I quite enjoyed this musical.
So must our government. One of the underlying themes of the show is how an unregulated, untrammelled, free-wheeling media can distort the truth, and the chaos that distortion can cause.
Basically, English painter forms a close relationship with Empress Cixi. Empress opens up to her, sharing her life story. English painter relates all this to a sly English journalist who she's falling in love with. He happily humours the painter's infatuation as he writes a fantastic tale of an evil Empress mother murdering her son. This story gets broadcast, much to the chagrin of Empress and English painter.
English journalist goes on a long drawl about how his readers want something exciting and juicy, not the truth. The truth doesn't sell. And, also, about how he is part of a cunning international plot to destabilize China, on a mission from the Crown!
The free press, a dangerous institution indeed.
Other themes that were touched on: Orientalism, Historical narratives and powerplays. Also, the power of literarature versus painting:
One can share in the English painter's frustration, who after having completed a fine painting of the Empress, sees her attempt to portray this towering woman completely washed aside by the fibs the English journalist tells.
Hers is just a portrait, his a narrative long remembered, more easily reproduced.
Monday, September 18, 2006
Monday, September 11, 2006
random quote
"an insane asylum has lots of creative ideas, but you have to have management discipline to have a meritocracy of ideas"
Friday, August 25, 2006
The things that matter
In an article in The Straits Times Review today, Senior Writer Ong Soh Chin, gushing about Singapore, writes,
"There are few places in the world where the things that matter - transport, education, housing, health care - work as efficiently without having to pay an arm and a leg."
She is correct that we do provide those things cheaply. My question is - how did Ms. Ong decide what "the things that matter" in this world are? Is that her opinion? Her friends'? Our government's?
It would be prudent if our government - and its ardent orators - sometimes asked us what "the things that matter" are.
Rather than always telling us.
"There are few places in the world where the things that matter - transport, education, housing, health care - work as efficiently without having to pay an arm and a leg."
She is correct that we do provide those things cheaply. My question is - how did Ms. Ong decide what "the things that matter" in this world are? Is that her opinion? Her friends'? Our government's?
It would be prudent if our government - and its ardent orators - sometimes asked us what "the things that matter" are.
Rather than always telling us.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Singapore Government's take on old vs. new media
"I said that we will look at how we can have a lighter touch in regulating the internet during the elections. Er... Mr Brown's comment was not posted on his blog. If he had posted the same comment on his blog, we would treat it as part of the internet chatter and we will have just let it be. But he posted it -- he didn't post it -- he wrote it and published it in a mainstream newspaper. That's the difference. In a mainstream newspaper, you have to be objective, you have to be accurate, you have to be responsible for your views, and that's always been my position, or the position of this government: that a mainstream newspaper must report, you know, accurately, objectively and responsibly. And that they must adopt this model that they are a part of the nation-building effort, you see, rather than go out and purvey views that will mislead people, confuse people, which will undermine our national strategy."
12 July 2006, Minister for Information, Communication and the Arts, Lee Boon Yang, in an interview with ChannelNewsAsia reporters
Here is a link to the Mr. Brown article that my Government took great offense to:
12 July 2006, Minister for Information, Communication and the Arts, Lee Boon Yang, in an interview with ChannelNewsAsia reporters
Here is a link to the Mr. Brown article that my Government took great offense to:
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
"Rock the Junta"
is an article in this month's Mother Jones magazine about a Christian heavy metal band, Iron Cross, subtly screaming for liberty in Burma. I reproduce one interesting passage about the Orwellian culture of fear in this country:
'Even other Western tourists spoke in whispers, turning both directions to see if anyone was listening. This syndrome has a name among some NGO workers - "Burma Head." In a 1977 book called Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, Foucault discussed the social effects of surveillance, using a prison designed by Jeremy Bentham in 1787, called the Panopticon, as a model.
The cells are arranged in a circle around a central observation tower, so that one person inside the tower can see into every cell at all times, but the prisoners, while able to see the tower, never really know whether there is a person in there watching them, or not. The observer can see out, but the observed can't see in.
Hence the major effect of the Panopticon: to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power. So to arrange things that the surveillance is permanent in its effects, even if it is discontinuous in its action; that the perfection of power should tend to render its actual exercise unnecessary; that this architectural apparatus should be a machine for creating and sustaining a power relation independent of the person who exercises it; in short, that the inmates should be caught up in a power situation of which they are themselves the bearers.
This was why there was no visible military presence in the city. It wasn't necessary. The people controlled themselves. Even tourists were not immune. In the Panopticon of Burma, you were a prisoner among prisoners, each with your own cell. The effect was a deadening of desire, a flat-lining of curiosity and humor, and loneliness hung in the air, heavy as the smog cloud that covers all of Asia.'
'Even other Western tourists spoke in whispers, turning both directions to see if anyone was listening. This syndrome has a name among some NGO workers - "Burma Head." In a 1977 book called Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, Foucault discussed the social effects of surveillance, using a prison designed by Jeremy Bentham in 1787, called the Panopticon, as a model.
The cells are arranged in a circle around a central observation tower, so that one person inside the tower can see into every cell at all times, but the prisoners, while able to see the tower, never really know whether there is a person in there watching them, or not. The observer can see out, but the observed can't see in.
Hence the major effect of the Panopticon: to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power. So to arrange things that the surveillance is permanent in its effects, even if it is discontinuous in its action; that the perfection of power should tend to render its actual exercise unnecessary; that this architectural apparatus should be a machine for creating and sustaining a power relation independent of the person who exercises it; in short, that the inmates should be caught up in a power situation of which they are themselves the bearers.
This was why there was no visible military presence in the city. It wasn't necessary. The people controlled themselves. Even tourists were not immune. In the Panopticon of Burma, you were a prisoner among prisoners, each with your own cell. The effect was a deadening of desire, a flat-lining of curiosity and humor, and loneliness hung in the air, heavy as the smog cloud that covers all of Asia.'
human frailty as told by Zinedine
let me preface my World Cup Final observations by admitting how much I admire Zidane. His swansong I awaited like a numbed coke head, yearning for the highs of yesteryear, yet never truly expecting much more.
that it ended bittersweet was very French, very fitting and very forgettable, the effects of whisky having a far more brutal effect on my memory than age did on the Algerian-born star.
for those fully aware of the poetry and irony that littered the game, forgive my indulgence:
1. Zidane's penalty must go down as the cheekiest of all time. He sold a dummy to the world's best and most expensive goalkeeper, who would have saved it had he simply stood still and stuck out his left arm. More than that - he managed to score a goal without the ball touching the net. This is no mean feat, and usually requires the assistance of an opposing defender who's furiously scrambling to clear the ball away but is beaten by the narrowest of margins.
2. Zidane and Materazzi scored the two goals in normal time. You probably know that.
3. David Trezeguet, who missed the penalty that doomed the French, plays for Juventus in Italy. He was also the one who scored the extra-time winner against the Italians in the 2000 Euro Cup Final, a match best remembered for the Italian bench, arm-in-arm on the sidelines, prematurely celebrating an imaginary 1-0 victory while the clock still ticked...sure enough, Wiltord equalized for the French in injury time, setting up extra-time and then along came David Trezeguet.
4. In the week following their victory, the Italian Football Federation, embroiled in match-fixing scandals even before the World Cup, passed judgement on several leading Italian Clubs. Juventus (who Zidane used to play for) were the worst hit, falling to Serie B (Division 2), where they will probably flounder for a while. A mass exodus of players - Cannavaro, Buffon, Zambrotta etc. - is expected. AC Milan were also hit hard, and will start next season in Serie A with a serious handicap.
What does this all mean? Next season, Italy's almost-team, the perennial underachievers, the chokers, Inter Milan, will probably have their best shot at a Serie A title since the days of Lothar Matthaus and his German gang.
And, in all likelihood, after his impressive World Cup, their defence will probably be manned by the irrepressible Marco Materazzi.
What a week he's had. Talk about winning things because your opponents aren't around.
Like I said, forgive my indulgence, for now the serious story begins.
I do not believe any commentator out there has done the head-butting incident justice.
Many have pontificated for hours over the words that were exchanged; the moment's hesitation before violence erupted ("It was a premeditated head-butt!); the moral justification (or lack thereof) for responding with violence; the legacy that was Zidane; the culpability of the foul-mouthed Marco and other banalities that are almost always argued with colored lens on.
Discussing these things is all well and good, and fills many an evening beer chat, but really skirts around the most important human lesson to be derived from all this:
We are frail and fearful creatures, and if, in moment of intense stress and pressure, are pushed into corners and ordered to remain there, are prone to respond with momentary lapses of reason. And violence.
My father has told me that if he were Zidane, he would never have responded with violence. He knows this because others have cursed his mother and sister before and he hasn't responded.
I find this the most ridiculous statement (I told him so).
Simply because he has no idea how Zidane feels! The only person who would know how somebody would respond when placed in such a situation is, well, Zidane. And we got a clear answer.
My father would have no idea what it feels like to grow up as a Muslim Algerian in (ex-colonizer) Catholic France and then have to fight your way to stardom despite bigotry and all kinds of other pressures.
I flipped the question back to him:
Why would somebody - a model human being and global citizen, a role model and idol for millions of children the world over, in front of a billion watchers, on his swansong, on the verge of etching his name next to Pele's and Maradona's in footballing folklore - respond with violence?
In my mind, there is only one answer - human psyche is such. Human frailty is such. If even the most ostensibly glorious person responds with violence, how can we expect the average character to wave an olive branch?
I have therefore chosen to view Zidane as a prism for human psyche and actions.
the next time somebody asks me why a Palestinian or a Lebanese or a Tamil or a Christian or a Muslim or a Jew chooses to pick up a weapon, Zidane has shown that even the most exalted character, in a dream theater, chose violence as expression.
(But I merely seek to understand violence, not justify it. Zinedine Zidane, my idol and hero, is a blooming idiot for doing what he did. But he made me remember one thing - not everbody is Mahatma. Not everybody can turn the other cheek.)
that it ended bittersweet was very French, very fitting and very forgettable, the effects of whisky having a far more brutal effect on my memory than age did on the Algerian-born star.
for those fully aware of the poetry and irony that littered the game, forgive my indulgence:
1. Zidane's penalty must go down as the cheekiest of all time. He sold a dummy to the world's best and most expensive goalkeeper, who would have saved it had he simply stood still and stuck out his left arm. More than that - he managed to score a goal without the ball touching the net. This is no mean feat, and usually requires the assistance of an opposing defender who's furiously scrambling to clear the ball away but is beaten by the narrowest of margins.
2. Zidane and Materazzi scored the two goals in normal time. You probably know that.
3. David Trezeguet, who missed the penalty that doomed the French, plays for Juventus in Italy. He was also the one who scored the extra-time winner against the Italians in the 2000 Euro Cup Final, a match best remembered for the Italian bench, arm-in-arm on the sidelines, prematurely celebrating an imaginary 1-0 victory while the clock still ticked...sure enough, Wiltord equalized for the French in injury time, setting up extra-time and then along came David Trezeguet.
4. In the week following their victory, the Italian Football Federation, embroiled in match-fixing scandals even before the World Cup, passed judgement on several leading Italian Clubs. Juventus (who Zidane used to play for) were the worst hit, falling to Serie B (Division 2), where they will probably flounder for a while. A mass exodus of players - Cannavaro, Buffon, Zambrotta etc. - is expected. AC Milan were also hit hard, and will start next season in Serie A with a serious handicap.
What does this all mean? Next season, Italy's almost-team, the perennial underachievers, the chokers, Inter Milan, will probably have their best shot at a Serie A title since the days of Lothar Matthaus and his German gang.
And, in all likelihood, after his impressive World Cup, their defence will probably be manned by the irrepressible Marco Materazzi.
What a week he's had. Talk about winning things because your opponents aren't around.
Like I said, forgive my indulgence, for now the serious story begins.
I do not believe any commentator out there has done the head-butting incident justice.
Many have pontificated for hours over the words that were exchanged; the moment's hesitation before violence erupted ("It was a premeditated head-butt!); the moral justification (or lack thereof) for responding with violence; the legacy that was Zidane; the culpability of the foul-mouthed Marco and other banalities that are almost always argued with colored lens on.
Discussing these things is all well and good, and fills many an evening beer chat, but really skirts around the most important human lesson to be derived from all this:
We are frail and fearful creatures, and if, in moment of intense stress and pressure, are pushed into corners and ordered to remain there, are prone to respond with momentary lapses of reason. And violence.
My father has told me that if he were Zidane, he would never have responded with violence. He knows this because others have cursed his mother and sister before and he hasn't responded.
I find this the most ridiculous statement (I told him so).
Simply because he has no idea how Zidane feels! The only person who would know how somebody would respond when placed in such a situation is, well, Zidane. And we got a clear answer.
My father would have no idea what it feels like to grow up as a Muslim Algerian in (ex-colonizer) Catholic France and then have to fight your way to stardom despite bigotry and all kinds of other pressures.
I flipped the question back to him:
Why would somebody - a model human being and global citizen, a role model and idol for millions of children the world over, in front of a billion watchers, on his swansong, on the verge of etching his name next to Pele's and Maradona's in footballing folklore - respond with violence?
In my mind, there is only one answer - human psyche is such. Human frailty is such. If even the most ostensibly glorious person responds with violence, how can we expect the average character to wave an olive branch?
I have therefore chosen to view Zidane as a prism for human psyche and actions.
the next time somebody asks me why a Palestinian or a Lebanese or a Tamil or a Christian or a Muslim or a Jew chooses to pick up a weapon, Zidane has shown that even the most exalted character, in a dream theater, chose violence as expression.
(But I merely seek to understand violence, not justify it. Zinedine Zidane, my idol and hero, is a blooming idiot for doing what he did. But he made me remember one thing - not everbody is Mahatma. Not everybody can turn the other cheek.)
Thursday, June 29, 2006
football in america
like most of you, i have been glued to the world cup.
following it here, in the US, has been a particularly fascinating experience. Speaking to Americans and listening to American commentators has given me some insights into their thoughts on football, and maybe, life.
americans have an obsessions with stats. at many inopportune moments during a game, ESPN will indulge in a computer graphic that shows some inane statistic - like number of times a team that has gone a goal down before half time has eventually won, number of headers on target in the last 15 minutes or number of blond players to have won a world cup.
the statistic is obviously then used to suggest something about the probability of certain outcomes during the game. sometimes, there is sense behind this. after all, there must be concrete reasons - lethargy on one side, a desperate dash to the death for the other - why so many goals have been scored in the last 15 minutes of play. concrete reasons that are, quite likely, to play out again.
but when pure statistics are used to buttress grandiose statements, things get ridiculous. "The Swiss have the best defence" or "The Spanish are the most impressive team", two things I heard after the first round.
This obsession with statistics also leads them to carve up the game into 15 minute blocks, or worse still, individual plays. "Sweden lost the game in 12 minutes and 2 plays" after their match with Germany, the commentator then suggesting that they had only been beaten, that they were only inferior, over the course of those 12 minutes. Which, of course, ignores any difference in the way Germany would have played had they not scored those 2 goals early on.
In truth, Germany was by far the better team over 90 minutes. Sweden never had a sniff.
thus, what is to many of us a beautiful 90 minute drama of shifting tides, fiery motivations, unbridled joy and intolerable anguish is summarily reduced to a couple of key events or highlights. sure, every sports highlight show does this, but my point here is that this is the way Americans approach their sport.
I was shocked, disappointed, and then mostly amused, when I was supposed to watch a great game with an American friend, and he casually told me, "Yah, don't worry, we can go grab some burgers and easily get back with 30 minutes of the game left."
WHAT?
Besides being a poignant commentary on the American preference for eating over exercise, the point is that the end result and the key incidents are all that matter here. But then again, maybe that is all that's important. Why do we the rest of the world get so caught up with everything in between?
I also found out why football will never make it big in America. Not enough stoppages for ad time. So not enough money. So not enough interest. The mullah matters too much here, not the beauty of the game.
Finally, a little something on their penchant for irritatingly obvious puns. ESPN came up with numerous catch phrases, like "Swede Sixteen" when Sweden went through to the 2nd round, and "Going, going, Ghana", when Brazil had almost beaten the Africans. I found it tiresome after a while, but the smart cookies at ESPN will be happy to know that a pandemonium of parrots in bars across America were titilated by these linguistic tricks. Play it again, sam.
following it here, in the US, has been a particularly fascinating experience. Speaking to Americans and listening to American commentators has given me some insights into their thoughts on football, and maybe, life.
americans have an obsessions with stats. at many inopportune moments during a game, ESPN will indulge in a computer graphic that shows some inane statistic - like number of times a team that has gone a goal down before half time has eventually won, number of headers on target in the last 15 minutes or number of blond players to have won a world cup.
the statistic is obviously then used to suggest something about the probability of certain outcomes during the game. sometimes, there is sense behind this. after all, there must be concrete reasons - lethargy on one side, a desperate dash to the death for the other - why so many goals have been scored in the last 15 minutes of play. concrete reasons that are, quite likely, to play out again.
but when pure statistics are used to buttress grandiose statements, things get ridiculous. "The Swiss have the best defence" or "The Spanish are the most impressive team", two things I heard after the first round.
This obsession with statistics also leads them to carve up the game into 15 minute blocks, or worse still, individual plays. "Sweden lost the game in 12 minutes and 2 plays" after their match with Germany, the commentator then suggesting that they had only been beaten, that they were only inferior, over the course of those 12 minutes. Which, of course, ignores any difference in the way Germany would have played had they not scored those 2 goals early on.
In truth, Germany was by far the better team over 90 minutes. Sweden never had a sniff.
thus, what is to many of us a beautiful 90 minute drama of shifting tides, fiery motivations, unbridled joy and intolerable anguish is summarily reduced to a couple of key events or highlights. sure, every sports highlight show does this, but my point here is that this is the way Americans approach their sport.
I was shocked, disappointed, and then mostly amused, when I was supposed to watch a great game with an American friend, and he casually told me, "Yah, don't worry, we can go grab some burgers and easily get back with 30 minutes of the game left."
WHAT?
Besides being a poignant commentary on the American preference for eating over exercise, the point is that the end result and the key incidents are all that matter here. But then again, maybe that is all that's important. Why do we the rest of the world get so caught up with everything in between?
I also found out why football will never make it big in America. Not enough stoppages for ad time. So not enough money. So not enough interest. The mullah matters too much here, not the beauty of the game.
Finally, a little something on their penchant for irritatingly obvious puns. ESPN came up with numerous catch phrases, like "Swede Sixteen" when Sweden went through to the 2nd round, and "Going, going, Ghana", when Brazil had almost beaten the Africans. I found it tiresome after a while, but the smart cookies at ESPN will be happy to know that a pandemonium of parrots in bars across America were titilated by these linguistic tricks. Play it again, sam.
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Malaysia
I have spent the last few weeks in Malaysia doing research, so I suppose it's only apt that I write a bit about this wonderful country.
I am now certain that food in Malaysia is better than in Singapore. I used to always tell people that the food is the same in both countries. But now my mind is made up. And it's not simply a function of better/ fresher ingredients. There is more variety, they are more adventurous, they are more innovative.
Traffic in KL is horrendous. Taxis drivers are underpaid and hence lack motivation. In some situations, it is impossible to move if you do not have your own car. It reminds me of LA. And, IMHO, the same developmental blunder is at the root of their misery - a strong lobby that wanted to put a car in the hands of every citizen. For Ford, read Proton. Cheap cars, low investment in public transport, horrible traffic jams.
(Please try to digest the above para with Singapore lenses...i.e. if you're coming from Bangkok, you may not find KL's traffic that bad)
KL-ites are not punctual. And traffic is often cited as justification for this sloppiness. How to argue? So, always call before leaving for a meeting - three times (out of 8 meetings) the person cancelled at the last minute. Second, expect other party to be about 30 minutes late.
Hmm, nevertheless, I learned how to relax a bit more, and then I got into the swing of things...quite a merry pace of life.
and super food.
I am now certain that food in Malaysia is better than in Singapore. I used to always tell people that the food is the same in both countries. But now my mind is made up. And it's not simply a function of better/ fresher ingredients. There is more variety, they are more adventurous, they are more innovative.
Traffic in KL is horrendous. Taxis drivers are underpaid and hence lack motivation. In some situations, it is impossible to move if you do not have your own car. It reminds me of LA. And, IMHO, the same developmental blunder is at the root of their misery - a strong lobby that wanted to put a car in the hands of every citizen. For Ford, read Proton. Cheap cars, low investment in public transport, horrible traffic jams.
(Please try to digest the above para with Singapore lenses...i.e. if you're coming from Bangkok, you may not find KL's traffic that bad)
KL-ites are not punctual. And traffic is often cited as justification for this sloppiness. How to argue? So, always call before leaving for a meeting - three times (out of 8 meetings) the person cancelled at the last minute. Second, expect other party to be about 30 minutes late.
Hmm, nevertheless, I learned how to relax a bit more, and then I got into the swing of things...quite a merry pace of life.
and super food.
Monday, May 22, 2006
a Singaporean dilemma?
I reproduce the below correspondence between an old Junior College classmate and myself, only to show the struggle that many of my contemporaries may currently face...
This was in response to me telling him that I was, for the foolish moment, trying to make it as a full-time writer in Singapore.
"I am probably coming home in late june/july for a month or so.
In any case, continue to do whatever it is you do, biographies,
writing, etc. It is truly a relief and a welcome change from the rest
of us who have to hold down regular jobs. I like my job (it's sort of
non-hierarchical and erm, own time own target) but I am glad you are
trying to do what I would never dare to even attempt.
It's this idea of responsibility and respectability tied to a
conventional job (most preferably a professional one, lawyer, banker
etc) that's so deeply embedded that even when I recognize it as a
facade for us to hide behind, i cannot abandon it.
It's such a vicious cycle too. I get job, I pretend I am a
professional, to extend the pretensions I need to buy a house, a car
and all the other accoutrements that come with professional life, and
therefore i need money which means I need the job.(usually more than
the job needs me).
ah well, i can ramble on. but i'll save for when i get home next month or so.
i do wish for the old jc days when things were simpler. i hope to see you soon. "
This was in response to me telling him that I was, for the foolish moment, trying to make it as a full-time writer in Singapore.
"I am probably coming home in late june/july for a month or so.
In any case, continue to do whatever it is you do, biographies,
writing, etc. It is truly a relief and a welcome change from the rest
of us who have to hold down regular jobs. I like my job (it's sort of
non-hierarchical and erm, own time own target) but I am glad you are
trying to do what I would never dare to even attempt.
It's this idea of responsibility and respectability tied to a
conventional job (most preferably a professional one, lawyer, banker
etc) that's so deeply embedded that even when I recognize it as a
facade for us to hide behind, i cannot abandon it.
It's such a vicious cycle too. I get job, I pretend I am a
professional, to extend the pretensions I need to buy a house, a car
and all the other accoutrements that come with professional life, and
therefore i need money which means I need the job.(usually more than
the job needs me).
ah well, i can ramble on. but i'll save for when i get home next month or so.
i do wish for the old jc days when things were simpler. i hope to see you soon. "
Monday, May 15, 2006
Courts in Singapore come under scrutiny
That's the title of a great piece in last Tuesday's International Herald Tribune. Do read it, a landmark case where a Canadian Court of Appeal is set to determine the fairness and impartiality of Singapore's judicial system.
Stay tuned, what they unearth during the entire trial will be quite interesting.
Besides, we Singaporeans generally only respond to economic incentives, pressures or impulses. This commercial dispute - between Canadian and Singaporean companies - will strengthen the integrity and independence of our judiciary.
If need be, that is.
Stay tuned, what they unearth during the entire trial will be quite interesting.
Besides, we Singaporeans generally only respond to economic incentives, pressures or impulses. This commercial dispute - between Canadian and Singaporean companies - will strengthen the integrity and independence of our judiciary.
If need be, that is.
Monday, May 08, 2006
a quote
“There is no more perfect form of subjection than the one that preserves the appearance of freedom.”
- Rousseau
Saturday, May 06, 2006
Singapore Elections Key Points
The People's Action Party (PAP) will form our Government with 66.6% of the vote.
The opposition won 33.3% of the vote. i.e. they have the support of 1 in 3 Singaporeans.
However, our first past the post voting system ensures that 1/3 of the vote only garners them 2 out of 84 seats in Parliament, or 2.38%.
This is a huge disjoint between popular support and parliamentary representation.
I have much respect for the residents of Hougang and Potong Pasir, the two wards with incumbent opposition candidates. In the run-up to the election, the PAP promised them S$100 million and S$80 million respectively - in the form of estate upgrading plans - if they voted them in. Despite the dangling carrot, the residents once again chose the charming Mr. Low Thia Kiang and the indefatigable Mr. Chiam See Tong to represent them.
The next time somebody says that Singaporeans are all materialistic and lacking in ideals, tell them to go visit Hougang and Potong Pasir. (It is a claim that this blogger often makes..:( I am surely guilty of generalizing)
So, the ruling party is back in power. It's actually all well and good, nobody else can possibly run this country now. But kudos to the opposition, most of all, for awakening thousands of Singaporeans out of political apathy.
The people are engaged.
The opposition won 33.3% of the vote. i.e. they have the support of 1 in 3 Singaporeans.
However, our first past the post voting system ensures that 1/3 of the vote only garners them 2 out of 84 seats in Parliament, or 2.38%.
This is a huge disjoint between popular support and parliamentary representation.
I have much respect for the residents of Hougang and Potong Pasir, the two wards with incumbent opposition candidates. In the run-up to the election, the PAP promised them S$100 million and S$80 million respectively - in the form of estate upgrading plans - if they voted them in. Despite the dangling carrot, the residents once again chose the charming Mr. Low Thia Kiang and the indefatigable Mr. Chiam See Tong to represent them.
The next time somebody says that Singaporeans are all materialistic and lacking in ideals, tell them to go visit Hougang and Potong Pasir. (It is a claim that this blogger often makes..:( I am surely guilty of generalizing)
So, the ruling party is back in power. It's actually all well and good, nobody else can possibly run this country now. But kudos to the opposition, most of all, for awakening thousands of Singaporeans out of political apathy.
The people are engaged.
Friday, April 28, 2006
Elections: My vote is secret
Over lunch. With a colleague.
"So you going to vote?"
"Yes! I'll get to vote this time."
"Great! Who you going to vote for?"
"I can't say...."
"Oh. Really?"
"Yes...really...my vote is secret."
"Oh?"
"Yes...my vote is secret....only the Government knows."
"So you going to vote?"
"Yes! I'll get to vote this time."
"Great! Who you going to vote for?"
"I can't say...."
"Oh. Really?"
"Yes...really...my vote is secret."
"Oh?"
"Yes...my vote is secret....only the Government knows."
Elections: Of course the PAP!
It is an exciting period in Singapore. On May 6th, we go to the polls to choose our next Government. I, like many other Singaporeans, do not have to vote. Because the all powerful People's Action Party (PAP) is being returned unopposed in my district. This is not uncommon. In almost every election, less than half the electorate actually vote. Funny, huh?
I asked the waiter at lunch today, "Who are you going to vote for?"
"Of course the People's Action Party!" he said, with some gusto. Another sycophantic fan, I thought.
"Why?"
"I have voted for the PAP every single time, sir!"
"Why?"
"Very simple. I am worried that if I vote for anybody else, the Government will check my serial number and blacklist me."
Oh.
I wonder.....how many people actually choose out of fear?
I asked the waiter at lunch today, "Who are you going to vote for?"
"Of course the People's Action Party!" he said, with some gusto. Another sycophantic fan, I thought.
"Why?"
"I have voted for the PAP every single time, sir!"
"Why?"
"Very simple. I am worried that if I vote for anybody else, the Government will check my serial number and blacklist me."
Oh.
I wonder.....how many people actually choose out of fear?
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Chinese/Malay/Indian
'Malaysia: Death of a Democracy', John Slimming
I'm only just getting into this book about the May 1969 racial riots, apparently it's banned in Malaysia...written, in 1969, by this Englishman ...anyways, there are lots of fascinating little passages, here's one:
In 1950, during the Korean war, the demand for natural rubber caused a boom on the world markets; rubber prices soared. They rose to more than two dollars a pound; the highest figure that year was M$2.38. The attitudes of the three racial groups to this considerable increase were very different and highlight the differences in racial temperament.
The Chinese rubber tappers went out every day in family strength and they tapped every tree as often as they could; they collected every drop of latex they found and many of them quickly made a small fortune. They banked their money or they bought gold which they hid in their houses.
The Indians behaved in the same way, tapping as much and as frequently as possible but few of them made any attempt to save their earnings. With unexpected wealth they bought new clothes, saris for their wives, expensive brands of cigarettes; they bought refrigerators for houses where there was no electricity and then used them as cupboards; some of them bought second-hand cars to drive to the rubber fields.
In contrast to all this activity and business, the Malay villager calculated that if, when the price of rubber was one dollar a pound, he had to work twenty days in the month to make a living, then, when the price rose to two dollars it was necessary for him to work only ten days for the same money. So, while the Chinese and the Indians tapped more and worked harder, the Malays worked less and passed their time in a more leisurely manner. The Malay has an infinite capacity for enjoying the simple pleasures of his kampong life. The rubber boom was nineteen years ago. Now he is being forced to become more conscious of his country's economy but there is still no indication that he is becoming more industrious.
The Chinese are far more numerous than the Indians and their control of industry and commerce is greater; for this reason the Malays fear the Chinese more. The Chinese have economic power which the Malays resent.
I'm only just getting into this book about the May 1969 racial riots, apparently it's banned in Malaysia...written, in 1969, by this Englishman ...anyways, there are lots of fascinating little passages, here's one:
In 1950, during the Korean war, the demand for natural rubber caused a boom on the world markets; rubber prices soared. They rose to more than two dollars a pound; the highest figure that year was M$2.38. The attitudes of the three racial groups to this considerable increase were very different and highlight the differences in racial temperament.
The Chinese rubber tappers went out every day in family strength and they tapped every tree as often as they could; they collected every drop of latex they found and many of them quickly made a small fortune. They banked their money or they bought gold which they hid in their houses.
The Indians behaved in the same way, tapping as much and as frequently as possible but few of them made any attempt to save their earnings. With unexpected wealth they bought new clothes, saris for their wives, expensive brands of cigarettes; they bought refrigerators for houses where there was no electricity and then used them as cupboards; some of them bought second-hand cars to drive to the rubber fields.
In contrast to all this activity and business, the Malay villager calculated that if, when the price of rubber was one dollar a pound, he had to work twenty days in the month to make a living, then, when the price rose to two dollars it was necessary for him to work only ten days for the same money. So, while the Chinese and the Indians tapped more and worked harder, the Malays worked less and passed their time in a more leisurely manner. The Malay has an infinite capacity for enjoying the simple pleasures of his kampong life. The rubber boom was nineteen years ago. Now he is being forced to become more conscious of his country's economy but there is still no indication that he is becoming more industrious.
The Chinese are far more numerous than the Indians and their control of industry and commerce is greater; for this reason the Malays fear the Chinese more. The Chinese have economic power which the Malays resent.
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
An Old Muslim Democracy?
Buddy Nuno Santos and I spent two weeks driving around Malaysia last December, taking lots of photographs, including an election in Kelantan. We've put together a pictorial entitled An Old Muslim Democracy?, do check it out.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
When you shoot
In the Straits Times on April 23rd:
"It was a moment of intense concentration, then excitement when the bullet hit."
- Staff Sergeant Soh Wee Kiat, who tested the Singapore Army's new high-powered sniper rifle
Would he feel the same excitement if the bullet killed a person, instead of a soda can?
"It was a moment of intense concentration, then excitement when the bullet hit."
- Staff Sergeant Soh Wee Kiat, who tested the Singapore Army's new high-powered sniper rifle
Would he feel the same excitement if the bullet killed a person, instead of a soda can?
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Just A Cartoon?
The Europeans confuse me. I often think that they are the vanguard of human consciousness: Firm believers in the oneness of humanity; in the free exchange of ideas; in the need to safeguard against war, and other failings of a nation-state system; in the need to protect and care for the disadvantaged. And so on and so forth.
In many ways, the colonial experience and 20th C wars have made them wonderfully introspective.
But then in the space of the week they manage to muck everything up. This whole cartoon issue is not a fine demonstration of the freedom of expression, it is a stunning reminder of cultural insensitivity. While some might have shared a chortle over them, I couldn't help thinking that they're pouring oil over a raging fire. Or taking a lump of coarse salt and massaging it deep into every Muslim's wounds.
Of course, every European social liberal has arguments:
1. "They caricature Jesus and the Jews, why can't we caricature the Prophet?"
or in other words: "We have evolved to such a stage, why don't they?"
This is poppycock on two levels.
Firstly, just because one society accepts some freedoms, why should any other?
Secondly, why should anybody think that the need to poke fun at religion is an evolution in human consciousness?
2. "If we censor anything, where do we draw the line?"
AKA: "The only options are complete freedom or complete tyranny."
There is this fear amongst defenders of media freedoms that censorship begets more. But I say, Why can't certain topics just remain out of bounds?
Nazism, Child Pornography, Religion?
3. "We need to defend our media freedoms"
AKA: "This is what makes our societies great. This free exchange of thoughts and ideas."
This is where the Danes and whoever else has republished the cartoons have done a great disservice to all believers in freedom of thought. They have taken that grave responsibility that comes with the job, and flushed it down the toilet.
Every journalist, every editor has a responsibility. Tact, sensitivity, moderation. Tell the truth, but why provoke?
My sad afterthought:
Many Muslims have seen their religious leader smeared. The very meaning of their existence has just been trampled on. I am in no way surprised by the outcry.
The cartoons have also sharpened the blades and lengthened the reach of censors in every restricted society in the world. It is because of things like this, that our countries choose unfreedom.
In many ways, the colonial experience and 20th C wars have made them wonderfully introspective.
But then in the space of the week they manage to muck everything up. This whole cartoon issue is not a fine demonstration of the freedom of expression, it is a stunning reminder of cultural insensitivity. While some might have shared a chortle over them, I couldn't help thinking that they're pouring oil over a raging fire. Or taking a lump of coarse salt and massaging it deep into every Muslim's wounds.
Of course, every European social liberal has arguments:
1. "They caricature Jesus and the Jews, why can't we caricature the Prophet?"
or in other words: "We have evolved to such a stage, why don't they?"
This is poppycock on two levels.
Firstly, just because one society accepts some freedoms, why should any other?
Secondly, why should anybody think that the need to poke fun at religion is an evolution in human consciousness?
2. "If we censor anything, where do we draw the line?"
AKA: "The only options are complete freedom or complete tyranny."
There is this fear amongst defenders of media freedoms that censorship begets more. But I say, Why can't certain topics just remain out of bounds?
Nazism, Child Pornography, Religion?
3. "We need to defend our media freedoms"
AKA: "This is what makes our societies great. This free exchange of thoughts and ideas."
This is where the Danes and whoever else has republished the cartoons have done a great disservice to all believers in freedom of thought. They have taken that grave responsibility that comes with the job, and flushed it down the toilet.
Every journalist, every editor has a responsibility. Tact, sensitivity, moderation. Tell the truth, but why provoke?
My sad afterthought:
Many Muslims have seen their religious leader smeared. The very meaning of their existence has just been trampled on. I am in no way surprised by the outcry.
The cartoons have also sharpened the blades and lengthened the reach of censors in every restricted society in the world. It is because of things like this, that our countries choose unfreedom.
Sunday, January 08, 2006
Addendum to previous...
Have to thank my dear friend Kelly Chan for pointing out an omission in earlier discussion on the Singaporean Expat. I failed to mention a group of people who really don't have it so good - the poorer Expats.
It was too simplistic of me to suggest that all Expats are caressed on a Singpaorean bed of roses. There are the Expats who either hold very low-paying jobs, or none at all. For them, Singaporean society can be harsh. Everybody expects them to be somebody they're not...
It was too simplistic of me to suggest that all Expats are caressed on a Singpaorean bed of roses. There are the Expats who either hold very low-paying jobs, or none at all. For them, Singaporean society can be harsh. Everybody expects them to be somebody they're not...
Thursday, January 05, 2006
The Singaporean Expat revisited
This is a bit of a follow up to my SCC 7s post below....
What has amazed me most since my return to
years in the States) is the resentment towards Expats that has built
up in many of my peers.
Sure enough, there are a lot more expats in
I left. Furthermore, the Singapore Expat today is a completely
different animal. The Expat of yesteryear was often an old White Guy
with his White Wife, two little White kids and a dog or two. He came
with tons of experience, worked for a big foreign company, doing
something amazing that most Singaporeans could not, and therefore was
less threatening (i.e. he wasn’t taking a job that we could fill). His Wife stayed at home, took care of the kids, and
occasionally had lunch with other Expat Wives at the American Club. The kids went to the
Over the past couple of years though, I’ve noticed how the Singaporean Expat has changed.
Today’s expats come from many different countries – US, anywhere in
Today’s expats range from 21 years old to 99 years old.
Crucially, today’s expats come to
(‘very ordinary jobs’ defined as a job that a local is qualified for and could probably fill: teaching; analyst to mid-level in any big firm – banking, consulting, media, law, etc.
As opposed to the highfaluting top corporate executive jobs that we used to need Expats for)
This is actually what irks young Singaporeans I’ve met the most. After all, we love Expats! We want
But when a Singaporean gets passed over for a job in favour of a similarly qualified Expat, irritation grows. What’s more the Expat is here on a cushy Expat package making twice as much as the local would have cost. Why?
But why would a company want to pay somebody more to do something a local could? IMHO, there are two things going on: (Real or perceived) Extra Skill Set & Colonial Overhang
Extra Skill Set: If the Expat in question had indeed worked in a big foreign market like
Colonial Overhang: This permeates everybody, consciously or not, and in all honesty there is no easy answer to it.
An Investment Bank in
In
What is the problem with all this?
You fear that Expats are increasingly swollen-headed. To misquote a Californian friend of mine, “They think they’re the shit.” They are here, getting paid a lot more to do ‘the same thing’, everywhere they go people are kowtowing to them, WOW! What a place to live.
(For a relatively contemporary insight into an Expat’s view of Singaporeans, check out Ewan McGregor’s clownish, dumb colleagues in the film, ‘Rogue Trader’, inspired by the story of Nick Leeson and the fall of Barings Bank. Sure, it’s
At the same time, many Singaporeans feel the opposite! They feel that many Expats who are here are the ones who couldn’t make it in their own countries. Didn’t have what it takes to compete with the best in
So – Expats don’t think much of us and we don’t think much of them. Is this what’s happening? That’s a little simplistic but some shreds of truth.
Another big
While every other country in the world has some form of indigenous labour protectionism – whether they care to admit it or not –
In fact, these days, we’ll not only grant foreigners a working permit, we’ll make them citizens too. Look at the Brazilians in our national soccer team and the Chinese in our national table-tennis team.
Does the Government not care for us? No, that’s not it. They’re probably just trying to do what every other polyglot country does – attract the best immigrants. And, since Singaporeans are not having kids, our labour force has to be bolstered somehow (or does it?) Any kind of protectionism would be foolish.
Where does this leave the poor Singaporean? Not sure really. We have to work harder than the Expats to prove our worth at work and in the dating game. The way I see it, those are just facts of life our generation will have to come to terms with. If we don’t like it, we can leave.
Our dear ‘Gah-men’ will even give us a stylish new ‘quitter’ name…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)