Just because I have not bothered with the mainstream media's coverage of these elections, does not mean I have not been reading some of our esteemedblogs on the topic.
A couple of friends attended the same rally pictured, unfortunately I was overseas so was unable to join and witness the event. After hearing their accounts and seeing the pictures and other eyewitness accounts, I really wish I could have been there. I have been witness to election rallies in other countries, but never in Singapore.
From what I've gathered the Worker's Party seems to have made some significant strides in presenting themselves as a group of forward-looking politicians. Unfortunately, an 'innocent mistake' has handed ample ammo to their competition to constantly call for James Gomez to step down. A most disingenious request considering that their first salvo was to ask for Gomez to apologise, after he did so, it was escalated to a call for him to step down. [Aside: Maybe Gomez should have gone whole hog and made a S$388million 'honest mistake' - nobody would question his integrity then!]
Colour me confused - but I'm quite sure that's what the elections are for. Gomez's competency for office will be for the people to decide - it is highly obnoxious to for candidates to demand their competition to step down. It is not for them to decide - it is for US to. They pulled the same stunt during the Presidential elections - I really think the whole lot of them need to sit through remedial classes in civics and a reminder about what elections are to achieve. Let the people speak.
There will be no election season commentary because yours truly is sickened. If my ward is contested (unlikely but who knows), I am going away for a holiday because I cannot bring myself to participate in the farce.
Mindef is going back to the basics in its policy of allowing deferments from National Service for school leavers.
Starting December last year, no more deferments are allowed for those who want to pursue a university degree, be it local or overseas.
Those pursuing basic qualifications like 'A' levels, polytechnic diploma or below, are still allowed to apply for deferment under certain criteria.
Male Singaporeans begin their National Service at the earliest opportunity once they turn 18 years old.
But Mindef has been granting deferments to certain categories, like those starting full-time study before 18 years old in the case of local courses and before 17-1/2 years old for overseas courses.
Deferment has also been granted for those pursuing 'A' level and polytechnic diploma courses if a person is able to start the course before he turns 19 as at January 1 of the year the course commences.
But now Mindef has decided to rationalise its deferment policy based on operational needs and the primary goal of National Service.
Speaking in parliament, Second Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen said: "In rationalising our policy, it is understood that NS is a sacrifice which may mean that Singaporeans would have to defer their university studies till after they have completed their National Service.
"We applied the principle of universality, equity to ensure that everyone within the same cohort receives the more or less the same treatment in allowing them to attain their educational qualifications."
Dr Ng went on to say: "Educational opportunities have expanded exponentially in the past few years. We now have a proliferation of institutions with a variety of modules in Singapore.
"New compressed integrated courses have also been introduced, so that students could theoretically start anytime within the year.
"The opportunities to study abroad and at different times of the year have also increased as Singaporeans have become more affluent. Many more Singaporeans would be able to start universities or other courses before ages 17-1/2 abroad or 18 locally. It is therefore no longer tenable to grant deferments based on past criteria."
"Therefore, Mindef will only grant deferment for pre-enlistees to gain their basic educational qualifications of 'A' levels, polytechnic diploma, or below. This is reasonable as most of our 18-year-old NS enlistees would either have completed their basic qualification programme or are about to complete it," Dr Ng said.
"As university degrees are considered higher educational qualifications, deferments for university studies will no longer be allowed. This new policy for deferments has been in place from the end of last year," he added.
As for those who would want to pursue their university education overseas, the Defence Ministry says the vast majority would not be affected by the changes to the deferment policy.
Under the old policy, less than a 100 a year were granted deferment for university studies.
Another group to benefit from the new policy are those enrolled in the Institute of Technical Education.
They can now proceed to study for their polytechnic diploma before they enlist.
This is provided they are below 20 years old as at January 1 of the year their course begins.
Mindef has also decided to allow in-service disruption for national servicemen with ITE qualifications to pursue their polytechnic diploma course - a basic educational qualification - if they meet the specified criteria.
Close to 500 NSF men are expected to benefit from this change.
Besides ensuring a fighting-fit army, Mindef has also kept the SAF up-to-date with the latest technology like the pocket-sized portable, remote-controlled surveillance ball - which is equipped with cameras, microphones, sensors - and other equipment.
The surveillance ball can be rolled or tossed into target areas for information gathering without putting servicemen in physical danger.
Very weird, Technorati picked up a link to my blog from Global Voices Online, yet I'm utterly unable to find any reference on the website itself. I know Technorati is not the most reliable - it hasn't picked up the link backs from quite a number of blogs and if not for StatCounter listing referral pages, I wouldn't have a clue about the blogs out there that have been linking to me.
Now missing a link is understandable, but picking up a reference that can't be found is really rather bizarre. Unless it was there but got deleted. If so, harrumph! Oh but the dork in me is secretly pleased....
Which reminds me - I really need to work on the layout and create a blogroll. The current design makes me eyes bleed.
Singapore coming of age in the 1950s means that now are the years where we see more and more political pioneers take their stories with them to the grave: Ong Teng Cheong, Wee Kim Wee, Devan Nair, just to name those from the past year. In following the passing of S. Rajaratnam on the news, I am again pained by how much of Singapore's founding and political history disappears with each death.
As it is, so much of what has happened in the past risks appearing to never have happened at all. I have a neighbour who stops by to chat with my parents a couple of times a year, coinciding with the times where his family's rambutan tree bears copious fruit. His story is like many in Singapore who walked through the gates of NanyangUniversity, it is a story that is passed from parents to children to grandchildren, but it is not a story that will be a documented part of Singapore's history. Unless you count the sanitised version that smites alumni and defenders of the real NanTah story.
According to the press, MP Irene Ng is working on a biography of Rajaratnam, but a commissioned book written long after the man had lost his mind is not quite the same. Maybe I'll be wrong, and I'd be glad if the resultant book is anything but another affirmation of every that went right. No country matures without rebellious, conflict-ridden years. It should not be whitewashed and Disney-fied. Struggles are what they are, the loss of published differing accounts and dissenting voices is a disservice to the future generations of Singaporeans.
I only hope that one day, we will see books written by those who were caught on the other side of the political struggle - not just perspectives from opposition parties like Barisan Socialis or The Worker's Party, but also from those who were on the losing side of internal ideological differences within the PAP. The fear that the governing party should never show dissent or cracks (as evinced even today through the wielding of the party whip and the absence of any proper debate whatsoever in Parliament) is a misplaced and increasingly dangerous one. Today's citizens aren't looking to the government for a show of solidarity and strength in tumultuous times. They want evidence that policies and decisions are made with a critical assessment of data and ample consideration of the desires, needs, and interests of Singaporeans. Serving up a blank wall of candidates parroting the official party line is patronising. Even if the decision is the right one, Singaporeans have no idea how the powers arrive at their decisions. For all the efforts in participatory governance through official feedback channels, there is scant evidence that it is anything more than a cosmetic application of openess.
Knowing what makes Singapore tick shouldn't be limited to party cadres. It shouldn't be a tale told just by one man. It is not the priviledge of one man, family, or party. Yet as time passes, the fate of Singapore's history hangs increasingly in the balance.
Let's hope it isn't too late to salvage the situation.
It's been quite a few months since my last post, and trust me, there have been plenty of blog fodder bouncing around in my head. Unfortunately, the process of gathering material for an entry involves reading the ST and also opinions on the web. And I find myself increasingly at odds with the prevailing 'values' of the average Singaporean.
That means that the only opinion I end up with is a frustrated 'you lot are fucking edjits!!!11!1' and I lose all patience to write anything coherent. Ranting might be fun but it's not much good in discourse. There's plenty of baseless (and manufactured) ranting out there in the blogosphere. No need for another one.
Then I got to thinking. Am I really that different from the average resident or citizen? I don't expect to be in sync with everyone, but why is it that I always feel absolutely suffocated by the overt parochialism and moral grandstanding in Singapore? Maybe it's my mistake to assume that a shiny, modern, west-emulating country like Singapore would be a little more open-minded and savvy about sociocultural-economic-political issues. Instead I end up slack-jawed more often than I can count.
I risk sounding like an elitist prig when I say this, but then I am an elitist prig, so. I don't mind it so much hearing less than 'enlightened' views from certain segments of the population. After all I attribute my libertarian tendencies to much too many years spent living in the US and Europe and sparring with liberals and conservatives alike. I reserve my wrath for those who have been educated abroad, those who have worked and travelled overseas extensively. Maybe some people are just born conservative, and that being exposed to western 'decadence' only reinforces their own 'asian values' to the point of becoming most ignorant and fundamentalist in their views.
Or maybe I am the problem, how can moral relativism be a value?
Anyway, stay tuned. I have opinions on Singapore blogs, NKF and Melvyn Tan that I'm actually dying to blog about. A little late to the game, but hopefully not too late.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow, Creeps in this petty pace from day to day, To the last syllable of recorded time; And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow; a poor player, That struts and frets his hour upon the stage, And then is heard no more: it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing. --From Macbeth (V, v, 19)
There is much gnashing of teeth these days over the linking 'policy' of Tomorrow.sg. The indignant bash the editors for being rude in not asking for permission to link to blogs, the inured post an image declaring themselves off-limits to Tomorrow.sg, and the defenders blast all and sundry for being clueless to the ways of the internet.
Who is right? Who's wrong?
Frankly, I think the idea of asking permission before linking to be utter rubbish. It's not about nettiquette or blogiquette or David Arquette. Public posts, public domain, freedom to share. Those claiming copyright or ownership are rather misplaced in their anger, a link and brief quote neither violates copyright nor infringes upon ownership. But I'll leave those arguments for those better qualified to quote from relevant statutes.
That said, why does Tomorrow.sg incur such negative vibes from various corners? Some I can dismiss, others not so much. A real life friend got linked once, and though he was not keen on the attention and would have preferred not to have been linked, he, like me, believed fundamentally that our blogs, once in public domain, are free to be linked. But something sits funny nonetheless.
So why the discomfort? Why should Tomorrow.sg be subject to OB markers? Bloggers put up 'Tomorrow not free lah' images, but not for other blogs or aggregators and such. What is driving this anti-Tomorrow.sg sentiment?
Some have pointed to the attitudes and behaviours of the editors, and while I think some could do with a quick course in PR, I believe there is something larger at work.
One thing that we cannot change is how small Singapore is. Someone invariably knows another, who is the cousin twice removed who frequents the same gym or shares the same piano teacher or shops at the same NTUC outlet. For many, publicity within the Singapore community is a negative, not necessarily because of the content of one's blog, but rather born of a desire not to be the fodder for talk and gossip amongst people that they may know. Coupled with the local press' recent penchance for writing about blogs, there is a risk of being found out in a big way.
Some have used the analogy that blogging is like walking around in the public naked, attention is inevitable and cries for privacy are misguided. I quite disagree. Blogs like Xiaxue's or SPG's are about walking around naked. But most bloggers are just people walking along the street or sitting at an outdoor cafe. Their presence in the public is not necessarily an invitation to be made into a focus of attention.
One of the beauties of blogging is the sheer variety of blogs out there, be they personal, political, linkdumps, tech-oriented, group blogs, fiction, etc. But increasingly the attention and pressure coming from Tomorrow.sg is squeezing out bloggers who are less inclined to sit in the spotlight, usually those who write with a more personal bent. Posts are locked, entire blogs taken down (sometimes moved and a pseudonym adopted), or self-censorship exercised. The result may be a sphere that better understands the 'dangers' of blogging in public (do not bare if you cannot stand the heat), but I don't think it's a richer one.
There'll always be an element of exhibitionism/voyeurism in blogging, but it's not all or nothing. There are degrees to this, some enjoy being in flagrante delicto, others prefer a niche audience. There is no one way to do things, and running an aggregator in a limited social environment like Singapore does impose certain strictures whether one likes it or not.
If I had to choose between the success of Tomorrow.sg and the success of a vibrant, open Singaporean 'blogosphere' - I will have to opt for the latter.
If I had a stronger stomach, I'd actually read the articles in ST properly before commenting. But I don't, just skimming the headlines and forum letters is enough to make me feel absolutely nauseous. So unlike Mr. Wang, who does his homework so that we can benefit from his incisive commentary, you'll have to put up with my half-assed biased opinions. But then, I never promised any more did I?
Maybe we can blame all this on the opposition. Actually, let's do just that. Because if we can't use them as kicking posts, what good are they?
In 1991, the general elections saw PAP lose 4 seats to the opposition, winning only 61% of the popular vote - their worst showing since 1968. It was considered quite a blow to the new prime minister, rumblings abound that he could not sustain the power of the party that his predecessor left for him. The opposition managed to make such inroads by changing their approach - instead of contesting every single seat, they changed gears and contested fewer than half the seats. The strategy was to guarantee PAP's return to power, in hopes that this would encourage and enbolden voters to cast a ballot for the opposition. It worked brilliantly well, so much so that this has been pretty much standard operating procedure ever since.
The consequence is that a good majority of adult Singaporeans have never ever voted. And it would seem that many have forgotten the whole point of voting. Because seriously? I can't find any other explanation for the calls to return the incumbent president to office without contest. What's worse is how many have prejudged the competition as not 'worthy' and are calling for the certificates of eligibility not to be issued.
What happened to the power of the vote? The whole point of elections is for citizens to look at the candidates and judge for themselves who is most qualified for the job by casting a vote. Instead we have citizens calling for elections by proxy. He cannot make it lah, don't even give him COE! It's sad the number of people lamenting a wasted Saturday if elections were to go ahead no thanks to a bunch of inconsiderate (or is it deluded) egoists. Aiyoh so mafan one, must go and vote, if not got public holiday leh!
Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised. Because after all, as with any corporate AGM, there is a proxy form that shareholders can use to authorise a designated representative to cast ballots on their behalf. Except we've gone the extra step of having the all powerful representative decide our ballot. Power, okay! No need to worry our little heads over making a decision.
Anyway, this has triggered some fond memories of the exciting elections of yore, especially 1988 when Chiam See Tong first won in Potong Pasir and the Worker's Party came oh so close to winning Eunos GRC. I think that's what drove the 1991 strategy. Focus and win the fight, one seat at a time. Maybe one of these days I'll blog about those heady days when Singaporeans actually cared enough about getting out the vote.
Sir Ian Blair, the London police commissioner, stopped short of an outright apology as he expressed "deepest regrets" and accepted "full responsibility" for the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes, a 27-year-old Brazilian electrician who died on Friday after he was shot five times in the head by the local police at the Stockwell subway station in south London.
It reminded me of the long standing dispute between China and Japan over various atrocities committed but never officially acknowledged in a manner that appeased the Chinese sufficiently.
Much has been made in the western press of the game of semantics that Japan plays when confronted about their role in WWII. The Japanese language is extremely precise, and they've managed to use every imaginable variation of regret, but always falling short of what the Chinese want: an outright apology. Often the articles approach this as if it were a uniquely Asian trait, to explain to readers as some cultural quirk of the east. The implication is also that perhaps the Chinese should just get over it. Why quibble over the specific Japanese word used? Is not expressing regret a million ways to heaven good enough?
Why? Because words have meaning. And the phrase that would truly express remorse and apology in the context of Japanese culture has not been uttered in reference to WWII atrocities. And that's why year after year, the Chinese continue to raise a stink over Koizumi's visit to Yasukuni Shrine. It may be a political ploy, but casting aside ulterior agendas and China's own less than stellar records, the issue of Japan's role in WWII is one that has escaped the scrutiny and condemnation that many parties feel they deserve.
So yes. I am bemused to see London play this game, and for the NYT to report it accordingly. I guess some things are same the world over. It's a quirk of humans, not of ethnicity.
If anyone needed evidence to the schism in local politics that I spoke of in my last post, one only had to take the a gander at the publication of a certain 'out of context' snit about $600,000 peanuts.
Mme SM forgot that her lawfully wedded husband is no longer a force to reckon with, and unfortunately uttered those infamous words in defence of someone who had clearly become expendable in the face of mounting public displeasure. There was no value to protecting her, had it been the spouse of some other politico of the appropriate faction, it would have stayed newsroom gossip. It would never have seen the light of day. Someone was out to draw blood, and the holy gohst suffered the most unkindest cut of all.
