. We need to wait for broken bones, serious injuries and death to take action. It will be too late.

This is all the more why Singaporeans should stay out of trouble and never get involved with anything. We just accept our fates like the guy who got punched in the cinema – helpless and resigned to our fates.

If I were to ever find myself in a situation where I am being or would be assaulted (without weapons), I would also consider retaliating because I know there might not be justice. Eye gouge, fishhook, finger breaks, groin kicks, rib stomps (if assailant is down but trying to escape, but don’t break any bones because that would be a seizable offence!), chokes, etc. Sometimes, you have to be a hero for yourself.

What if your loved ones are being assaulted or threatened? Call the police first. And then do the necessary – subdue the assailant or fight. Because you will never know if the police would rub salt into your wounds when they classify the case as non-seizable and tell you to file a magistrate’s report.

Don’t blame the layperson for having insufficient knowledge of the law. Do something about the law itself.

Until something is done to lower the legal tolerance for violence and assault in Singapore, justice for you is the pain you should be inflicting on your assailant because you yourself are going to get hurt any way. We’re all symptoms of imperfect economies and political systems.

Intellectual Property Trolling?

2010-11-11T22:41:00.013+08:00

I hate to quote the website Temasek Review but once in a while, they do raise certain issues worth debating.

I refer to a case in which local website www.transitioning.org, a site that provides information and support for unemployed Singaporeans, received a notice from Singapore Press Holdings demanding payment for what the latter alleged to be copyright infringement.

The same thing happened to another party, an online forum for cyclists, the JoyRiders forum (http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/longhouse5am/message/18115)

The transitioning.org and Singapore Press Holdings story may be accessed here: http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/09/21/sph-demands-749-from-local-website-for-copyright-license-and-investigation-fee/ (see? I linked to Temasek Review, something they had not done for the two blog articles they took from me without permission and backlinking, but that's another tale of copyright infringement altogether because my concern was more of proper attribution and acknowledgement).

Before we all get heated under the collar with respect to a story of a big fish eating a small fish, we need to understand what on earth intellectual property is all about.

Not many Singaporeans know what intellectual property is, let alone intellectual property rights and defences against intellectual property infringement. I'm one of them. I AM NOT AN EXPERT! PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG. Thanks!

Layperson users (or unwitting "reproducers") of intellectual property know very little, and so too do some businesses, who appear to leverage on intellectual property laws and our lack of knowledge of it to demand payment for what are perceived as acts of infringement.

Intellectual property rights and law are a symptom of capitalism, and emerged with a view to ensure the exclusivity (often commercial in nature) of original creations, expressions and works.

Intellectual property education is often a romanticised articulation of the need to protect the artist/creator and his/her livelihood, but in actual fact, serves a bigger purpose for the distributors and other exclusive licensees who bought the work/property and want to milk it for its commercial worth. My two cents.

It should be noted (and with reasonable suspicion) that our government, among many other governments, has been investing a lot of time and resources in protecting intellectual property rights and enforcing intellectual property laws. That is public money we are talking about. But there is always this pressure on governments who sign free trade agreements with the United States, or join some international organisation like WTO and World Bank, and are pressured to comply with prevailing intellectual property norms (obviously informed by the standards determined by the United States - big brother or bully?)

What sickens me is that businesses now are looking to intellectual property as a source for revenue. Two cases come to mind - Streetdirectory.com and ODEX.

Streetdirectory has served letters to individuals and companies that reproduce screenshots or copied-and-pasted maps on their websites. This is because these parties have been alleged to have infringed the copyright of Streetdirectory. When many folks get that letter of accusation and demand for payment, they quake in their boots and do the Singaporean thing - stay out of trouble and pay the man.

ODEX served letters too, to individuals whose IP addresses have been detected by their own private investigator (privacy breach, any one?). ODEX then wrote to various Internet Service Providers in SingNet, Starhub and Pacific Net, demanding them to dishonour the privacy agreement with their subscribers and surrender user information to them in view of "intellectual property infringement". The ISPs that were the most "cooperative" complied without questioning the legality of ODEX's demands as well as the legal context of ODEX's business and intellectual property infringement claims.

In Streetdirectory's case, their license from Singapore Land Authority (was that the correct public organisation? Please correct me if I'm wrong) had already expired. Being a licensee does not make you the owner of the copyright, but they acted like one, and it was not as if they created original work or did anything with the maps that would fall under "compilation" (a defence against copyright infringement).

Same case for ODEX. Being a licensee - heck they weren't even the exclusive licensee - for anime did not grant them the full copyright of the anime that have been shared among various users without legitimate purchase.

But ODEX had an edge over the users it tried to demand compensation from. The people at ODEX knew just a little more about intellectual property rights than the people they (pur)sued. Being Singaporean and not wanting trouble, some of the users gave in and paid in the thousands to ODEX.

To be fair to ODEX, it was due to illegal sharing and downloads, that it adversely affected their business (i.e. business of selling and distribution). So this is one condition for an act to constitute copyright infringement. But, again, ODEX was not the owner nor exclusive licensee of the anime they distribute, even though they acted like one and got away with it. The creators/authors of the anime should be the ones pursuing the parties who have illegally distributed the anime.

According to my interpretation of the intellectual property law in Singapore, an act will constitute copyright infringement if it fulfills the following conditions, among others:

1) The act was committed without the permission of the copyright owner
2) Improper attribution in which there was little or nor acknowledge, or that the work has been passed off as the work of another party
3) The act has to affect the commerciality of the work (i.e. an act causing the owner of the work to lose business)
4) The act was committed for the purpose of commercial gain

These are my layperson understanding of the law. I am in the belief that the lack of permission alone cannot constitute infringement, but judging by the actions of different organisations over the years (and them getting away with it), it is not the case.

There are also defences, 3 of which has come to mind:
1) Fair comment (i.e. the reproduction is for research, criticism, commentary)
2) Fair dealing
3) Public interest

Well, more can be accessed here http://www.singaporelaw.sg/content/iplaw2.html.

I fear the worst when a news organisation starts investing time and resources in a competency deviating from its core business objective, just to look for websites that are allegedly infringing their copyright, such that in the case of transitioning.org and JoyRiders, they had demanded payment of "licensing fees" and "investigation fees".

In the case of transitioning.org, a non-profit portal aimed at helping unemployed Singaporeans, I believe the reproduction of one Straits Times article was made with commentary, and in public interest. However, the news organisation, based on a single condition for copyright infringement (i.e. acting without permission), believed it had a case against the website and thus sent the site a letter demanding payment.

The law says one thing. But big organisations are doing another, or are they not? How do we know?

In allowing a large news organisation to make demands and claim payment for alleged copyright infringements, are we sending a signal that, in spite of the law, only one condition is needed to be fulfilled (i.e. acting without owner's permission) for an act to constitute copyright infringement?

Is this permissible? If so, what's the point of listing defences, limitations, fair use, fair dealing articles in the law? What purpose, if at all, do they serve, if large organisations continue to make demands and claim payment from parties that have only "acted without permission" but have not fulfilled the other conditions necessary for an act to wholly constitute a copyright infringement.

Seriously, what is the point of putting in exceptions and defences if the law allows private organisations to determine that an act constitutes copyright infringement based solely on the fact that no permission was sought (amidst all other necessary conditions)?

Is the action of accusing another party of copyright infringement (even though not all the conditions are met) and concurrently demanding payment, a legal action?

Are the terms and conditions (pertaining to copyright) designed by the news organisation legal and in harmony with Singapore's intellectual property laws?

The act of reproduction on transitioning.org, cannot logically and reasonable cause a substantial drop in newspaper subscription. Moreover, reproduction often occurs at least a day after the publication and distribution of the newspaper. And in the age of new media, that is a long time, and hence a reproduction can never be in a position to undermine subscription of a newspaper, because people have access to newspapers first (just like the reproducer of the article) before actually accessing the reproduction. A reproduction logically cannot precede publication!

Moreover, declining subscriptions cannot be solely attributed to even a website that reproduces a couple of articles on an irregular basis. These exist in a context of changing media usage habits and consumption/demand for news. The condition for copyright infringement that requires the act to affect the commerciality of the work is not and cannot be fulfilled in this case.

Transitioning.org also provides commentary and allows for visitors to share their views and criticisms. Can the act of reproduction of a news article then constitute copyright infringement? I think not.

In the case of JoyRiders, they faced the biggest slap in the face. A reporter interviewed them and published an article featuring them. The article was reproduced on the forum and Singapore Press Holdings subsequently sent them a letter demanding payment for alleged copyright infringement.

I believe JoyRiders and Transitioning.org have not earned a single cent while making these "reproductions", and moreover, "reproduced" these articles for the sake of debate amongst a closed and familiar group of people.

The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore is unfortunately merely an administrator that feels no obligation to educate Singaporeans against intellectual property trolling and similarly related issues, as we have seen the instances I have mentioned. I also wonder if the Media Development Authority and Infocomm Development Authority have materials to educate Singaporeans on intellectual property trolling.

I believe even the enforcers of the law that is the police, might prefer to leave such cases to the copyright owners and alleged "infringers" and settle their differences in the civil court.

The law is there. But enforcement isn't really there, because the state believes intellectual property issues are best left to private organisations and the civil court. I believe we need the involvement of the state to ensure that private/business practices are in harmony with intellectual property laws of the land.

I feel there is a need for the administrators and enforcers of intellectual property rights to continually examine the practices of large organisations that border on suspicion of intellectual property trolling, or thuggery, or anything along those lines.

Who can the small fish turn to if no authority wants to help or intervene? And because of this, intellectual property is left to the better lawyers and the big players will always get the better lawyers.

This is obviously a matter of public interest, as many people and businesses are already featuring reproductions of news articles by the Singapore Press Holdings. From websites to hawker stalls, they proudly display to others what the press has covered about them.

In addition, what makes something a legal wrong, does not mean it is ethically wrong too. The act of reproduction exists in a context in which Singapore Press Holdings enjoys substantial market control (almost a monopoly). People still rely on their newspapers for news. It is not as if the laminated reproduction of a quarter page article of a hawker stall, pasted on the stalls window, can threaten or injure the commerciality of the organisation. In fact, the act of reproducing articles as a badge of mainstream media endorsement is indicative that people hold the newspaper in high regard and treat it as a credible source for information.

There are whispers in the wind the news organisation has affiliations and informal relations with people in power, but that does not make it holier or saintlier.

Netizens should be concerned about this matter too, because news articles from Singapore Press Holdings and Mediacorp are regularly reproduced, but for the sake of commentary, criticism and invitation for discussion (defences against intellectual property infringement).

If this continues without state intervention, and considering the advent of new media, social media and word-of-mouth marketing, businesses, merchants and interest groups may decide someday that certain news organisations are no longer worth their time.

If there are instances of intellectual property trolling (or activities that hint at that), what can the government do to protect Singaporeans?

---

In the end, I still know nothing about intellectual property law. Sad la.

Teen's murder sickening and deplorable

2010-11-09T20:24:00.000+08:00

(Unpublished - Nov 3, 2010)

I learn with disgust Darren Ng Wei Jie's tragic death following an attack by a group of youths at Downtown East.

What was done to Darren is sickening and deplorable.

Several issues have gained greater scrutiny in the wake of the fatal attack. These include, among others, gang violence, youth delinquency and the lack of proper parenting.

Confrontations and altercations stemming from staring incidents are nothing new here. These often escalate when there are more individuals involved.

We need to address these issues in the context of a rapidly changing Singapore. We have to understand the context in which gang aggression and youth aggression are manifested, rather than looking at these items in isolation.

We require more than just education and healthy attention for youths, but also policies and initiatives to ensure they live and grow in environments that foster a healthy sense of social consciousness.

There has to be greater effort from various stakeholders to create positive and nurturing environments for our youths, such that they learn that violence is never a solution to anything.

The law may exercise zero tolerance on gang violence, but it is also up to policy-makers and the public to address the social and economic issues and conditions in which gang violence takes place.

There are worth addressing social and economic dimensions to the reality that some youths appear to have nothing to live for and are thus emboldened in groups and in resolve when committing an act of violence. Why and how are they disconnected and disenfranchised?

Be it the issue of youth violence, juvenile delinquency, gang violence, among others, we have to address these issues in the contexts they exist.

Darren's case is most tragic and unfortunate.

Given the nature of an armed attack, the public could do nothing but alert the authorities, or risk being harmed themselves.

Prevention is key, and this does not merely involve stepping up law enforcement; we need education, policies and initiatives to foster a peaceful society.

We can no longer take a reactive approach to gang violence or violence of any other kind because we do not deserve another unnecessary death after Darren's.

I wish to express my condolences to Darren's family and friends.

Ho Chi Sam

Defending what's (y)ours: Alice in SAF Wonderland

2010-11-06T10:56:00.004+08:00

I can't quite recall if I have already written such a post about masculinity in the army, but figured it would be nice to talk about the masculinist eco-system that is the SAF.

I am more than half-way through my 10-year reservist cycle with the Singapore Armed Forces. My enthusiastic "can do" spirit in camp betrays my great reluctance to serve. I am a "best soldier" award winner in reservist (and also during my full-time nation service stint), but everyone knows I don't believe in conscription and reservist, plus all the mindlessness and inefficiencies that have come to characterise my personal experiences in the organisation.

Unfortunately, as a Singaporean void of certain rights and liberties, I have no other choice but to serve. Sanctions and imprisonment await those who choose not to serve. So I serve out of fear of punishment, rather than the perceived primary reasons that are love and loyalty for country (of which 60-70% are Singaporeans, and that's what we're fighting for?).

However, it is in the deepest and darkest recesses of oppression that we sometimes locate some potential for negotiation (or resistance). Hence, my giving my all in camp during reservist training is perhaps itself an articulation of my disagreement with MINDEF and the SAF.

On a personal note, I am extremely saddened that while I could sacrifice 2 weeks of my time as a full-time student (and part-time teaching assistant) to serve the nation last year, MINDEF is unwilling to commit to paying 2 weeks of my school fees in the event I could not finish my course in time and have to extend my study without scholarship. Hard to say it's water under the bridge, but I feel MINDEF and SAF are less than genuine when it comes to a number like myself.

All MINDEF can say is that it "appreciates" an NSman like myself pursuing higher education. When asked to substantiate their "appreciation" by chipping in for my course (in the event I could not finish it on time), my value as a Singaporean soldier is made known. $0. It is a struggle to respectfully disagree with somebody or some body that does not respect you, but I have found a way to do so (and it involves accepting one's "fate").

I have always ensured I carried out orders given to me, be punctual if not early for every appointment, and even given suggestions to my higher-ups so that processes in the unit can be improved. In fact, I even volunteered for most if not every assignment, even if it was beyond my jobscope. These still betray my true feelings for the organisation and its compassionless policies. This is my way to respectfully disagreeing with the organisation.

On a lighter note, I always saw myself as Alice in the Wonderland that is the Singapore Armed Forces. The SAF will always deploy that peculiar rabbit (which is the notice to serve) every once in a while to all the Alice's in Singapore, and lead them into the hole in the ground. After getting into this hole, in which mobile phones with cameras are banned, Alice is taken into a weird universe where things are not what they seem. That is the SAF - an alternate universe with its own laws.

Speaking of mobile phone with cameras, I have always believed that the ban on these devices are more of a public relations management strategy rather than a security control. Perhaps the organisation cannot deal with potential embarrassments of their image. And we all know that uniform organisations are very obsessed with image. Moreover, we have "Asian" roots in which image and face are quite important entities too. Throw in a bit of unstable (hyper)masculinity issues, we have a highly insecure organisation obsessed with looking good.

I guess looking good wins half the battle. You wouldn't want embarrassing situations, or instances of abuse in the army to be caught on camera/video, would you? You would not want the celebration of poor English and the generous displays of from-da-'hood hypermasculinity to be known everyone else, would you?

In this Wonderland, people seem to be perpetually stuck in their routines, entrenched in a certain way of thinking that has come to characterise this nature of this universe. They get about their lives unperturbed by and unreflective of their idosyncracies.

Wonderland is another dimension altogether, where carts pull the horses and when water flows from low to high grounds.

With the fears of punishment looming over everyone's head, there is a special strong sense of responsibility imbued in each individual, a sense of responsibility to cover one's backside. To be honest, we all have a backside-covering side to us in most jobs we do.

Thus, generosity and compassion are values not well embraced in this Wonderland, because they involve initiative. Taking the initiative requires taking on more responsibility, and that is not a favourable position to be in for many individuals in this Wonderland.

It makes Alice wonder if it is in the nature of all inhabitants and tourists in Wonderland, or that Wonderland itself nurtures such derriere-covering behaviour and attitude.

Similar to observations of masculinist Western Enlightenment philosophy in planet Earth, Wonderland also displays philosophical symptoms of the attempt to separate mind from body. In fact, Wonderland achieves this dualistic separation. The mind is totally flushed out of the body. Who needs a mind when you just need a compliant body?

Wonderland is also all "male". And the men in Wonderland are very eager to reinforce their masculinity too. Sissy is out, butch is in - it is as if being butch makes processes quicker. To look the part, you have to act the part.

On donning the green, men become more uncouth, their walk becomes a swagger with freely swinging arms, their English more broken, their Hokkien louder, their sexism, misogyny and homophobia a lot more pungent - these are the beacons of hypermasculine performativity. To convince others of your point, you use not reason but the volume of your voice. You mangle your pronunciation of most English words because you would want to portray yourself as a tough guy who has paid his dues.

Everyone wants to let everyone else know they are a man, world-savvy, street-smart, the been-there-done-that kind. This is part of the series of transformations Alice undergoes as she descends into the madness that is Wonderland. In the same egotistical vein of comparing penis lengths, men grunt about how they have seen the "world" or the "real world", and try to make the other person(s) feel a need to actually listen to them by showing them their boy scout badges of life's experience.

It is however a great paradox that in cutting the image of a world-savvy, street-smart, been-there-done-that kind of man, Alice has a homophobic side to contend with. "Ee-yur, dowan to get to close to the Ah Kwa. Sekali get molested." Such a paradox for a solider who is prepared to die for his country, yet harbours the irrational fear and hatred of issues of which he is not well-informed. Being "man" and masculine has its paradoxes and limitations.

Wonderland is full of sexual wonders too. As all the Alice's often talk about their girlfriends and wives (to emphasise their heterosexuality at the same time), some with fondness, others with lust and objectification that would make even the least serious feminist go "Wah lau! Not funny!"

It is as if Wonderland has its own native language when all its inhabitants plus Alice centre their communications on the phallus - the cock/lanjiao being the central logogram of the native language of wonderland.

"Lan jiao!!!"
"Die cock standing"
"LPPL"
"Kum lan"
"Butoh"
"Very cock"
"Cock-a-nathan"

etc. You probably have seen it all.

This is very much similar to adding a "la" or "lor" just to sound Singaporean. You just have to add in allegories of penises in order to be understood in Wonderland. Do remove articles such as "a", "an" and "the" from your speech too. Communication in Wonderland is short, and often grunted rather than spoken. It's all about getting to the cock of the situation, I mean crux.

In Wonderland, obsessively centering the phallus in one's communication is crucial to being recognised as a heterosexual masculine man. However, on planet Earth, doing the same would yield substantial suspicion of one's sexuality, a situation any Wonderlander will be quick to avoid. There is also a celebration of muscle and a kind of homosociality that would otherwise been suspiciously homosexual in Planet Earth.

I guess Alice will never be the same when he returns to Planet Earth, carrying with him shades of the habits and idiosyncracies of Wonderland. And when Alice returns to Wonderland every now and then, he will still see the same characters, set about in their respective routines.

In entering Wonderland, Alice comes of age as he learns to come to terms with the mindlessness of Wonderland. In a way, Wonderland is an escape from an equally cruel and mindless Planet Earth, providing lessons and skills, other than numbing one's mind.

Wonderland teaches you to be selfish, dishonest, cover your butt and also kiss the butts of others - valuable skills to surviving Planet Earth. And sometimes one wonders if Wonderland is a function of Singapore and how it functions, or the other way around.

All of us Alices will never understand Wonderland. Our stay is temporary. We only learn to blend in, but never really partake in the madness of this realm.

This Alice will not return to Wonderland any time soon, but that is not until the rabbit calls him into the hole again.

Sometimes, there's no doubt Wonderland is still an interesting place.

---

With regards to the recent egg on the government face, in which one guy at a Ministerial Forum (was it?) said he did not know what he was fighting for, I feel the same way.

But I know what we are fighting for.

We are fighting to ensure Singapore is safe from international threats (because we can be quite a prick sometimes to our neighbours) and substate/nonstate threats (in view of our buddy-buddy relations with the United States even though we often denounce Western values to justify our political ways - +1 on the prick meter).

We are fighting to allow this government to perpetuate greater social inequalities with policies that are primarily oriented towards fulfilling economic KPIs, never mind their social ramifications.

We are fighting to ensure security in Singapore, so that Ministers can earn their millions.

We are fighting to sustain a kind of economic stability which would allow for rising cost of living.

We are fighting to protect those who do not have a sense of belonging here, as well as their families. But they are necessary for our economic growth, any way. Who cares about the social ramifications any way? There's no such thing about KPIs for the social development (discounting the numericising of babies).

We are fighting to protect the constitution, even though most of us do not know its contents, and even though some of our statutory laws are questionable on constitutional grounds but nothing is being done about them.

We are fighting to preserve the artificial symbols of "share values" and other items we are made to believe we have in common when we do not.

We are fighting so that we do not get punished for not fighting, and lose our jobs, and be in a position in which we are unable to pay for our loans and bills.

That explains why we are fighting to "protect" our "home", because "home" is really costly. We have to follow orders and fight, so that we would be in a safer position to spend the rest of our able-bodied lives paying for our "home". Being blacklisted or going to jail will rock that rice bowl of yours any way, and it is best to just do what the government wants you to do, or rather, not do what they don't want you to do.

See, there are many things we are fighting for. So I don't know what this student is talking about.

---

Any way, it is highly ironic that we live in a world in which peace is articulated in terms of arms and defence. Peace has to be defended with ideologies and technologies of violence. Sad la.

Chasing the hearse

2010-10-30T19:58:00.001+08:00

I was about to be fetched home by my mum and wife from camp after serving the first of a two-week in-camp reservist training, when I heard that my uncle had passed away.

I felt puzzled at the news for a couple of minutes (and am now puzzled as to why I felt puzzled), but later began to realise that my uncle has indeed passed. My mum told me he died on Thursday.

People talk about the "sinking in" of news and I am reminded of the experience once again. I cried.

As we followed the hearse for a short yet agonising distance, I thought to myself as my eyes welled up with tears, "This is ironic."

At the end of our regular family visits to the Koh's at Namly in the 1980s and early 1990s, my brother and I, upon having seated at the back of the car, would be alerted by our father, "Look behind you! There is a monster!"

And there was Uncle Koh, who raised both hands, opened his mouth to bear his teeth and began chasing our car. And my dad would not help us either, moving the car off pretty slowly.

"Ahhh!!!" Uncle Koh shouted.

"Yahhh!!!" I went, each time with a mix of fear, excitement and laughter.

Every farewell would be the same. I would always turn my head to see Uncle Koh following us. Chasing us would be his way of saying "Goodbye and see you again."

As the years went by, our visits were less frequent. And even though I was no longer a child, I still turned around every time I got seated at the back of my parents' car. There was an expectation that Uncle Koh would be the car-chasing monster. But a wave goodbye had by then already sufficed.

Perhaps, we knew we were older. But I still expected him to chase our car.

Fast-forward to Saturday October 30, 4.45pm. I play the role of the monster now, chasing Uncle Koh as he is leaving in his vehicle.

However, it was not an exciting, or fearful, or joyous farewell like the ones we used to share in the 1980s and 1990s. It was a sombre one.

It was all the more heart-wrenching when I was reminded of the car-chasing farewells by Uncle Koh as I slowly chased the hearse today.

It is a tragedy that 20 years later, the laughter and "Ahhhh!!"s would be replaced by the sound of the engine of the hearse.

Uncle Koh would chase us for a few metres before slowly down, laughing, waving us goodbye and returning to his home.

Today, along with many others, I chased Uncle Koh for the first time to say goodbye. And he has got to a speed and distance with which I can no longer keep up. I can only slow down, wave him goodbye and return to my home.

I regret that for the past couple of years, I didn't stop by Namly when I was Bukit Timah/Holland Road, to say hello to Uncle Koh and family. I knew for a long time he always had interesting news and gossip about politics, but was too young to understand what he was talking about.

I thought it would have been a good time to hear what he has to say now that I have the fortune and privilege of higher education. It is painfully ironic that I only seized the one chance to say goodbye when I had so many opportunities to say hello.

My brother has more memories than I have of the Koh's, but I know both our families have a bond that extends beyond just that of my mum and her half-sister (Uncle Koh's wife). My dad enjoyed the company of Uncle Koh. My brother enjoyed the company of my cousin. I was the youngest and most playful, but I still have these memories.

Booking out should be a happy occasion for any reservist soldier, and I had looked forward to dinner with my wife and my parents. I had wanted my mum to hang out at my place for a while, as it would be most ideal to be in the company of two very important women in my life, before we picked up my dad for dinner.

But plans had to change. And now I still haven't any appetite.

As we got to Mount Vernon. I met my aunties, uncles and cousins. I even met the caretaker (distant relative) auntie who adopted my rabbit when we had to give her away. My rabbit, Furry, is another story altogether, and when my mum mentioned that this was the auntie who looked after Furry until Furry died of old age, I went, "Wow, hello auntie. So you looked after my rabbit Fur... thank you thank you" but couldn't bring myself to saying my rabbit's name.

In 1998, while having dinner after coming back from school, my mum walked towards me hesitantly and told me, "You know, I don't know how to tell you, but Furry died today." I couldn't taste my food. Perhaps my penchant for big huggable plush toys might be related to my fondness for Furry. It sucks to be my mum who has to tell her son such bad news.

Today, my mum has another responsibility. I guess that is part of "growing up". You hear of deaths, you experience deaths of loved ones and you have to break the news to other loved ones. No one deserves this.

As we walked around Uncle Koh who was resting in his coffin, my mum said to me the same thing she has always said at every funeral we have been to. "He looks like he is sleeping."

I may be 27 years old, but my response was the same as when I was 6 or 7. "Ya."

Uncle Koh's ashes will be collected either on Sunday or Monday. I am not sure about the arrangements but I think he will eventually be scattered into the sea.

It is very sad that our series of happy farewells had to end with a tearful one.

I will miss you Uncle Koh. I will remember you with great fondness.

The right side of correct; the correct side of right

2010-10-17T16:47:00.003+08:00

I'm quite perplexed with the letter "Stay lean, SIA girl" (Oct 9) by Teo Yee Chee, and rather astounded by review of the letter by Barnyard Chorus.

Here's the blog article:

How to tell the world you're an asshole

Oooh, who likes getting all het up and furious first thing in the morning? You had better if you, like me, get the Straits Times on subscription. In today's Life! section, a letter from Asshole Alpha:

Stay lean, SIA girl

I refer to the report, I Don't Mind A Fatter Singapore Girl by Jeremy Au Yong (Life!, Oct 9).

I do not mean to be disrespectful or discriminate but I honestly do not want to sit beside an overweight person during a long flight, especially when flying home.

Singapore Airlines did not become a leading airline just because the SIA Girl looks slim, clean and pretty.

She is just one of the building blocks that fit very well into the whole operations. When there is a lapse or drop in service quality, SIA has to correct and improve. In every successful business, there are certain identities and standards associated with it. These form its culture and infuse its soul.

It is easy to say you do not mind having a fatter Singapore Girl but it will be a problem for many.

Teo Yee Chee

Fatphobia: check. Equation of service staff's physical features with 'service quality': check. Commodification of service staff as mere 'building blocks': check. Cluelessly trumpeting the opinion that the other people should be in service to the pleasure of your unpleasant, privileged ass: check. (The one grain of truth in this letter: that many will share the same retrograde views that you hold.)

Hey, Teo, next time you might want to lighten up on the disingenuity, and just declare that you think fat people don't deserve to be treated like fellow humans. I have a lot of things to do and it would save everyone's time if I didn't have to point out the contemptible ridiculousness of your opinions before I told you to fuck off.

+++++

ETA: I haven't read the original Jeremy Au Yong article that this letter refers to, but I don't have high hopes for it.

###

For Teo to publicly voice his discomfort with fat people, I feel it is a little insensitive.

But for the rest of his letter, I read it to be merely pointing out a phenomenon shaped and influenced by an oppressive order/cultural logic.

In this cultural logic, slim women are considered desirable and fat women are considered less desirable.

Because of the way society is organised according to this cultural logic, businesses follow suit and capitalise on it. We end up commodifying bodies because there is a preference and a demand for desirable types.

Teo makes this more salient by saying the business that is SIA is built on this cultural logic. At least that is my reading.

He goes on to comment that "It is easy to say you do not mind having a fatter Singapore Girl but it will be a problem for many", which I read to be a comment on the cultural logic of gender.

As an observer (not helped by his opening statement), Teo finds himself flamed. It's nothing new when the right to express your opinions is accompanied by the responsibility to accept a multitude of (mis)readings, criticisms, character attacks and flaming from a variety of folks. Perhaps even my reading of Teo's letter might be read as undesirable and wrong.

So in this case, Teo is portrayed as one who engaging in the process of reproducing the cultural logic of gender - Teo is read as complicit (no thanks to his open fatphobia).

Perhaps Teo, presumably a heterosexual man, you know, those types way below the pecking order of the Oppression Olympics, is already prejudged in the eyes of feminist detractors.

Thus, all his observations are readily read to be approval, indicative of his complicity in the cultural logic of gender (or the gendered logic of culture, whichever).

Yes, let's go a little poststructural on this (and explore the inherent contradictions):

1) Man observes and comments about a social phenomenon, e.g. society desires slim women.
2) Critiques of man say he is approving of the order and complicit in it.
3) His observations and comments about the social phenomenon are read to be social processes that reinforce the prevailing order.
4) Then again, how can we be certain that the structuring of critique of the man is not within the prevailing order? Are we assuming that the subversive questioning of the complicit and approving man is independent of the cultural logic and prevailing discourse?

If neutrality (assuming Teo was "neutrally" trying to explain the phenomena by speaking on behalf of SIA) is seen as a position and a process tantamount to complicity, what about the critique of neutrality?

Does the critique of neutrality exist as an entity, a position and a process that is non-complicit?

I think we are often too preoccupied with the critique of neutrality and framing it as a position or a process complicit in some prevailing discourse or oppressive framework, that we pay little attention to the political process and motivations behind the critique of neutrality itself.

It appears that some of us expect a little too much from others when they are making observations of society. They might not be in the position to articulate their observations with a sociological imagination or any feminist thought. They simply just explain the conditions we are in.

But amidst the multitude of readings, some will read Teo's letter to be indicative of his approval of such a cultural logic.

Perhaps, even within the domain of reading itself, there appears to be a "charmed circle" of readings.

At the top of the hierarchy of "correct" readings would be the reading that Teo is complicit, and that his neutrality and attempt to speak on behalf of SIA to comment on the cultural logic of gender, constitute his approval - still complicit.

And at this stratum, enemies are well-established, such as businesses (that obviously exist within the oppressive cultural order). Explaining on behalf of businesses would mean the "explainer" is read to be sympathetic and hence approving of the business.

Rather than reading an observation as a commentary on a social phenomenon, some of us readily make accusations that the observer is "guilty" or complicit.

But parts of our resistance, subversion and critique of the observer and the structures that shape him (male noun!) and whatever he observes, are constructed on the very same plane on which the observer and phenomena exist - the same cultural logic.

In the "charmed circle" of readings, there also exist a "charmed circle" of readers, stratified by gender, sexuality, physiology, race and so on. And we find ourselves in a battle for who's right and more "authentic".

Teo, at the end of his letter, gives us, or rather me (and how I read it), a reality check. There is a gulf between political correctness and actual feelings and opinions (which can hurt and divide people).

Who rules the domain of political correctness, and is there a hierarchy of opinions and within the hierarchy of opinions, is there a hierarchy of identities for the expression of opinion?

There will always be people who are uncomfortable with other people, and it's important to continually point this out. That is what I read Teo to have done.

And again, his vocalising of discomfort with fat people is also in itself a commentary about how there will be people who are uncomfortable with others. It is a phenomena we are all part of.

I believe it's time for us now to look at his observations and do something about ourselves first.

Perhaps my reading of Teo's letter is on the wrong side of correct, or the wrong side of wrong in the eyes of another reader.

It is ok to exoticise

2010-10-16T15:13:00.000+08:00

I must admit that gender, sex and sexuality are few of the topics of discussion that interest me the most.

I don't deny indulging in exoticising the perennial social taboo/outsider. This can only constitute a fascination within a social, political and moral domain whose bodies of norms have made these topics rather mysterious and elusive.

In this case, to be fascinated is to be curious about what we have been socialised into believing not worthy of curiosity. The defence mechanisms of a dominant moral discourse, aimed at protecting specific structures and logic that order our society and way of life, do not allow us to be curious.

Even those whose identities and lives are far from the norm have sought to question this curiosity. This charge of exoticisation parallels the defence mechanisms of a wary and unstable cis/heteronormative society. A curiosity is always susceptible to being read as an interest of the exotic.

I am curious with the particular reading of people who appear fascinated with studying the "nuts, sluts and p(re)verts". These fascinated bunch are read to be interested in the exotic, and some critics have suggested we focused on the mundane to study and appreciate the less visible and taken-for-granted phenomena and structures that order our social lives.

But it is in the "exotic" that we also understand the various processes and nuances of social ordering, and through these understandings, we appreciate why the label "exotic" and why the (academic) habits of exoticisation exist.

For the "normal", "sane" and "moral" world, gender, sex and sexuality are conflated, and articulated in binarism. (Traditional) Medical, legal, religious and (Western) cultural norms all the more reinforce the validity of this articulation.

But we have to have the presence of "not normal", "not sane" and "not moral" beings to trouble this articulation. When we ask ourselves, "Why is this person not normal, not sane and/or not moral?" we begin to refer to the norms that shape and regulate our behaviours.

The "not normal", "not sane" and "not moral" (and other labels) folks reflect something about our culture and its limitations. The construction of "them" says something about "us" and our presuppositions, predispositions, socialisation and prejudices.

"Them" reflects a society of "us", characterised by the norms of different domains, interwoven and overlapping. These different sets of norms engage one another and at times reinforce one another.

Take for example, the norm of binary dimorphic (heterosexual) sex. It is emphasised in Judaeo-Christian-Islamic norms. It is also emphasised in medical science. At the same time, society found it fit to ascribe moral meanings and a status of naturality to protect this order, as the norms of religion, the norms of medicine and basically everything people observed, confirmed this. Put it altogether over time, we have something that is natural and right - just like how the Earth is flat and the sun rotates around it.

Whatever that challenges and contradicts the taken-for-granted "natural" and "right" order, for example, homosexuality, is deemed as unnatural and immoral. I looked at the Church of Our Saviour's 12-page document (written by Dr Thio Su Mein) on the "myths of homosexuality". It says "Homosexuality is learned behaviour and it is therefore possible to overcome homosexual identity and leave the homosexual lifestyle. Change is possible and desirable."

Within the frames of religion, the accepted human identity is one that parallels scripture. (some) Religion enforces order in society, and the stories, fables and rules in scripture and teachings demand congruity and conformity in the mortal world. The human world ideally has to be microcosmic of the heavens (and its fables), as however interpreted by the individuals higher up the human-made socio-religious hierarchy. We are expected to replicate the love, benevolence and compassion, and also the structures of power and obedience. These are but political processes built on human interpretations of holy material, deemed by human beings not to be questioned.

In the event of non-conformity, individuality is focused upon and questioned. The problem becomes reduced to the individual, and articulated within the frames of morality, as prescribed by socio-religious authority.

Given the complicity of various sets of norms in determining what constitutes conformity, these offer avenues for validating the belief that non-conformity is the result of wayward individualism. We can see it any way - insanity, sin, wrong influence.

What these do is draw attention away from the structures and logic that result in such an approach. We end up never challenging our continual and uncritical insistence on, among many other things, binary dimorphic (heterosexual) sex. We don't question the motivations, history and circumstances concerning the conference/ascription of "natural" and "right" to certain kinds of behaviours and attitudes.

The "natural" and "right" are but symptoms of political processes and action. How we label the "not normal", "not sane" and "not moral" are symptoms of our social conditioning, and the process of labelling is furthermore a political process.

I believe, to be fascinated with the "not normal", "not sane" and "not moral" is indicative of a curiosity (of varying consciousness') of the ways of the "normal", "sane" and "moral". The identification of the exotic via the process of exoticisation, is a site for questioning the grounds on which the process of exoticisation occurs.

It can go both ways. Some of "us" of study "them", want to know how this study can tell us about "them". But there are those of "us" who study "them" to know how this study can tell us about "us".

Exoticisation is still necessary to not only create sites for counter-discourses, but also to critique the conditions that allow for exoticisation.

Minorities are often guarded and angry at the glares of exoticisation, but these constitute one platform for dialogue, the language of which only understandable to the privileged.

To speak in the language of privileged is in no way indicative of being subjected to the discourse of the privileged. There are sites for negotiation and resistance even within the narratives of the privileged.

Too many doors are closed when different individuals and groups begin rejecting labels, collectives and platforms for discussions deemed only favourable to the privileged. But we forget that the business of change includes not only the identification of and engagement on new sites for negotiation and resistance, but also existing ones inhabited by the privileged majority.

Any way... Back to exoticisation. I feel that if we are in a culture that has lots of fascination with the non-mundane (or exotic), it says something about our diversity and how we construct the mundane. The exotic is a way to looking at the mundane.

So, next time, every time you observe or experience something, and are about to say "That's not right, not natural, not moral!", you can ask the question "What is it about me, my socialisation, culture and sets of beliefs that makes me say such things?"

Same goes for the folks who say, "That's not funny!"

Society needs education, not the ACJC girls

2010-10-14T17:37:00.000+08:00

(Unpublished - Oct 9, 2010)

I refer to the report concerning the toilet-sex video in ACJC.

This throws up many issues in need of addressing.

Firstly, we have to continually emphasise the importance of cyber wellness and warn against abuses of technology. This is a challenge we are already well acquainted with.

Secondly, we need to address two separate but occasionally overlapping issues – teenage affection and same-sex affection. We have to address them with respect to ourselves as we exert influence on them too.

We cannot remain blind to teenage affection. Discouraging or condemning it does not help.

Instead, we should empower our young to be responsible, respectful and body-confident. This is regardless of the nature of affection, opposite or same sex.

As a Singaporean, I am increasingly exasperated when public officials, specialists and experts are quoted to be saying that Singaporeans “are not ready”, or in this case referring to teenage same-sex affection as “something society may not accept yet.”

This rhetoric is an excuse for inactivity, as we let our prejudices and ignorance fester.

This particularly does not help address same-sex affection.

Some of us are held ransom by archaic norms, and duped into believing that affection exclusively belongs to the domain of heterosexual adults.

Some of us are too preoccupied with judging the morality and “naturalness” of others’ actions, that we bankrupt ourselves of the empathy and the opportunity to help the concerned individuals be responsible, safe and confident as they are.

There is thus a disregard for teenage affection and same-sex affection. These domains are trivialised and condemned. Information for wellness and empowerment does not reach the individuals involved.

We cannot ignore, trivialise or condemn teenage relationships and affection.

I believe that education for the young is only a fraction of the problem.

If the rampant ignorance and prejudicial attitudes concerning the young is anything to go by, the rest that is adult Singapore is in dire need of education.

We are too preoccupied with our respective self-righteous plans for ideological domination and homogeneity, that we become blind to and also fearful of changes and challenges to our prejudices.

Psychologists have been reigned in to explain changing phenomena, but I believe it is high time political scientists and sociologists are brought into the picture to reflect on the attitudes and insecurities of an adult population that believes it knows better.

Ho Chi Sam

Two deaths

2010-10-02T22:28:00.003+08:00

I thought I would take a hiatus from blogging, despite the urge to talk about the latest developments in the censorship review committee 2010 report and the government's reaction.

But before I do so. There are more important things to talk about.

Today, I learned about how mortality manifests itself.

In Mrs Lee Kuan Yew, she led a long and I believe fulfilling life, fighting very ill health towards the end of it, and fought no more. She passed away early this evening.

In Mingwei, a stranger to me, but daughter of a man whom I recently got to know, we have an example of how a life can be cruelly and unfairly robbed.

For a non-religious person like myself, there is no further rationalisation. Death means cessation of life.

But what makes death difficult is the emotional bonds and investments we have in one another, forged through relations and interactions. Along the way, sometimes, we empathise.

For me, death is the cessation of suffering. But it is death itself that causes the suffering of others, as each begin his/her respective journey of "dealing with it".

It is our awareness of mortality and the occasional unexpected death(s) that shape our social world. And we rationalise and ritualise accordingly.

Mortality holds ransom the meaning-seeking and meaning-creating human world, but it does not stop most people from being selfish, self-serving, fighting and killing - acts that render an already unequal world even more meaningless.

There is no actually no need to rationalise and ascribe more meanings to connect the dots. But meaning-seeking humans that we all are, cannot help but see dots that require connection - maybe that is how we deal with mortality.

It's times like these that makes me wonder what life is all about. Then again, "life" is the rationalised incarnation of a fact that is mortality and transience.

The problem with life is that it is often defined by its function (e.g. "life goes on") because it is void of form. Even if it did have a form, it would have been saturated with ascriptions of human sense and meaning-making, which in turn serve their humanly functions. But somehow, we feel strongly about defending this.

We fear the eventuality of death and also its unpredictability. All meaning-making gravitate towards these known certainties (eventuality and unpredictability).

It is the certainty of death that we make sense of our mortality. Some of us feel worthless, some of us feel we are holier than others. But what is the point?

I think there is a no point. There is no bottomline. Just a series of priorities we have created for ourselves, from which rules are created for "appropriate" sets of behaviour, sensitivities and opinions.

Isn't it ironic when I speak of rationalising and prioritising for the sake of sense and meaning-making, when I believe that "there are more important things in life" - it constituting the process of prioritisation?

Isn't it ironic when I speak of human beings seeing the world in dots in need of connecting, when I myself rationalise mortality as a common denominator of human beings?

What is real to me, is the emotional investment we have. There is some trust. There is some love. Or a little bit of friendship.

I do not know how you feel as a father. But I feel sad to learn of the tragic news. I hope you and your family will be strong.

As for the Lee family, they are perhaps more prepared for Mrs Lee's passing (but I might be wrong). I feel sad for her husband's and children's loss.

Dear Singtel Mio TV, you suck... again

2010-09-23T22:18:00.002+08:00

(Written as feedback to Singtel... AGAIN. The last letter can be accessed here.)

I am writing in again to complain about the low quality product that is Mio TV.

When I tuned in to Mio TV three times over the past 10 days, I was shown the purple "Mio TV" screen for a long time, and had to restart the set-top box by pressing and holding the power button.

This has become a regular fixture in my TV-viewing experience.

Why must I do this troubleshooting when all I want is to switch on the television and the modem and set-top box, and watch the channels the Mio TV offers?

Every time I want to watch something on Mio TV, I have to switch on TV, modem and set-top box at least 5 to 10 minutes before the programme starts. With Starhub's cable television, I only need at most 2 minutes.

Singtel Mio TV has again soured my television viewing experience.

Do you have any idea what is "television viewing experience"? It is switch on and watch. Simple. No damn troubleshooting.

I subscribe to Mio TV because I want to watch the English Premier League and the Champions League Football. And on ALL the occasions I tuned in to watch football, some minutes of match time is spent troubleshooting and pressing that damn power button.

I remain convinced that Singtel is void of business ethics and moral fibre, choosing to deliver to its customers such an inferior quality product with poor technical infrastructure.

I chose Singtel Mio TV because I have no other choice.

I sincerely hope you won't retain your exclusive BPL and CL broadcast rights because you don't deserve it.

---

add: Seriously. This is pissing me off. Every time I tune in to Singtel Mio TV, I have to spend 3-5 minutes watching that purple screen. Nothing happens. Then I've to press and hold the reset button to reset the damn box. 3 minutes later, I get to see what I want to see. That is 6-8 minutes wasted! With Singtel Mio TV, I don't watch 90 minutes of football, I watch 85 minutes!

I hope the government finds a contractor soon to settle the multiple set-top box issue. Singtel has made a very premature move to television broadcast, because transmission via phone line is in my experience of much more inferior quality than transmission via cable.

In the near future, transmission via fibre optics will save definitely the butt of Singtel especially. In fact phone line transmission is merely a transitional technology for TV broadcast, in my opinion. But customers just "lan lan suck thumb", as how they are socialised as Singaporeans. We're screwed by this duopoly/monopoly. I really look forward to the high speed broadband internet (with no surfing speed cap for international websites like what I think SingNet and Starhub will impose).

Any way, I sincerely hope that Starhub wins the next bid for the English Premier League and Champions League broadcast rights, as well as ESPN Star Sports. I never had any complaints about Starhub cable TV customer. For Singtel Mio TV, I am incensed enough to write a long feedback and commentary on their product and service.

It is time to "kids" and make "marry" in Singapore

2010-09-23T15:30:00.001+08:00

Singapore's birth rates (and replacement rates, or whatever index that pleases you) are probably not the best in years. Singaporeans are marrying later. You know the whole social phenomenon.

The National Family Council (yes, we Singaporeans need a council to tell us what the concept of "family" is and should be) is recently reported to be spearheading a campaign to get youths to embrace the(ir) idea of marriage. Talk about the shameless glorification of heterosexuality.

When I saw its acronym NFC and read that the National Family Council is developing this initiative, I can't help but feel that the NFC really means "Nobody Fucking Cares".

Well, here is the article, from the Channel NewsAsia (why is "NewsAsia" one word any way?) website, http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1082773/1/.html, reproduced for public interest and critical commentary (two defences against intellectual property rights infringement, a common excuse used by semi-IP-literate big companies to bully random netizens):

National Family Council wants to convince youths to settle down early
By Evelyn Choo. September 22, 2010.

The National Family Council (NFC) is expanding its efforts to target a new segment of society - youths.

It wants youths to embrace the idea of marrying and having children early, as part of their definition of success.

But just how easy is that?

"Getting married early? I think it may restrict you (from) things that you (want) to do," said one Singaporean.

"I want my own independence. I want to do whatever I want and not worry about having a family," said another.

Students in secondary or tertiary institutions are the new targets.

"We don't want youth to look at success purely in terms of having a great education, and getting a good job and making good money. I think the kid should also embrace the notion of having a good family as part of their definition of success. So we have to look at other ways and means of reaching out to the youth," said Lim Soon Hock, chairman of National Family Council.

The council said it will use the new media platforms such as Facebook, Youtube and Twitter, along with viral marketing methods to reach out to Generation Y.

Another idea is through youth forums, where they can air their views on settling down.

22-year-old Uma Devi, a student of Singapore Management University, thinks the new strategy of giving youths a voice could work.

She said: "It will be effective. At the same time, before a person wants to set up a family, they should be stable first. It'll be better to work that out instead of driving at the youths."

Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports, Vivian Balakrishnan said: "Family as an institution in Singapore is under stress. Many of the other things that we strive and spend so much time on in life ultimately are all very transitory and sometimes quite meaningless.

"But we want to emphasise the family. It's not because we need to produce the next generation of economic workers. And it certainly isn't just about pro-creation or fertility."

NFC will hold a strategic planning workshop next month, where more details will be brainstormed and ironed out. - CNA /ls

There are many things to discuss here, and I don't think I'll be able to organise them well, but that's fine any way, as I don't get a single grain of rice for doing this, although I wish I could have. I'll take NTUC vouchers!

First up, the concept of marriage and procreation (having kids), and not to mention, the little thing in between that nobody dares to talk about or risk being stared at and backtalked by some religious bigot, sex.

In sociology class, I learned that marriage, sex and having children have long been assumed to be one. What bind the three entities into one whole concept are human sense-making and moralisation.

In reality, you can have one without the other. You can be married but have no children. You can have sex without getting married. You can even have children (adoption) without even getting married or having (procreative heterosexual put-the-pee-pee-into-the-flower) sex.

But policy-makers make the assumption, I mean, ASSUMPTION, that if people appreciate and embrace the idea of being together and getting married, children will follow. That is not always the case.

Next, sociologically (again), the fact that our (PAP) government and the way things are run in Singapore are driven by the economic imperative of increasing and sustaining productivity, reaching certain economic growth only measurable in percentage points, have all created the severe repercussion that is the social phenomenon we experience today.

We have spent more than half the nation's young life rapidly industrialising and developing the economy. I am in the belief the the government has often treated the social ramifications of their economic imperative as secondary to achieving the targeted percentage points of economic growth. In short, they/we (because we democratically voted them in) have created a problem for ourselves.

In order to push development, progress and sustainability, in the economic sense, you need minds to think that way. You need rational, perhaps over-rational minds, impatient for efficiency and predictability, plus that little industrious spirit. Pleasure and smelling the roses can be postponed until you have reached the economic objectives set for you.

Now, we have a new objective - get married and have kids. Vivian Balakrishan did try to divorce the idea of marriage/kids from the economic imperative, e.g. marriage not as a means to producing another generation of economic workers. For all his good intentions and sociological imagination, he is still subjected to the political regime whose political legitimacy is established on its economic leadership. This is a political regime long left unchallenged and unshaken in a society whose democratic and political soul has been sucked out and replaced with an economic agenda which ultimately serves and feeds back into the regime.

But Balakrishnan's release is a prime example of illusory agency, a view or a position imagined to be counter-discursive or capable of subverting or negotiating with the dominant rational economic discourse of the state, but in actual fact is its mere constitution, subjected and functional to it. Poststructuralism treads where (most schools of) sociology does not.

Well, that might be the compassionate government's view, but the government stays where it is so long as its economic leadership remains strong. There is also no denying that everyone is technically an economic worker.

In such a rational economic environment, there are items that fall within and those that fall outside the domains of economic rationality. For example, working a certain number of hours, reaching the targets set by your superior, and getting the remuneration for your time and sweat, are all economically rational actions. Conversely, falling in love is normally (NORMALLY) not an economically rational thing. Having children in the post-industrial era is not normally an economically rational thing either.

The idea of happiness and freedom is articulated in terms of wealth and wealth accumulation, and whatever positive social externalities that come with them (e.g. having new friends when you are rich). In this rational economic (post-industrial) environment, we are born into the concept of dependence, and we are born dependent. Our idea of freedom is independence, and independence is articulated in the language of financial independence.

Well, part of the financial independence-craving phenomenon we observe in our younger generation today can also be attributed to the influence of upscale urban living in already developed cities, such as those in the United States, parts of Europe, cities in Japan and Korea. It is always very empowering to wrap yourself in material possessions, culturally deemed to represent a position of superiority and success, since success within the domains of economic rationality is thus measured in economic terms.

This brings me to the next issue - the definition of success. Like it or not, success remains defined by the 5 C's. Cash, condominium (property and investments), car, credit card and country club membership (not really, I think). They are all material in nature, with socially ascribed meanings of importance and significance.

We are socialised into believing that esteem and a sense of self are intricately tied to feeling a sense of importance and feeling significant, but these entities are articulated in terms of materialism and wealth accumulation. This is a symptom of a combination of the following phenomena: The (almost stereotypical) ethnic Chinese cultural idea of wealth accumulation and "face"; the historical fact that we have emerged from rapid industrialisation and are continuing to "progress" further; the (ancestral) immigrant mentality of working hard, accumulating wealth and postponing enjoyment; and the influential economic rationalisation of a government and its policies, affecting the way a society thinks and rationalises itself.

If we ever wanted to redefine success to include "a happy marriage and happy family", it would require even greater re-rationalisation, simply because we exist in the context of a rat-race of mostly self-serving people who probably don't really give a rat's ass (HAH!) about others. Not every Singaporean is an Ace Kindred Cheong, who is by the way a kind-hearted gentleman with genuine compassion for even people he doesn't know, although most netizens will slam him for being that perennial PAP scrotum-licking dog every hateful critic loves to loathe.

How do you break the chains of economic rationality when everything else does not change - when the government continues to measure "growth" in terms of the economy and productivity? Is it not ironic, or bordering on hypocritical, when you have, on the one hand, some public officials encouraging economically irrational things such as marriage and children, and on the other hand, there continually exists government rhetoric on productivity, and policies that make marriage appear more rational than it is?

Looking at it sociologically, marriage in Singapore is now highly rationalised with the introduction of economic incentives. Textually and discursively, these are iterated in the language of economic rationality. It plays on the growing materialism and the people's idea of independence and success, and the nature of these economically rational incentives is basically oriented towards the accessibility of other items such as HDB, lower taxes and the occasional political bribe, I mean handout.

Marriage is now part of a systematic approach to living in Singapore, continually calibrated and steered with series of incentives and disincentives, targeted at Singaporean pockets.

Even having children is a highly rationalised state affair, as it is no longer confined to just the family that are (pro)creating. Stop at two. Three or more if you can afford it. Graduate dad + graduate mum = double degree baby. Stupid mums with no qualifications to stop producing stupid babies with no qualifications. You know, those kind of policies.

The rising cost of living, always rising like the incomes of our Ministers, is another factor as a direct result of our economic growth. It is one of the many repercussions of a government hellbent on reaching the growth figures it want to. Let's get 1%, or 5%, or 10%. Got any problems because of our strategies or because of the effects of our strategies and policies, we talk later can?

When it comes to accessing the (potential) social implications of our economic policies, the PAP government is a classic case of one putting the cart before the horse. To emphasise that, the PAP government would grab the cart, dig its nails into it and bodyslam it down in front of the horse like a what a lunchtime hawker centre patron would do as she "chopes" her seat with that magical cultural symbol that is the packet of tissue.

In the rational economic environment, problems that arising from such rationalisation are often negated and divorced with further rationalisations, i.e. the internalisation of problems. The poor are rationalised as the not-so-hardworking, for instance. But when you are rich and successful, you enjoy both strategies of internalisation (you worked hard, congrats!) and externalisation (you benefited from awesome policy-making!). This is how the system protects itself, a defence mechanism of sorts that deflects challenge and blame away from it.

It does not help at all that policies such as CPF do not appear to be helpful to most lower income ageing Singaporeans. For most middle-income middle-class Singaporeans, when they retire, they have their CPF savings on top of their existing savings (accumulated wealth). For the lower income, are their CPF savings alone enough to support them independently? I don't think so.

The government ignores its own shortcomings by deflecting attention towards the "unfilial" bunch of Singaporeans. It comes up with narratives, policies and laws to ensure that Singaporeans take care of their aged/retired beloved.

I believe CPF in isolation, is a good idea. However, given the rising cost of living (because of our economic and immigration policies) and the many limitations on the liberties of Singaporeans to do what they want with their CPF savings, CPF is rendered almost ineffective for the segments of the underprivileged population.

Because of these policies and restrictions, there is a greater financial burden on these "un/filial" Singaporeans. Relying on economic rationalisation, which is the more rational choice? A: Supporting the aged who are already in existing; or B: Saving up and supporting a baby that has yet to be born into this world?

These policies affect the way some people see "family". And moreover, with the diverse yet ever stressful and competitive schooling system we have in Singapore, is it rational to bring life into this world/Singapore and subject it to the rigours and limitations of the system without having the necessary sufficient resources?

In another view, I believe what some younger Singaporeans are doing right now is negotiating with what they have and how they are being treated by the authoritarian government. Having most of their constitutional rights curtailed by statutory laws and strict enforcement to preserve the "face" of an arrogant establishment, younger Singaporeans are (counter-discursively) creating newer spaces and rules to claim autonomy, although they remain subjected to the prevailing rational economic discourse. They are claiming the right to enjoy themselves.

After all, the money they earn is their own, so they have to right to use it in ways that make them happy, and have a healthy self-esteem. Marriage and having children are items that do not entirely correspond with the idea of one enjoying himself/herself.

If only the policymakers can open their eyes and realise that the social phenomena we are experiencing now are actual symptoms of policies, law and the nature of governance. However there will always be tradeoffs, and to ever identify a new equilibrium/balance and work towards it, might bring about newer problems in the social, economic and political domain. This is especially so when the economic is very entwined with the political (given PAP's political legitimacy is largely based on its economic leadership).

Love, in its romanticised definition, is mostly irrational. It is not a business deal. It is not even a deal. However, like marriage, it is systematised, capitalised/monetised and highly rationalised, shaped by a laundry list of incentives and disincentives.

Of course, there are people who believe that love can only be given to those who are deemed capable of giving love to them. Selfish, but they probably can't help it. That is probably why some people are nicer to others when they need help, but otherwise are not. Why the world like that sia?

I believe that people do not need to have incentives to get married and to have children. The problem lies more in the disincentives created in/by capitalism and governance, that dissuade others from marrying and having children, making these decisions look all the more (economically) irrational.

The solution? I say make the conditions conducive for marriage and having children. For the moment, the government is approaching the marriage and birthrate issues like they are trying to build a library within a discotheque. They can do all they want to increase library membership and interest by allowing a higher borrowing quota, and having a larger selection of books, but it still exists in a noisy and dimly lit discotheque. The analogy applies to marriage and having children in an environment that is rationally not conducive for one to be married and to have kids.

But given the way social life is greatly affected by the economy and economic imperative, I am not sure if we can ever reach a more family-friendly equilibrium. Remember, our individual problems have a larger social and political dimension, and yes, whatever the men in white think or do, is always closely related to how you think and live your life.

SDP's Dr Chee's rebuts Lee Kuan Yew

2010-09-16T11:57:00.002+08:00

Interesting thing to share. Here is an SDP video broadcast, in which Dr Chee Soon Juan rebuts Lee Kuan Yew on selected issues.

Gay Singaporeans within the news frames of crime

2010-09-16T09:56:00.004+08:00

(Unpublished - Sep 11, 2010)

I refer to the report “Gay website's founder faces drug charges” (Sep 11).

The news of a high profile person in the Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community in court facing charges for drug possession, may cast a shadow over minority rights advocacy.

Dr Stuart Koe has long been an outspoken advocate for sexual minority rights in Singapore.

However, I believe it is important to warn against developing the misconception and generalisation that gay Singaporeans use drugs.

It is at the same time crucial to address drug use across various demographics.

Gay Singaporeans are already erroneously demonised with having a “gay lifestyle”, a homophobic morally-slanted false concoction of sexual perversion, promiscuity and drug use.

What remains the same is the selective publication of objective news which continues to present LGBT Singaporeans within the frames of crime.

Since 2001, the Straits Times has portrayed LGBT Singaporeans in the contexts of economy, disease, perversion and crime.

LGBT people have also been presented as subjects of globalisation, science and censorship.

The publication of articles and letters with suggestions and implications on LGBT rights only followed the views of prominent public officials, namely then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong in 2003 and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew in 2007.

Amidst the hard work put in by sexual minority rights advocates in Singapore for the past couple of decades, their issues get media attention only after a prominent public official says something.

This shut-out is ongoing while the newspaper continues to associate LGBT people with crime, disease, perversion and issues of moral contention, omitting the positive representation of LGBT Singaporeans and their achievements.

At the rate we are going with media representation of LGBT Singaporeans, we will never be able to fathom the idea of happy and successful LGBT people.

Moreover, the omission of positive portrayals of LGBT Singaporeans trivialises them and devalues their moral position in society, legitimising the hate and fear-mongering by homophobic and transphobic opinion leaders.

In any community, there will be those who may have committed acts of indiscretions with legal implications.

For the LGBT community, I sincerely hope their visibility in the mainstream media will not merely be articulated in terms of crime and perversion.

Ho Chi Sam

add: In terms of letters being published in the Straits Times Forum, my score so far for this year is 0.5/13. So mathematically, if I want one letter to be published, I would have to write 26 letters. This is a far worse than in 2007 when my hit rate was 1 in 5 (I had 10 letters published). So it has been a frustrating year for me, but life goes on and we can keep on trucking.

There is no blacklist or unfair treatment. The editors are merely picking the letters that are relevant to making a story meaty and live the long age of 3-5 weeks. Most issues and stories generally fade away after 1 week.

The Straits Times Forum appears very reluctant to publish letters that go against the grains of agenda-setting. But still, those 13 letters (on sex education, media representation of LGBT, more than half of them are calls for LGBT rights and recognition, one on Pastor Rony Tan).

But then again, if it is newsworthiness they are after, I am sure sex education, morality and LGBT rights are juicy items. Perhaps, the powers-that-be might have whispered some advice into the ears of the SPH executives and chief editors, to limit the exposure of certain stories, or pull the plug on others. After all, SPH is openly and unabashedly politically conservative (a.k.a. insert ruling party phallus into mainstream media oral cavity).

If the Straits Times Forum can publish letters by people making proclamations of heterosexuality, being a family man/woman and all that, just to share their homophobia, I'm sure they can publish letters by straight folks who believe in family values and are also LGBT-affirming.

It is difficult to raise awareness writing to the Straits Times, but possible. While there are many netizens that make proclamations they no longer subscribe to the Straits Times, the people in the business of change (activists and advocacies for various causes) see it as an important widely read English daily.

This is what I term the "information activist". (a little pseudo-theory for the SPP IPS folks who are currently reading this.... NAH, I'm just throwing in random alphabets to form a random acronym...) You have a cause, a message and you transmit this via existing information channels, to reach out to information consumers and hopefully change a mind or two. The "information activist" does not create new information channels, but leverages, almost guerrilla-like, on the communication platforms of organisations (newspaper forums, REACH, online forums, bulletin boards, etc.) and individuals (blog comments, etc.).

It is an approach any one can use, regardless of reputation or charisma. But the contributions are nonetheless important, and dovetails with the efforts of say, someone like Seelan Palay, who not only blogs and raises awareness on various issues. He creates (new) spaces for dialogue, and if there is no space, he makes demands for them.

To prove a point in a country that often turns a deaf ear to its citizens, he demonstrates peacefully. Mind you, demonstration is about drawing attention to your cause and message. But the government and mainstream media depict demonstration as drawing attention to yourself and your personality. They want to demonise the demonstrator as either insane or criminal, or both.

That is why activism evolves, or rather, awareness-raising and message/cause-spreading evolve. For example, there are individuals like myself, who encourage, at the social level, LGBT-affirming people to speak up or to correct those who adopt homophobic/transphobic attitudes and behaviour. It is much like the "Speak Good English Campaign" post-its they are having right now. This is no longer activism in the romantic sense, but simply awareness-raising and message/cause-spreading. They still do motivate some people to change a little bit, and that is good.

I have the privileged to talk cock with some activists and most of them, no matter how persistent and dead serious they are about spreading their messages and cause, they are surprisingly very patient and do not expect change to be immediate, or even within their lifetime. But they continue to work hard and do what they are doing, and they can laugh about it.

So the lesson I learn is to have patience beneath that persistence, have the grace and of course have the sense of humour. After all, it is about spreading the message that comes first, rather than determining how serious you should be taking yourself or want others to take yourself.

Do not frame your message as an assault on other ideologies or individuals, but rather show how your message is on its own beneficial to relevant individuals and gruops. That's the "grace" I'm talking about. If your message and cause is for a general good, why should there be an attack or an assault?

So all you potential Straits Times Forum letter-writers out there with agendas outside the frames of the paper, keep writing in! (especially those LGBT-affirming ones!)

What (trans)wo/men want

2010-09-14T16:32:00.001+08:00

I was thinking about the movie "What women want", starring Mel Gibson. You know, the drunken Jew-bashing "sugartits" "Passion of the Christ" Mel Gibson?

Not something new, but I realise the show is deeper than it makes out to be. There are already numerous intellectual discussions of the film on the internet. Maybe one fine day, we can get a few feminists (with sense of humour), queer theorists and trans/gender theorists to sit down and talk about the show. Throw in one psychoanalyst for that little extra spice.

A month ago, in an Indignation 2010 event, we sat in a circle and discussed a little about the issues transwomen face. Unfortunately, there could have been more transpeople at the forum to share, but nevertheless, the issues talked about were no less serious and related to transgender Singaporeans.

Apparently, most of the issues are somehow interlinked. Employment seemed the most pertinent.

The anti-discrimination laws in Singapore unfortunately do not extend to cover gender identity and sexual orientation (double whammy for gay transmen and lesbian transwomen - yes they exist, but will only be more visible when the hate and ignorance subside). The known (unspoken) rule is to keep "it" hidden.

But whoever decided that the responsibility of keeping "it" hidden should be that of transpeople? Ok, no time for discourse/power analysis. Cepat cepat.

A common issue among transgender Singaporeans (particularly transwomen, because transmen are not adequately represented) is that of jobs. In a self-professed meritocratic society, whose government continually recites the mantra of "fairness and meritocracy" to lull itself into a false sense of calmness/ignorance, why a transgender Singaporeans finding it difficult to get jobs?

There are many reasons, multifactorial, overlapping. First, employer prejudice. Employers simply do not want to hire because they are not comfortable with a transgender employee. Second, workplace prejudice. This might be mythical, as the employer will normally believe that colleagues as well as clients/customers might not be comfortable in the presence of a transgender employee.

(Do this exercise now. Replace the "transgender" and insert some ethnicity, religion or other identity markers. Will the employment practice be different? If so, what does that say?)

Being gay, lesbian, bisexual or of any other sexual orientation and identity, in this context is slightly easier, because sexuality can be hidden and everyone else will assume you are straight until proven otherwise in the 'court' of society. There will be no blip on the gaydar when the behavioral queerness is conscientious toned down. Your conservative Chinese aunty colleague will see your gay man as your typical good-looking well-dressed gentle-speaking gentleman.

For transgender people, there are some who "pass" well and some who do not - these are clear visible facial/physical traits. Regardless of whichever point on the spectrum of passing transpeople are on, they still remain under threat of being harassed - with stares, with quizzes, with taunts and for some unfortunate few, ostracism and violence. Nobody deserves this.

These are the particular social baggage, derived from a less understanding society, that are tagged along to most transpeople. In multicultural Singapore, there are more languages to use to insult a transgender person.

Employers also live in the same context and because of their awareness of this (plus other prejudices), their hands are forced.

I have so far mentioned 3 stakeholders - transpeople, employers and society. The government is another key stakeholder, an important impartial one, on paper. As people on the ground can talk about change, making differences and moving slowly to making these things happen, the government has the power to implement change and coerce people to follow suit.

In this case, I believe society, with its unreflexive insistence on binarism and heterocentrism, is the most sluggish and reluctant to change. So, the wiser employers and impartial government could and should take the lead. Simple dynamics in governance. Technically, that is how change is made, different levels, strata and domains, moving at different velocities and trajectories, but roughly with a common destination in mind (plus, minus, give and take).

Unfortunately, we cannot merely review and change employment laws and employment practices alone. Societal attitudes have to change too. Changes in employment practices constitute merely one aspect of a multi-prong approach to securing (non-discriminatory) employment for transgender Singaporeans. Other aspects include education and awareness, among other things.

But change is slow, in phases, and never wholesale. While we wait and let society evolve, employers and the government can introduce practices and policies, and show others that this is the way things can be done. The government and some bits of the private sector can come out of their own closets and say, "We do not discriminate in our hiring policy. We welcome LGBTQ applicants." (repercussion: Christian boycotts?)

Still, we need another 2003 Goh Chok Tong, who will step forward and say that the government, as an employer, will not discriminate against transgender Singaporeans (plus the GLB). Can Lee Hsien Loong do that?

If the government is truly concerned about bread and butter issues Singaporeans are facing, why not introduce anti-discrimination laws extending to gender identity and sexual orientation?

While we are into the whole discourse on working hard in the capitalist system and wanting to attain, sustain or improve our middle-class-ness, we also need to address the condition and position of transgender Singaporeans with respect to attaining employment.

Education is one aspect. It is not merely about learning what they throw at you in school, but also dealing with that questioning and dissonant feelings growing up. I hate to use the term "gender dysphoric", but it happens to be the only term understandable in such an environment.

You know what I mean, right? When some person or phenomenon is different, we look to medicine, psychiatry and ideology to explain why they are "different", resulting in us believing it is a medical anomaly, a mental health issue, or something that can be dismissed as immoral.

We are too ready to turn to these items to otherise what we perceived to be "not normal", and in the process, legitimise these items, our subscription to and relationship with these items, as well as our personal moral and ideological positions.

We turn to EXTERNAL tools to explain why OTHER people are different - and there thus are at least two reasons to be distracted from evaluating ourselves and our means of judgement.

Seriously, some boys know they want to be girls, and some girls know they want to be boys. So who are we to say they are confused when they already know who they are and who they should be?

Less likely but not unreal, there are boys and girls who simply are not comfortable in their own clothes and skin, and do not necessarily identify with the opposite sex. Do we rope in experts and call these kids confused or crazy? Do we aim to help these kids with the view to make them "normal" as how we want them to be?

How are "gender dysphoric" school kids helped at the school level, by peers, counsellors, teachers and principals?

Kids are smart little people. They know that something is wrong when they see the "doctor" too often. Some might feel that they are perfectly fine, but people are telling them they are sick or wrong or immoral. Others might internalise the views of other "experts" and feel depressed and/or guilty.

Mental and emotional wellness are important areas to look at in a schoolchild's development. There is always the possibility of a scenario in which an academically talented child with "gender dysphoria" and related social(isation) problems may lose interest in school and lessons, and either drop out or discontinue further studies.

I hope MOE already has plans to empower "gender dysphoric" students (as much as I hate those words). (By the way, this hope reminds me of a reading of Amartya Sen's Capabilities Approach in the context of empowering young queer/questioning children... erm, just read it la! There is a Wikipedia entry on it)

Another factor that has impact on employment is administration (assignment of sex). There are pre- and non-operative transmen and transwomen Singaporeans whose sex are still legally stated as their birth-assigned sex.

Given medicine and psychiatry's influence on policy, it would be great it medical and psychiatric experts, along with lawyers and transgender Singaporeans, can whisper in the ears of the establishment and make concessions for the (re)assignment of sex for pre- and non-operative transmen and transwomen Singaporeans.

Concessions have to be made in such a phallocentric establishment. Penis = male = man = must be masculine = must love women. No penis = female = woman = must be feminine = must love men. It is this binary logic that is prejudicial against transsexual Singaporeans, and more so for pre- and non-operative transpeople. Even the mainstream media has continued to identify pre- and non-operative transsexual persons wrongly. Even though pre-/non-operative transmen and transwomen identify themselves as male and female respectively, the media will reassigned them as female and male, based on their biological status. Yes, Singapore Press Holdings journalists are also gender experts. This thinking is in every way, very cock.

At the societal level, there is the perception that (transition-seeking) transsexuals (with hormones + with or without surgical intervention) are transvestites, which is a medical term for fetishistic cross-dressers. And the convenient moral substitute for this would be "pervert". To coat it with a layer of demonisation syrup, let's call it "sex/sexual pervert". Lump it with the mythical child-predators that are gay men. Wrap them all together and believe that gay men are just women inside who want to love men, so they cross-dress. That is what MANY MANY Singaporeans believe, regardless of gender, race, language, religion, education, etc.

100 years ago in 1910, it has already been proven that tranvestism is different from homosexuality. In 1923, studies have suggested that transsexuals are different from transvestites and homosexuals. I think Singaporeans should play some catch up. In fact, in Secondary 3 or 4, I won a monetary bet with a classmate who kept arguing with me the definition of "transvestite" - he believed it referred to someone who changes sex but I was telling him it was with regards to cross-dressing but with eroticism. See, Ridzwan? I told you so! (And they say men can forget things. I still remember)

What problematised tranvestism is that not all who cross-dressed derived sexual and/or erotic pleasure. Furthermore, not all those who cross-dress are homogeneous in terms of sexual orientation - so there is no way we can associate transsexuals with transvestites and homosexuals. That is of course, when you have a gay (MSM) transman who derives erotic pleasure dressing up as a woman, or a lesbian transwoman who derives erotic pleasure dressing up as a man.

People derive pleasure different. Just look at Steve Chia and the pictures he took. Who are we to judge?

It is because of this general gross misunderstanding and misconception of transpeople that creates inertia at the administrative level to assign transpeople their respective sex and gender. I am not even talking about male women and female men walking the streets of Singapore (although that would be an ideal situation for gender and sexual diversity and equality).

Perverts who are likely to commit crimes (sociologists and deviance theorists will scold me for this statement) are everywhere, and not confined to any community. A male-bodied person in transition, who wears culturally feminine clothes, is not a pervert. The transpeople I have met are honest people who (want to) earn an honest living. They definitely do not prey on your children, or try to convert you to their lifestyle. I do not have gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people coming to my doorstep on weekends to get me interested in adopting a new gender identity or sexuality.

Even "allies" of transpeople hold some myths themselves. For example, there is the belief that transpeople are overcompensating, reproducing stereotypes, trying to seize the privileges associated with a particular sex. But remember this, transpeople exist in the same social context and cultural logic as we do (argued time and again by activists and theorists). None of them like to be harassed, and I believe most want assimilation and a normal life (by most people's standards).

Not only do the transpeople aim to assimilate (passing is one way), they also have to deal with the medical aspects (specifically hormonal) of it. It is not just wearing clothes and looking the part in this gender circus. That is what many people take for granted.

The government should revise the policy on sex (re)assignment at the administrative level, and come up with simpler, transparent and shorter procedures that are favourable towards pre- and non-operative transsexual Singaporeans. It is unfortunate that the existence of transsexuals is legitimised by the authority of medicine and psychiatry, but if this is going to be the terms and conditions of the gender regime for the moment, I believe these authorities should also urge the government to revise the policy.

Having that "female" or "male" on your official identification papers is something most of us take for granted, but for others, it means something to them. So if we are meritocratic and fair to all, I don't see why we shouldn't start making administrative changes and allow pre- and non-operative transsexual Singaporeans have their respective sexes/genders officialised.

These are a few factors that affect the confidence and capacity of job-seeking transgender Singaporeans. This is a rice bowl issue, and we should be discussing sexual minorities and their rights to fair employment. And to move towards fair employment practices (we are always moving, because there's a lot to improve), we need many changes at different levels of society and from different stakeholders.

Transgender Singaporeans may form a minority, but the government should look at the Constitution again, and do what is necessary to protect them. Society will always be a lot slower in changing its general attitude towards transgender Singaporeans, so it is up to employers and the government to take some control, and introduce measures, standards, practices and policies are favour a fairer employment scenario for the T's.

add: I think REACH would be a good avenue to make suggestions. For the past 3 years, I have been sending letters to the Straits Times (I've sent 13 letters so far this year, and had only 2-3 sentences published. The paper simply does not want to carry the message of respect and recognition for LGBT Singaporeans). It's time to branch out to REACH. I can imagine the civil/public servants thinking when they see my email, "Not this fucking psycho again."

If you believe some things can change, and have suggestions, do write to the press and REACH too. Your words might go further and reach more people than you think. If you have a computer, an internet connection, an idea to help Singaporeans, feel free to engage these channels.

We need LGBT role models

2010-09-13T13:08:00.004+08:00

The LGBT community in Singapore needs role models. (edit: My friends have pointed out to me the inaccuracy of this. I apologise for the lack of clarity. I intend to mean "more prominent role models who can reach within and beyond the community" as this post will argue.)

So what if we have straight allies or queer-affirming politicians? So what if LGBT Singaporeans eventually reach a milestone in which most are free from physical, emotional, legal and moral harassment?

In light of the news of Dr Stuart Koe facing drug possession charges, homophobic Singaporeans will find it easier to devalue and trivialise the gay community, never mind how an individual like him has spent the past decade raising LGBT awareness and advocating sexual minority rights, among other things.

As minorities, sexual minorities or minorities in opinion, you/we do not have the luxury of media blackouts/gags to protect your/our already perceived poor reputations. The media, conservative politicians and homophobic/transphobic bigots have long defined what LGBT Singaporeans are and should be, without the participation of LGBT stakeholders themselves.

Worse, the conditions for LGBT Singaporean participation in defining and distinguishing the community are not favourable. They face the prospect of further harrassment, job loss, familial and social ostracism, and these repercussions are informed by the media, conservative politicians and homophobic/transphobic bigots. It is a cycle of queer oppression that must be broken.

STOP THIS BULLSHIT. STOP THIS IGNORANCE.

At the same time, I argue the need for LGBT Singaporean role models. I am absolutely sure that there are many successful high profile Singaporeans who have contributed to nation, society and economy, who are also gay or lesbian. There is no denying LGBT Singaporeans are as hardworking and talented as heterosexually-identified Singaporeans.

No thanks to the mainstream media, conservative politicians, homophobic/transphobic bigots and 2004 Balaji Sadasivan types, LGBT Singaporeans are made out to be crooks, criminals, sexual predators, druggies, paedophiles, immoral and diseased. And all these are done without the participation of LGBT Singaporeans themselves.

Imagine a scenario where Christian people are making representations on behalf of Muslim people, but without the participation of Muslim people. How fair is that?

Different people need to be heard. And with regards to LGBT Singaporeans, we need LGBT role models and high profile figures, born and bred in Singapore, who have sweated and bled for Singapore, to speak up.

These are the people who have accumulated enough wealth and savings, built a strong social and familial network, enough to see them through whatever backlash should they come out. Ordinary LGBT Singaporeans already fear the professional backlash should they come out. They risk losing their jobs and livelihood for being who they are.

We cannot do with "open secrets" and people who are just "out" within the community. If Singaporean sexual minorities want rights, we need to connect with folks outside the community.

There will be straight Singaporeans who will support the "out" high profile LGBT ones. There will also be those who will express indifference at sexuality, which is indicative that they will not be readily engaging in hate and fear-mongering against LGBT folks.

And for the high profile closeted LGBT Singaporeans to come out, they need not fear the repercussions, as it will go to show how selfish, intolerant and ignorant their "new" detractors are. You might lose friends, family and jobs, but also gain some.

If you feel that most of your life has been a challenge, but through sheer hard work and perseverance, you made it to where you are, you should be sharing your story. If you genuinely feel that future generations of LGBT Singaporeans do not deserve to go through the problems you had gone through as a queer/questioning person, do something for them.

Your silence is only complicit in the vicious cycle of homophobia.

Ever so often, in the community's discussion on sexual minority rights, there will be views that LGBT Singaporeans should come out of the closet.

I personally feel that not all LGBT Singaporeans can come out, or if so, have the capacity and resources to deal with the repercussions. This is why I believe successful and high profile LGBT Singaporeans should use their privileges to do so.

A community cannot help itself if the privileged stratum within it remains silent and inactive.

Just do it.

"I'm gay/lesbian. This is my story. Other gay and lesbian Singaporeans do not deserve the treatment they are getting today. Feel free to spend your time judging me, but I ask you, what are you going to do for your respective communities? What are you going to do to help gay and lesbian Singaporeans?"

"I'm trans. This is my story. Other transgender Singaporeans share the same problems as I have, some more, some less. I worked hard to earn your respect. But what is it about you that makes you reluctant in respecting and giving credit to others?"

Successful and high profile LGBT Singaporeans (in the closet) are more likely to enjoy media attention than your average closeted air-conditioner repairman. You use your position of privilege and success to do what is right, not right for yourself, but what is right for others who have and will suffer like you do or once did, but didn't have the capacity to speak up.

In an environment where LGBT Singaporeans remain oppressed, trivialised, infantilised and demonised, the silence of successful high profile LGBT Singaporeans does not help one bit.

Within the community, we have activists, social workers, academics/researchers, opinion leaders and respected figures who contribute to the wellness and enrichment of the group. The community also needs role models, not only to inspire the community, but to engage in dialogue with people outside it - to ask for and establish a more egalitarian position in society for all LGBT Singaporeans.

My message to the privileged, the successful and the high profile (closeted) LGBT Singaporeans: Please step forward and do something right.

Charged for drug possession and repercussions

2010-09-10T13:00:00.007+08:00

Reported in the wee hours of Friday, September 10, 2010, Dr Stuart Koe was charged in court on Wednesday for drug possession.

Here are the 2 articles:

Channel NewsAsia: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1080239/1/.html (retrieved Sep 10, 1pm)
Gay portal CEO and founder charged in court with drug possession
By Ong Dai Lin and Sharon See | Posted: 10 September 2010 0024 hrs

SINGAPORE : Chief executive and founder of a gay web portal, Stuart Koe was charged in court for drug possession on Wednesday.

The 38-year-old Singaporean was charged with possessing 0.01 gramme of methamphetamine and utensils used in drug consumption.

The drug and items were found in a flat in Holland Avenue on May 27 this year.

For these charges, he faces a combined jail term of up to 13 years, or a maximum fine of $30,000, or both.

Koe could not be contacted for comments. - CNA /ls

Today online: http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC100910-0000070/Fridae,com-founder-charged-with-drug-possession (retrieved Sep 10, 1pm)
Fridae.com founder charged with drug possession
by Ong Dai Lin

Chief executive and founder of lifestyle portal Fridae.com, Dr Stuart Koe, was charged in court on Wednesday with possessing 0.01 gram of methamphetamine.

The 38-year-old Singaporean was also charged with possessing utensils used in drug consumption like a plastic dropper and an empty straw that was stained with methamphetamine.

The drug and utensils were found in a flat in Holland Avenue on May 27 at 12.55am.

Dr Koe faces a jail term of up to 10 years or a maximum fine of $20,000 or both on the charge of drug possession.

On the other charge, he can be jailed up to three years or fined up to $10,000 or both.

Dr Koe told the court that he will claim trial and will be engaging a lawyer.
ONG DAI LIN

The Straits Times:
Gay website's founder faces drug charges (Sep 11, 2010)
The founder of gay website Fridae.com has been charged with drug possession.

Stuart Koe, 38, was charged in court on Wednesday with possessing 0.01g of Ice.

He was also accused of having utensils - an empty plastic dropper and an empty straw allegedly stained with the drug - which are commonly used to help consume Ice.

The evidence was allegedly found in Koe's possession, at a Holland Avenue flat in the early morning of May 27. It is not clear if the flat belonged to him or someone else.

Koe is currently on bail of $10,000.

He founded Fridae.com, an online website for the gay community, in March 2001 and is also its chief executive officer. The website features news, lifestyle recommendations and personal listings.

Koe has also been a activist for gay rights. In October 2007, he had tried to petition Parliament to make it legal for gays to have sex with each other, but failed to get the particular section of the Penal Code repealed.

Ice, which is the second most commonly abused drug here after heroin, usually comes in a crystalline form and is snorted, injected or smoked.

It is consumed as a party drug as it increases libido and gives the user a rush, among many things, even if taken in small doses.

But in high doses, it can cause strokes, heart attacks and brain damage. It is also highly addictive.

If convicted of drug possession, Koe faces a jail term of up to 10 years, a fine of not more than $20,000, or both.

For the charge of possessing drug-related utensils, he could be jailed up to three years, fined up to $10,000, or both, if found guilty.

Ted Chen

Meth (or speed) is illegal in Singapore. http://www.cnb.gov.sg/drugs/bannedsubstance/methamphetamine.aspx

This news is not going to help public perception of gay people in Singapore, with reports that Koe is the CEO of Fridae.com, a "gay web portal" (reported by CNA). Moreover, given his high profile status, the media has to report his background as such.

For many years, the media (in particular the Straits Times) have reported LGBT people in relation to sex, paedophelic and drug crimes, plus sexually transmitted diseases (for gay men), violence, arson and suicide (for lesbian women), diseases (for bisexual people), and medical and psychiatric norms, plus light-hearted and humorous "soft news" (for transgender people).

The layperson, fed on a diet of these particular LGBT representations will be led to believe that LGBT people are essentially insane, immoral, violent, trivial, sex-crazed, diseased, susceptible to crime, and can be laughed at.

Meth is a stimulant which has properties that, among other effects, heighten sexual pleasure. Layperson (normally homophobic and/or ignorant) understanding of gay people is more than often dominated by the discourse and imagination of sex, because that is basically the difference between self-identified heterosexuals and homosexuals - sexual preference.

These reports cannot confirm that for an act of indiscretion, that all gay people use drugs. It is a ridiculous generalisation derived from a perceived association (of gay men and drugs).

Whatever readers may want to infer, it has to be clear that drug possession and use are in no way, associated with sexual orientation.

And it is also important to note that Koe will be claiming trial, and that he remains innocent until a decision has been made by the Court.

Sam cooks... for his mum

2010-09-09T19:45:00.000+08:00

It is my third time cooking green curry chicken, and I decided to cook a little more for my mum. This is probably the first time I cooked a meal for her. A very simple meal if I may say so.

Given she eats in small portions, I have decided to boil a prawn, a sotong ball and a piece of scallop for her. And as for the curry, I got her a decent portion of chicken (4 pieces), a couple of baby carrots and lovely green curry.
Here's the food (top) and here it is packed (bottom):
Well, the green curry chicken journey has been a rocky one thus far. The first attempt was too spicy. The second one (with butter) was too creamy and the wife said she would have puked if she had a second scoop of it. This time, I used a little water to prevent it from being too creamy.

Ingredients (serving 3): 2-3 tea spoons of green curry paste (a little goes a long way), 400ml of coconut milk (it says "low fat", I say, "yeah rrrrrright!"), cinnamon sugar, oil, onions, garlic, parsley, basil, curry leaves. Don't forget the seasoned chicken.

My mum used to cook red curry chicken once in a while (she uses yoghurt), and she told me she once cooked the curry so long that the chicken wing was fucked up. Okay, she didn't say "fucked up", but rather, the meat on the chicken wing became very loose. She felt really disappointed (she's very hard on herself at times), but surprisingly the compliments came flooding in.

I guess it is alright if chicken wings disintegrate in the curry. But I would prefer the chicken thighs and drumsticks not to meet the same fate. Thanks to my social science and humanities training from the increasingly overpopulated global educational institution that is the National University of Singapore, I treat curry not as curry, but as gravy. It is quite a paradigm shift for an amateur cook, you know!

Well, I began by frying (in chronological order after adding oil) onions, garlic, curry paste, curry leaves, and then the chicken thigh bits. The chicken should be 3/4 fried/cooked. Later, the chicken got some coconut milk bukakae (200ml). Stir stir stir and recite a few lines from Macbeth.

While I continued stirring, I added in another 200ml of coconut milk. I realised I tend to stir in a clockwise manner, perhaps I was thinking about doing a backhand.

Next, evacuate the chicken! Or if you prefer another noun, withdraw! Put it one corner and let it relax. Continue to cook the curry with whatever (already) boiled potatoes and carrots you have. Remember later to use the boiled water and splash it at your pesky neighbour's front door, you know, the one who threw lots of shit on your air-conditioner compressor, including that used sanitary pad? You could mix some urine and other human waste material with the boiled water too, but be sure to wash the pot really thoroughly after that, otherwise you'll get the kind of bacteria that is infesting Pasir Ris beach.

When you are ready to serve the curry. Pour the curry over the chicken and serve it!

I have always looked forward to cooking for my mum. You know, there are only a very small number of people in this world, to whom you will never in your lifetime be able to fully reciprocate whatever they have done for you.

I mean, she has cooked soups, rice meals, fried rice, instant noodles, not-so-instant noodles, western meals, stews, also made sandwiches, plus simple desserts, etc. She has also got burnt, scalded and cut many times doing so too. But now, she doesn't cook because it's only my dad and her and both of them don't really eat that much.

And the verdict is in. My mum says the dinner was really good. Ah, warms my heart. Now that is outstanding, isn't it?

A sociology (and textual anlaysis) of Singaporean complaining

2010-09-08T12:50:00.002+08:00

Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong is right about one thing, that Singaporeans do complain. At least that was what he was suggesting when he reportedly said "It is important that we do not complain too much when we can’t get the house that we want, we can’t get the carpark that we want, when the MRT trains are a little crowded."

And many Singaporean netizens have over the past couple of days, jumped on him like monkeys on his back, which interestingly reflects their own monkey-on-their-back issue. Apparently, it appears that most netizens have either evolved to acquire a sociological imagination and abilities to critically analyse texts and discourses, or are probably just too cynical and anti-PAP.

Whichever the case, ordinary Singaporeans (or lesser mortals according to Charles Chong) and the People's Action Party have an interesting relationship. The use of rhetoric, whether on the part of certain citizens criticising the government, or on the part of the PAP government using vague political, social and/or moral narratives to legitimise itself, figures greatly in how both go about doing their business.

I read Goh to be suggesting that some/most Singaporeans are self-serving and selfish. Singaporeans want convenience and efficiency, plus comfort. Singaporeans want more incentives, and it appears they demand spurs and rewards so they can remain motivated.

In my limited experience, which appears to parallel Goh's views, there are Singaporean residents in HDB flats who frame the upgrading works and amenities in their residential areas in terms of who much these items will increase the value of their flats. The value of one's flat is prioritised before the view that the amenities can actually benefit children and the elderly, for instance.

That said, when people criticise the PAP government, how many of them actually care about improving Singapore? For those who don't, we can see that the use of critical rhetoric masks the reality that there exists a self-serving spirit beneath it.

With regards to Goh, he also uses rhetoric to masks the shortcomings of the government. Every government has its own set of shortcomings, because they are commonly rigid, inflexible and ill-adapted to change. The PAP government has institutionalised more dynamic communications and feedback channels (like REACH) and are constantly on the look out to solicit young men and women for tea, and sexually groom them for politics with the PAP. Hey, what is political renewal without reproduction and the insemination of political doctrine into the politically virginal minds of young Singaporeans, huh?

One rhetorical device and strategy is externalisation. The PAP government has learned to externalise its problems and shortcomings to the citizenry. Look at Wong Kan Seng's narrative on security when Mas Selamat escaped from the Internal Security Department. Wong said that we are all complacent, suggesting that ordinary Singaporeans too are complicit in the government's secret police security lapses.

Externalisation is not merely the shifting of blame, but rather, its decentralisation. It is interesting to note that a centralised authority in the form of the government has time and again engaged in the decentralisation of blame. Why? Because they have the power (and the media) to do it. DUH?!

Another rhetorical device and strategy is distraction. While externalisation of blame also serves as a distraction, this strategy is particularly useful for many governments. The problems the public identifies are reconstituted by the government as by-products of a good government. Look at the Mas Selamat escape case again, when the issue of complacency (a bad thing) is subsumed under the narrative of "an overly successful government and civil service". So these are the concessions made to distract Singaporeans and the PAP government from actually addressing the problem.

Enough of textual and discursive analysis, sociologists won't like that kind of crap. Now let us look at the sociological concept of rationalisation (Max Weber and George Ritzer).

What we are experiencing today are symptomatic of Singapore's rapid industrialisation, economic development and (single-party government) authoritarianism. Even today, we are constantly bombarded with rhetoric (I can never stray too far away from textual analysis, huh? Sorry!!!) such as "productivity", "survival", "progress", "viability" and "renewal".

Sociologically, this is how we rationalise. There are structures and institutions in place that facilitate this kind of rationalisation, particularly economic rationalisation. People, institutions and government all think the same way, for instance "how to survive, how to progress and how to sustain".

In line with the dirty dirty modernisation thesis, Singaporeans appear to be more "rational" (economically rational, that is) as we rapidly modernise (whatever that actually means). Ritzer, in studying McDonald's, identifies the four main components of McDonaldisation, which is basically a form of corporatised economic rationalisation: Efficiency, predictability, calculability and control. For the Singaporean layperson, it's just "productivity" la.

We want minimal input to derive the maximum output. We want maximum and optimal results. These are symptoms of capitalism. However, to contextualise it, capitalism is not merely the ailment of many a Singaporean; the PAP government is complicit.

Capitalism flows rather freely through authoritarian structures. For example, businesses find lesser civil resistance in authoritarian countries. At the same time, authoritarian governments can further legitimise their political power through their economic leadership, never mind if their social and moral leadership alone do not justify their political position. When the PAP government continually create jobs and help Singaporeans in the economic domain, it will remain in power.

The issue of "bread and butter", a staple in the General Elections discourse, is also symptomatic of our rapid modernisation and industrialisation. The emphasis on professional career, income, savings and survivability is continually made and ingrained in the Singaporean psyche, such that it would be a cognitive stretch to imagine any other path (just like when you are trapped in one religious doctrine).

As a result, Singaporeans think in a certain way that gives the impression they are selfish and self-serving. They appear to measure things according to economic worth, sustainability, viability and survivability. As Singaporeans do not exist in a social, political and economic vacuum, we need to consider the historical and political domains of government and governance that exert a great influence in how Singaporeans rationalise, or rather how Singaporeans prefer economic rationalisation.

If we said the PAP government is the main culprit (and facilitator) for this Singaporean economic rationalisation, it is then responsible for many social, economic and political phenomena we are experiencing today.

Low birth rates: It is not economically rational to marry and have more babies. Let us just call it the Lee Kuan Yew problem.

Materialism and (political) apathy: It is not economically rational to join politics, because there are mechanisms in place by the PAP government to bring great harm to your professional and political career. You can be a socialist and then be accused to be a Marxist or Communist and can be detained for a very long time. These are not economically viable decisions. Growing materialism, which is reflective of capitalist and consumerist culture, serves as a useful distraction from politics and the political and moral shortcomings and atrocities the PAP government has committed over the years. For example, the middle-class aunty would be thinking about what brand of handbag she would be getting at the mall rather than the limitations of Medisave, or the middle-to-upper-class man would be thinking about which sportscar bests compensates for his short penis rather than HDB policies or transparency for that matter.

Kiasu mentality: The "me first" is an economically rational attitude. Giving way is not rational, and graciousness is not rational, unless you derive sufficient karmic points to offset any "costs" (which in turn constitutes economic rationalisation).

The problems Singaporeans face have social, economic and political dimensions to them. Saying that Singaporeans complain too much, internalises and individualises the problem, absolving complicit parties (like the government) of responsibility.

In the process of internalising and individualising problems that have social and political dimensions, the PAP government effectively infantilises and trivialises Singaporeans. We are petty cry-babies whose views do not really matter.

And since we are so described (or made out to be), the PAP government believes that with symbolic gestures, the citizenry can be placated and hence controlled. For instance, the banning of 100 undesirable websites, the retention of Section 377a of the Penal Code and the occasional Yusof Ishaks they slip into our bank and CPF accounts.

Complaints are not solely borne out of self-serving purposes, but constitute reactions to the policies in the domain of governance and politics. The demand for efficiency and comfort appears on the surface to represent selfish interests, but on another level reflects the growing subscription to the PAP government's idea of economic rationalisation.

The PAP government has facilitated, moulded and created an environment in which economic rationalisation thrives and is encouraged, such that complaints in the vein of economic rationality appear to be functional to the system and agenda of political (and economic) institution that is the PAP.

However, the government and those unaffected by complaints see these complaints as isolated and probably malicious, of little social and political relevance and significance, when in fact, there are economic and political forces that coerce Singaporeans to think and feel a certain way.

Along the way, the government has given us the rhetoric of meritocracy to explain our existence and stratification, which basically draws attention away from the structural and political influences no the division and inequality of Singapore society. Meritocracy is like "you are what you eat", but more like "you are how you work and have worked".

However, meritocracy does not account for how different Singaporeans start off at different starting points, socio-economically, cognitively, physiologically, biologically, emotionally, etc. It merely fits in with the discourse of economic rationality and the good old 1970s Singaporean industrialist spirit. Perhaps only the rich and successful get to espouse the values and relevance meritocracy. But I have yet to hear what believers in meritocracy have to say about handicapped people, transgendered people, ethnic minorities and so on.

This economic rationalisation is going to cripple Singapore, because we will end up framing everything in terms of viability, survivability, progress, development and so on. There are things in life that cannot be measured by these. At the same time, our preoccupation with these will also affect us politically, as there is increasing attention on how we as units can survive and prosper, at the expense of larger and wider political and social issues, not that the PAP would mind.

However, we are continually being kept, or rather, coerced into remaining in this form of rationalisation. Well, some of us are willing prisoners in this iron cage. For others, they are so intricately entwined in the economic system the PAP government has created and allowed to fester, that they become politically docile. Perhaps they have been "brought in" and "tamed" (politically tamed).

That is why the government has time and again frowned upon complaints, and encouraged suggestions for solutions, augmenting the rules of the political game for their benefit. But even then, we wonder whether these suggestions have been taken up.

Public and civil servants, and people in the know of how bureaucracy works, have once in a while scoff at citizens, thinking that citizens do not know anything about how the government works, hinting at their ignorance and susceptibility to complain. But they are the ones who should be questioning "why are they working like that?" and the implications on the very people they pledged to serve in the first place. However, in this economic rationalisation, serving citizens is secondary, because what is more important is to "do your job and earn your pay".

It is ironic that a government that is trying to appear compassionate and promote citizen interaction/dialogue, is itself afraid of feedback. In fact, it trivialises most feedback as complaints and refers to it as a social process, rather than a social reaction to its political shortcomings.