Musings from Singapore

Worthless words

2011-06-07T03:05:00.000-07:00

A recent media kerfuffle has shed light on politics and society in Singapore. After decades of softball journalism and scripted Q&As, some of our politicians do not have the ability to articulate their views coherently, or answer tough questions.

As a result, when we hear the views of our leaders, as transmitted through the mainstream media, I wonder how much is true; how much is really their own view; and how much is scripted--them simply saying what they think we want to hear.

The story involves Lim Wee Kiak, a PAP MP for Nee Soon GRC. In late May, when discussing ministerial salaries, he told a Lianhe Zaobao reporter:

"If the annual salary of the Minister of Information, Communication and Arts is only $500,000, it may pose some problems when he discusses policies with CEOs of telco companies who earn millions of dollars because they need not listen to the minister's ideas and proposals. Hence a reasonable payout will help to maintain a bit of dignity."

Unsurprisingly, there was an immediate online backlash--why should dignity flow from a person's income?

What followed was a series of ridiculous flip-flops that still leaves me baffled.

First, Dr Lim responded that he had been quoted out of context. OK--so he does believe that income=dignity, just that the example shouldn't be quoted on its own.

A couple of days later, he released a statement, where he said, "I withdraw those remarks and apologise for making them. Dignity cannot be and must not be measured purely in monetary terms."

Huh? I find it impossible that somebody can flip views on such a fundamental belief in two days.

On the one hand, I've always respected the fact that politicians in Singapore can change their opinions on larger policy issues--LKY on bilingualism, for instance--when new facts and evidence surface.

On the other hand, belief in income, dignity and a person's worth are not policy ideas--they get to the very core of a person's makeup. I doubt that some criticism can suddenly change that overnight. I am completely convinced that Dr Lim believes that dignity flows from income. Many people do, not just in Singapore, but all over the world.

That doesn't make it right, and it worries me that our politicians think this way. Although I suppose it shouldn't really surprise me: money-worship seems to have gotten a stranglehold on our society, especially over the past 10 years or so. At its extreme, it produces cases like that involving Susan Lim.

(to clarify: I don't think there's anything wrong with materialism and making money. this instinct drives many economies, after all. It's only problematic when the pursuit, and the making, of money is immoral, unethical or excessive.)

In my mind, what probably happened is that other senior politicians told him to fall into line, and apologise. How many of those other politicians actually think exactly like Dr Lim--but simply sugar-coat their press statements to make it seem like they're egalitarian, magnanimous folk?

What has surprised me is that speaking to some friends, and reading some of the commentary online, it seems as though some Singaporeans accept this flip-flop, and are willing to forget what he said.

In other words, we may be tempted to view his initial statement to Lianhe Zaobao as a genuine gaffe--unrepresentative of the man.

I think we shouldn't. It is a precious insight into the thinking of a politician--unvarnished, unscripted, spontaneous, from the heart, away from the watchful eye of the PAP spin doctors.

We should cherish these moments.

Ministerial salaries: A bottom-up approach?

2011-05-26T22:56:00.000-07:00

Many Singaporeans are happy that the government will review ministerial salaries, partly because they finally feel that their voices are being heard and their votes making a difference.

Sadly Mr Gerrard Ee and his review committee will still be using old methodologies, such as benchmarking salaries to the private sector. That is a shame—this is a wonderful opportunity for a fresh, novel look at the issue, and a chance to set a good precedent for the government’s approach to other thorny challenges in the coming years.

For instance, Mr Ee’s team could consider a bottom-up approach. Instead of trying to figure out what discount from the private sector ministers should stomach, how about thinking about how much money a minister actually needs to live very comfortably?

Let me take an unscientific stab at it. I believe that in order for Singapore’s president to live very comfortably in Singapore today, every month we should pay him/her:

$20,000 housing
$20,000 family (including children’s education)
$10,000 food and beverage
$5,000 household miscellaneous
$5,000 IT miscellaneous
$5,000 entertainment miscellaneous
$5,000 car

That comes up to S$70,000. Since there are many more things, unbeknownst to us, that a president might need, let’s add an extra 20%, bringing it to S$84,000. That equates to around $1m a year. At the moment, our president earns more than four times that.

By any measure, our president can enjoy a luxurious life in Singapore on that salary. Our president will also be able to provide the very best education and upbringing for his or her children.

What are the merits of this approach? First, it actually ensures that every minister will be well taken care of, regardless of the vagaries of the free market. In the wake of the global financial crisis, there has been much soul-searching in the private sector—mostly in the developed world, but also elsewhere—about levels of senior executive compensation. Imagine that within five years time, the private sector has decided to lower senior executive compensation across the board. Does that mean our politicians should take a pay cut? I hope not.

Our politicians should be shielded from these free-market fluctuations. On the other hand, if house prices climb rapidly, I hope that our politicians are not affected. I would rather they spend their time thinking about policies for Singapore rather than watching the housing market (unless, of course, they are formulating housing policies).

With a bottom-up approach, they do not have to worry. If housing costs climb 10% in a year, we will adjust their incomes appropriately—using a crude calculation on the above figures, the president would get an extra S$2,000 per month.

Second, this methodology has a symbolic benefit—the electorate is basically telling the people we elect to lead us, “Hey. Don’t worry. You’ll be taken care of. You will enjoy the same wonderful standard of living today, tomorrow, and in four years time.”

Third, it ensures that the gap between ministerial salaries and median salaries is not determined by external events—the going rate for, say, an accountant in developed Asia—but by local, internal cost-of-living measures. Unlike accountants and lawyers, a minister cannot suddenly pack his bags and say, “You don’t want me? I’ll go be a minister in Hong Kong.” Why should we benchmark their salaries to people who are mobile and whose salaries are generally determined by regional trends?

What are the downsides of this approach? Well, ministerial salaries will probably not keep pace with top private sector ones. But so what? Do we really want as our president somebody who’s only willing to serve the country for S$4m, rather than S$1m?

I dare say that by encouraging this sort of thinking, we have unwittingly inculcated a certain degree of selfish money-mindedness in society. We are all prone to this—at the extreme, it produces characters like Susan Lim, a surgeon under investigation for overcharging.

In any case, this is but one of many approaches. There are people much wiser than I who have suggested alternatives. The salient point is that Mr Ee and team should be generating fresh, novel ideas about ministerial salaries. If that is not the brief they have been given by the prime minister, well then, they should ask him for it. I believe he’s in the mood to listen.

TPL

2011-05-17T22:31:00.000-07:00

Though it has taken some time for me to gather my thoughts on this complex, polarising figure, I think I've finally made up my mind. I believe it's important that we come together to support Tin Pei Ling--in the same way we should support every parliamentarian representing our country. The only exception: if she's found guilty of breaking cooling-off day rules, as discussed below.¹

When I first heard that the PAP had recruited a 27-year old, I was delighted. Finally, I thought, we have our breath of fresh air, somebody who can represent the younger generation, and brighten up the party with new views.

That initial excitement quickly turned to amusement, as she was shown in all her Kate Spade glory. Had the PAP, in its mammoth effort to scour Singapore for political talent, just unearthed our first ever Hello Kitty Ambassador? From then on, it seemed as though she'd be less suited to the rigours of political life than to the dainty cutesiness of Japanese retail.

That tomfoolery was just simplistic pre-election humour, which we all happily indulged in (and why not?). But it was also a bit unfair in that it didn't tell us who TPL really is. The vast majority of people I know on FB--myself certainly included--could have also been as easily embarrassed by online photos.

(aside: I am actually quite sad that TPL's FB profile has been whitewashed. Gone are the cutesy photos. Will the real TPL please stand up? I fear that we will never get to know the real person now. I'd prefer if I knew more about our politicians--their knowledge and wisdom, for sure, but also their softer sides. Might make them seem more mortal, less aloof.)

Then a stream of TPL video clips were aired. One had her stomping up and down like a spoiled child at a loss for words. But the clincher, for me, was her comment about the greatest regret in her life. Remember: that was a proper, government-sanctioned, mainstream media interview, and she had just said one of the silliest things I've ever heard in local politics.

In a heartbeat, she went from Miss Hello Kitty to Miss Teen USA disaster reel.

She never really recovered from that. In the days that followed, more comical clips and reports emerged, some of which were also downright worrying--like her thoughts on income inequality in a 2007 speech. My current favourite TPL clip is a 2008 National Youth Forum video.

She has quickly become the most complex character in Singaporean politics. I do not think there is any other person who elicits such a range of visceral feelings and emotions.

Her supporters, however, seem to believe she is a Gen Y messiah. Meanwhile, some long-time PAP supporters have been completely disillusioned--a friend of mine, a smart, hardworking finance chap, says that he has always voted PAP, but now, for the first time, feels intellectually insulted by the choice of TPL--"They really take us for fools".

Similarly, I have friends who have been PAP grassroots volunteers for a long time. They also feel a bit aggrieved that she was chosen over many other talented young people. Some now contend that it's nepotism--her husband, after all, is PM Lee's private secretary. But I don't think that's possible, since there is no nepotism in Singaporean politics.

She has also become a lightning rod for criticism over the GRC system. She has also drawn in unlikely people to political commentary--a friend who's a teacher related a story of a Primary 4 student in her class. "Teacher, I don't believe she should be carrying branded handbags".

I personally don't have much against her. I just don't think she's very smart. She strikes me as fairly mediocre--not somebody of the highest calibre (what our politicians are supposed to be). As with almost everybody I speak with, it grates that a bit of every tax dollar I pay from now on will be going to her bumper S$15,000 salary. In a pre-election Op-ed piece I wrote for TOC, I expressed my dismay at her perceived shortcomings.

Almost as soon as she was elected, there have been calls and petitions to have her removed. However, now that I have read some different viewpoints, I feel that it is only fair and right that we support her.

There are several reasons for this. First is the need to develop a constructive political system, not a disruptive, unhealthy one. I hope that everybody in Singapore, including the PAP and its supporters, pay the utmost respect to the opposition politicians in parliament today. Similarly, I think that whatever your political inclinations, it's important to support TPL now that she's been elected.

Second is that in a democratic process, we must respect voters' wishes. We can dispute the GRC system. And we can argue till the cows come home about whether Marine Parade voters really wanted TPL in parliament. But the fact of the matter is that a majority of them voted for a team with her in it. That is important. They have chosen this team, and everybody should respect their choice.

Third, do we really know who she is? I'm not sure Singaporeans have really gotten a chance to know her. There's been so much noise and furore around everything she does. If anything, she's handled the criticism with admirable aplomb. I'm keen to see if there is something smart inside there.

All this is not to say that we should not criticise her words anymore. Every one of us should follow and scrutinise the words and actions of all our politicians, including TPL. If she makes any more mistakes, we must point them out. If we disagree with her mooted policies, let her know. However, criticising her just because of who she is seems pointless.

In the lead up to the next election, we should all again examine her record closely, and see whether we want her back in parliament. I no longer believe that she will be a breath of fresh air to Singaporean politics. If anything, she seems to be eerily similar in ideology to her predecessors. But that's not to say that she won't make a good politician. For the moment, at least, I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt--hopefully that doesn't become the greatest regret of my life.

¹ If she is found guilty of breaking cooling-off day laws, then she must be punished appropriately. If she is found guilty of lying about who posted on her FB page--even worse. I hope the police conduct a full and thorough investigation into this. I'm sure there is a way to track FB activity though the IP addresses. Or something.

By George!

2011-05-10T17:09:00.000-07:00

For me, the saddest thing about the elections is the loss of George Yeo.

(Just to be clear on this point, I am delighted that the opposition won a GRC, and I'm pleased that Low's team got in. But I am still sad that George is no longer around. as do many others, I blame our flawed GRC system for this.)

George is eloquent and smart, somebody who can represent Singapore in any corridor in the world. George is friendly and down-to-earth, engaging on Facebook, and discussing issues at McDonald's with us regular folk. most of all, George just seems like a genuinely nice guy. Sadly, I can't say all those things about all of our ministers.

When I was in grad school, I attended a class taught by Michael Porter, a strategy 'guru'. Every week, we would discuss a different country's development. During each, we had the good fortune of either listening directly to a senior politician from that country--Rwanda's Paul Kagame, for instance, actually came for the class on his country--or watching a video of a politician from that country.

When it was Singapore's turn, the discussion was fairly predictable, with lots of talk about rapid economic development, and rises in standards of living. as an international student amongst many other international students, it was stuff to feel rather smug about. But the best part was when George came on the screen.

Amongst many other wonderful things, he said, "the difference between Singapore and many other developed countries is that other countries measure their success by how well the people at the top do. In Singapore, we measure success by how well the people at the bottom do." (I am misquoting, I'm sure, but it's something like that)

Of course, this statement probably applies more to early Singapore than Singapore of the past 15 years, during which time the people at the bottom haven't really seen their standards of living rise much. Income inequality has spiked. That is probably one of the major reasons why more people have been voting for the opposition.

In other words, George lost his seat partly because the PAP has recently failed to raise living standards of those at the bottom.

The great irony in this story is that George is probably one of the ministers most concerned about this issue. Nobody will ever know this for sure, but it's just something I have a hunch about. Other PAP politicians do not seem as bothered about income inequality as George.

Adieu, George. You will be missed.

Two pieces I wrote recently for TOC

2011-04-26T06:28:00.000-07:00

Dear reader, I recently wrote two pieces for The Online Citizen. You can read them here:

1. Why Singapore needs more opposition MPs

2. Three local myths

Overall, I have received positive feedback about them, which is nice. I was a little bit skeptical about writing at first, because I wasn't sure who reads TOC, and whether or not they'd appreciate my writing. So thanks everybody who's given me feedback.

I didn't write for any money. More just because I felt that I had views to share, and there aren't many places in Singapore I could share them. Of all the online sites, my sense is that TOC is the most balanced. although it certainly has an opposition slant--which in a way can't be helped, as all these online sites feel the need to counteract our pro-PAP mainstream media.

What has actually been most interesting to me--and which speaks volumes about politics in Singapore--is that some people have suggested that my articles are pro-opposition.

Think about it: in both pieces, I say that my preferred political outcome is for the PAP to win about 67 seats, and the opposition 20.

Only in Singapore can that be interpreted as a plug for the opposition...:-)

What has surprised me, pleasantly, over the past few weeks, has been the sheer number of people I see talking about politics. Up till a year ago, I would have maintained that Singaporeans are politically apathetic. Not anymore. I think we were all just waiting for an avenue, and a critical mass--now there is confidence in numbers. people seem more willing to speak their mind because others are too.

So, even if the opposition wins just two seats again, at least we've all found our voice.

The problem with Singapore's media

2011-04-09T20:10:00.000-07:00

I am publishing this post, dear reader, because I believe that Singaporeans place too much trust in our mainstream media to deliver "the truth". It really irks me that Singapore's media keeps patting itself on the back, when it suffers from several problems, not least a pro-government bias. So, I have decided to show six very clear examples of poor journalism. Each one is different, but together they highlight everything that is wrong with our media. Please scroll to the middle of this post to see them. Or, if you permit some preliminary yakking, then read on here....

16 years ago, our RJC football team was coached by one of our English teachers, Mr David Whitehead, a sarcastic geezer who was always ready to chew off somebody’s head and crack us up.

One Saturday morning, when a new player showed up for practice without shinguards, Mr Whitehead mocked him for his stupidity before finishing, “Sonny, why don’t you roll up your Straits Times and stuff it in your socks? There’s no better use for it.”

From that moment, I've maintained a healthy skepticism towards Singapore's media--the opinion, after all, came from an A-Levels English Literature teacher.

My experiences studying and working have sharpened my opinion of the Straits Times, and Singapore's media in general. General editorial standards leave a lot to be desired. Worse, Singapore's media has a decidedly pro-government bias. This translates into a lot of positive spin around articles about Singapore, as well as excessive self-censorship by journalists, particularly when discussing Singaporean politics.

In terms of content, what that means is that any article that discusses Singapore is liable to be written in a particular pro-government fashion.

So, in my opinion, the main strength of Singapore's mainstream media is as a good source of news on other South-east Asian countries. Unless of course the news concerns Singapore, like a piece on buying water from Malaysia, in which case it is also prone to bias.

The problem, of course, is that for local news, we have no other options. So, we Singaporeans have to read the ST et al, or resign ourselves to living under a shell. No doubt, I do find some of the stories interesting. And we have some very talented writers, including Carolyn Hong, Deepika Shetty, and Rohit Brijnath. But they face the same limitations that all journalists here do.

Thankfully, the advent of the Internet has led to the rise of other credible news sources, such as The Online Citizen (where I occasionally contribute). Sadly, these do not have the resources or readership to seriously challenge the incumbents.

However, what frustrates me is that whenever I get into a discussion about Singapore's media with somebody, I find it hard to articulate exactly what I mean. It's easy to say "pro-government bias" or "sloppy journalism", but unless I have concrete examples, the conversation ends quickly. Worse, without solid evidence, those people who love our media can easily accuse me of being anti-SPH or anti-Mediacorp. Which is also silly--the only thing I am against is poor journalism.

So, because of all that, I have decided to make a safe, accessible repository here of six instances of poor journalism. What is interesting is that they each reflect a different kind of problem.

Together, they highlight everything that is wrong with our media, and why Singaporeans should be skeptical about everything we read in the mainstream media (we should, of course, also be skeptical about what we read in blogs such as this one--make sure the facts support the argument).

It is actually quite difficult for me to write all this because I have many friends who work in Singapore's mainstream media. They are some of the smartest, most opinionated people I know. I will not endear myself to them by criticising their firms. Still, I feel that staying silent will also be an insult to them. So, I'm going ahead in the spirit of good journalism. In fact, most of them are actually quite frank about the restrictions they face--off the record, of course.

More importantly, I think it's important to recognise that the problem with Singapore's media is well above individual writers. We have a systemic, institutional problem. Singapore's media is like a state organ. Its raison d'etre is to convey the government's view to the people.

It was never designed to a) question the government; b) disagree with the government; c) convey the people's view to the government; d) think creatively about challenges facing Singapore. (unless a-d are somehow pre-sanctioned by the government)

This institutional structure is the cause for the other symptoms, like pro-government bias. Individual writers are simply products of this system. Therefore, I will not reveal individual writer's names. This is not about them; just the system they work in.

In my opinion, this media model has served us well through our formative years. Now that Singapore is trying to develop its knowledge economy, however, this model is terribly outdated. Anyway, I will save my humble media suggestions for another post.

As awareness is the first step, here I simply want to showcase the problem with Singapore's media:

1) Obscuring the whole truth
On 18th August 2009, Tharman Shanmugaratnam, our finance minister, was asked in parliament to reveal the reasons for Charles Goodyear’s resignation from Temasek Holdings. Amongst other things, he said:

"People do want to know, there is curiosity, it is a matter of public interest. That is not sufficient reason to disclose information. It is not sufficient that there be curiosity and interest that you want to disclose information.”

The next day, the Straits Times published the parliamentary conversations. However, for some inexplicable reason, ST decided to leave out the phrase "it is a matter of public interest". See here

As you might imagine, leaving out the phrase changes the statement completely. It is one thing for our finance minister to say, "Yes there's curiosity but we're not going to tell." It is something completely different for him to say, "Yes, it is a matter of public interest but we're not going to tell."

The latter--what was actually said--suggests that even when there is a matter of public interest, the government does not feel that it has to let Singaporeans know. (Whoa.....say what?)

The question of course is: Why did ST feel that it had to censor that bit? Was ST acting alone, correcting on behalf of Mr Tharman? Did ST get a call from somebody higher up?

Whatever the case, this is a clear example of our mainstream media obscuring the whole truth from Singaporeans. How many other political statements over the years have been sugar-coated or white washed? How much censorship?

2) Obscuring the whole truth Part II
Mark Chow, founder of a model agency and a former actor, was sentenced to jail in April 2010 for molesting a lady in 2007. In August, his sentence was extended.

In every single mainstream media report, however, the journalist failed to mention that Mr Chow is a member of the Young PAP. Here is an example.

Why does that matter? Simple. Just imagine what would have been reported had Mr Chow been a member of an opposition party.

The mainstream media has long trumpeted the achievements of the PAP and downplayed any flaws. Conversely, it rarely gives credit to the opposition, and frequently highlights any opposition shortcomings.

In this subtle but insidious way, the mainstream media indelibly shapes the opinion of Singaporeans. How many other stories involving party cadres/politicians have been spun this way?

3) Deciding who Singaporeans can listen to--the case of Chee Soon Juan and the SDP
Let me start by saying that I have never been a big fan of Chee Soon Juan. He has always seemed more prone to bouts of political theater than genuine, constructive politics. But it's entirely possible that my mind has been warped by the biased coverage in our mainstream media. As far back as I can remember, CSJ has been publicly portrayed as a devil. (I first saw his gentler side in a Martyn See documentary, Singapore Rebel.)

Equally worrying, over the past five years or so, CSJ and the SDP have suffered a media blackout. Our mainstream media channels have simply refused to feature them--it is as though the powers that be have been trying assiduously to erase them from our collective imagination.

This carried on as recently as February this year, when the SDP was excluded from one of Channel News Asia's pre-election shows, Talking Point. Excluding the SDP, one of Singapore's major opposition parties, is inexcusable. CNA's response to the incident was, well, underwhelming.

So, even though I have never really understood CSJ's messages or methods, I will defend to the death his right to speak and be heard, to paraphrase one of Voltaire's beliefs. Everybody in our society deserves this--as long as they're not promoting terrorism, racism, or anything else illiberal or unjust.

Who decided to blackout CSJ and the SDP? Have our mainstream media channels been acting independently, or did they get instruction from somebody above? How come they get to decide which politicians I can listen to, and which ones I can't? What other issues/people have been blocked or blacked out? How else has our understanding of Singapore been manipulated?

Notes:
Interestingly, if you analyse mainstream media coverage of the opposition over the past year, you will find nothing about the SDP before March this year. The Reform Party and the Worker's Party got some air time. But not the SDP.

Then something happened, and the mainstream media channels decided that they had to cover the SDP. Perhaps they realised that they would look really foolish ignoring a major opposition party, with new, credible candidates such as Dr Vincent Wijeysingha and Tan Jee Say.

Even then, however, coverage was paltry and biased. The two most egregious examples of poor journalism came from The New Paper. First, it disgracefully played the anti-gay card in a piece on Dr Vincent. Then, without any conclusive evidence, it suggested that CSJ had tried to start a march at one of the election rallies (subsequently refuted by eyewitnesses).

4) Deciding what Singaporeans can listen to--the MDA
Singapore's Media Development Authority is, in its own words, a promotional and regulatory body set up "to champion the development of a vibrant media sector in Singapore: one that nurtures homegrown media enterprises and attracts direct foreign investment for economic growth, new jobs and greater economic dynamism".

Well, in my opinion, it hasn't been very successful. It is difficult, after all, to "champion the development of a vibrant media sector" when one spends so much time figuring out how to censor and restrict.

A recent example:
In mid February 2011, somebody I know who is in charge of a popular television show in Singapore was sent a memo. The memo, allegedly passed down from the MDA, told this person and team that they CANNOT report on certain sensitive issues until after the elections. The list of sensitive issues included Foreign Talent; Housing issues; Soccer/FAS; Income inequality; Public Transport and several others.

I was flabbergasted when I heard this. There are so many problems with this directive. First is the simple declaration of "sensitive issues". Who in Singapore gets to decide what is sensitive or not? Is it a senior politician? Or a senior bureaucrat in MDA? Why should anybody decide what is sensitive or not to us Singaporeans?

Second, and more problematic, even if we agree on "sensitive issues", why can't we talk and hear about them before elections? Isn't election time precisely when we should be discussing these things? We voters have to make important decisions--why are we being prevented from hearing about "sensitive issues" that might influence our vote?

If our media is supposed to be objective, and our democratic process supposed to be fair, I cannot imagine anything more inane than this. Essentially we are being told "Do not discuss sensitive issues during elections when they are actually most important. But please do discuss them after elections when they are of absolutely no political consequence".

5) Appalling journalistic standards
When I first discovered this error, I was confused. I could not believe that a journalist at the Business Times would make such a mistake, particularly since I had always regarded--and still do--BT as the best media outlet in Singapore.

In order to understand this error of monumental proportions, it's probably better that you first scan through the article here.

OK, now that you've scanned the article, what would you think if I told you that the entire main thrust of the article--Singapore moving up the rankings--is bogus? Well, that's the truth. As it turns out, Singapore did not move at all on the Democracy Index--remained exactly where it was, at number 82.

How do I know? Well, when I read this article, I found the headline odd--I couldn't imagine how Singapore had become more democratic in the past year. And so I went online to look for the actual index, which is available free of charge to anybody with an Internet connection.

Within two minutes of looking for it, I had found the report, and the index that shows Singapore at position 82 (you can see it for yourself here). So why would the journalist say otherwise? I dug around a bit, and got a response from BT saying that they had been using information from a press release that was obviously erroneous.

Let that sink in: a BT journalist had written an article based on a press release without checking the facts--facts, remember, that any lay person could have checked within two minutes.

It really amazed me. And it got me thinking. There are only two possible explanations, as I see it:

One, this BT journalist is similarly slipshod with all his/her work.

Two, because the content showed Singapore in a positive light, the journalist decided to forgo fact checking. In other words, this journalist only checks facts when it is something negative about Singapore.

Either way, it is a terrible indictment of the kind of work that goes on at BT.

How many other stories about Singapore are based on false information? When do Singaporean journalists actually check facts? How do editors tolerate such sloppiness?

(yes, those of you who work in PR/ Journalism might say, "So what? Every journalist uses press releases". OK. But that doesn't make it right. Especially when you muck up big time.)

6) Spin
On the same day, three different newspapers had three different angles to the same story. I put all here for you to understand the different approaches each takes.

FT: See here
WSJ: See here
ST: See here

The ST, as you will see, can always be counted on to deliver the most fantabulous spin about Singapore. In this case, it talks up the growth in Temasek's assets, and relegates the part about net profits declining.

In my mind, net profit is what's important to Singaporeans--that's our national income! Somebody who just glanced the ST's headlines without reading more would presume that it was a fantastic year.

There you go. If you have more and better examples of poor journalism in Singapore, do let me know. And, if you disagree with my diagnosis, I'd be keen to hear your thoughts too.

But what does that all mean?
It's important to recognise a couple of things. First, one might reasonably expect to find some of the same issues in other countries. Every media channel, whether Fox News, The New York Times, or The Economist, has a bias of some sort. Editorial at all of Rupert Murdoch's media outlets, for instance, are seemingly controlled by the great man.¹

Furthermore, no media channel is perfect. Every journalist makes occasional mistakes. In fact, editorial standards are probably much higher in Singapore than they are in, say, Malaysia or the Philippines.

However, we Singaporeans need to hold MediaCorp and SPH accountable to much higher, almost perfect, standards. Why? Two reasons. First, Singapore's politicians and bureaucrats go to great lengths to trumpet our media model. Every few months, Singaporeans are treated to some shameless gloating and back-patting about Singapore's media--how it is so objective, fact-based and unbiased. Just last year, for instance, Ministers Lui Tuck Yew and Shanmugam said as much separately.

As the six examples above show, this is simply untrue--our media suffers from some fundamental problems, and we need to acknowledge that.

On a related note, we must demand perfect standards because Singaporeans have no media choice--there is no media competition here. In other countries, if a reader does not like coverage from a particular source, he/she can simply choose to read or watch something else. Here we cannot. We are told that we need only one source/owner because it is infallible.

The result of all this is that many Singaporeans place unquestioned faith in our mainstream media. If our dear government says it's good, it must be, right? Mr Lui quoted a survey that found that 68% of Singaporeans consider newspapers a trusted source of information (compared with an international average of 34%).

In other words, more than two-thirds of Singaporeans believe in the credibility of our newspapers. As I've tried to show, however, we should not have unwavering faith. Instead, we should read and watch with a critical and questioning mind.

Finally, I would like to reiterate the point about individual writers, and even publications--they are all just symptoms of a broader issue. There is no point haranguing them--many are doing the best they possibly can given the constraints they operate within.

We have a systemic problem. Self-censorship is an insidious, vicious cycle that feeds upon itself. There is no Grand Government Censor who pre-approves every article before it is published. Self-censorship evolves like a military order, where a General's call for a 10am fall-in gets amplified through the chain of command, ultimately forcing lowly corporals to get ready at 9am. Similarly, self-censorship exerts its ruinous force on the system by forcing each editor/journalist below to draw an even safer line.

Every Singaporean is just a player in this paralysing game. Some suggest that the only victors are the PAP, although maybe even they have been undermined of late. Consider their poor performance in the last elections. Outgoing Minister Lim Hwee Hwa said that "it was a surprise for us that the resentment is so deep and the unhappiness is so deep". Well, Ms Lim, perhaps if our media channels were freer to say what they wanted and convey the views of disgruntled Singaporeans, you may not have been so surprised.

Ultimately, what Singaporeans need to do is collectively seek reform of our media sector--which will, amongst other things, free our media channels and journalists to do an even better job.

¹ Ken Auletta, writing in The New Yorker, call this 'anticipatory censorship'. He quotes David Yelland, the former deputy editor of the Post and ex-editor of Rupert Murdoch's largest London tabloid, the Sun, who told the London Evening Standard, "All Murdoch editors...go on a journey where they end up agreeing with everything Rupert says. But you don't admit to yourself that you're being influenced. Most Murdoch editors wake up in the morning, switch on the radio, hear that somethings has happened and think, 'What would Rupert think about this?' "

("Murdoch's best friend", The New Yorker, April 11 2011)

I have to take a break

2007-10-17T06:13:00.000-07:00

It may seem peculiar for me to take a break now, after only just re-starting my blog. But as I enter the last two weeks of my twenties, I am ensconced in a rather circumspect and philosophical mood. I recently read that 'one of life's greatest skills is knowing when to let go', and, well, now I have to let go--until further notice, this will be my last posting on "Musings from Singapore". a hiatus, brief, I hope.

I am not forgoing the pen--or keyboard, as it were--altogether. Trouble is, I can't seem to get enough of it. Between my full-time job at the EIU; my regular contributions for Lexean (the webpage is finally up and running!); my baby steps towards my mountain of a book; and penning postings on the blog that accompanies the book, I simply don't have time to regularly write on this blog.

So, please read my book's blog, which I co-write with my buddy Sumana. That has regular postings. Leave us comments, which will help us as we write our book. It should be out in the next year (mind you, I've been saying that for the past three).

goodbye for now,
whoever you are,
sudhir

Happy Birthday Malaysia

2007-08-31T20:37:00.000-07:00

Of all the newspapers, I think The Economist sums up Malaysia's birthday the best:

After 50 years, Malaysia should stop treating a third of its people as not-quite-citizens

(I hope the link to this article works. If not, pick up this week's issue of The Economist)

wednesday i'm no love

2007-08-14T07:07:00.000-07:00

I saw the Cure two weeks ago, at the Singapore Indoor Stadium. We had managed to get fantastic seats, front row of our section, a mere six feet from the poor sods in front who had paid $50 more.

They started playing at about 8.30, and we were in heaven, dancing and yelling and having a ball and a blast and the time of our lives. It didn’t take us long to piss off some people.

“Could you please sit down” was the nicest comment from behind. As the four of us kept rocking away, some of the unfortunate seat-bound tried appealing to the girls in our group, “Can you get them to sit down???” To no avail.

As the expletives started flying, we got increasingly annoyed, and so I turned around and cried, “It’s the Cure for godsake. It’s a rock concert! Are you going to be sitting the entire time??!!??”

They were.

Finally, some smart ass behind us did the sneaky thing and alerted one of the pseudo security guards/ ushers to our misbehaviour (standing and partying at a Cure concert). A sorry youngster half our size came screaming down the stairs and started yelping at us. Not wanting to cause any more of a scene, we sat down.

After about 20mins of listening to the Cure while seated, we had had enough. I climbed to the top of the stairs, and started dancing there, a long way off from our prized seats, which remained empty the rest of the show.

From above, peering down on the Singaporean audience, I felt sorry for Robert Smith and gang. These legends had flown all the way only to be faced with an audience that was sitting down and bobbing their heads up and down. Even the crowd in the pit was more interested in their latest digicam-phone than in the band.

I told a friend, “If you just looked at the crowd, you’d think you were at a jazz concert!”

“Are you kidding? More like an opera!”

(second friend) “No way. This is like a bloody funeral….”

At that moment, I was really pissed. But on the other hand, everybody behind us must have also thought we were real jack-asses for blocking their view. Who is right? I don’t really know…I mean, we felt it ludicrous not to stand at a rock concert. But they thought that the proper thing to do was sit, listen and appreciate. And we certainly weren’t going to change their minds that night…

But it’s a great metaphor, no? –

In any society, there are people who might stand and block the view of others because they think it’s the right thing to do.

Those who are blocked can either stand up and see the difference, or remain seated and scream at the blockers.

The blockers, when screamed at, can hold their position steadfastly, even amidst a torrent of abuse.

Or they can sit back down obediently.

Or they can go right to the back, to the outskirts of the group, and do their own thing there, hoping and wishing and praying that those still seated will eventually hear the same tune, and stand up.

In Singapore, for sure, too many people are doing their own thing on the edges of society, without respect, without recognition, without reward.

I can only wonder how many more were forced to sit back down....and how many more never stood up in the first place.

We should have just bought the cheapest tickets.

a migration of poor standards

2007-08-13T06:36:00.001-07:00

I’m getting a little bit tired of Indians saying how much they like my country, Singapore.

The gushing never stops. Towering buildings; glitzy shopping malls; roads without potholes; clean, drinking water; spotless streets; safe neighbourhoods; efficient administration; incorruptible government; gateway to the world; ….they could go on forever.

(Every now and then, one of them questions the lack of genuine democracy here, while yearning for the chaos of Indian coffeeshop chatter and multiparty elections. But only for a moment.)

So, Indians love Singapore. Accountants, bankers, engineers, IT guys—no matter. They all love Singapore so much.

But what’s wrong with that? Well, I was particularly irked by a comment from a very senior Indian banker (so much so that I decided to write all this).

He said, “I don’t understand why you Singaporeans keep complaining about your Ministers’ salaries. After all, they deserve it—they do such a fantastic job! Look how well your country is run! You have no idea what corrupt government is. You have no experience of a fat, inefficient, bureaucratic administration, like we do in India. If you knew what that was like, you’d have no problems paying these guys their multi-million dollar salaries. What’s an extra million or two, after all?”

Indians love Singapore so much because they keep comparing our country to theirs. Many of them feel that we Singaporeans are ungrateful and spoilt—we’ve had it so good for so long, we know not what real hardship is.

There may be some truth to that, but I’m actually fed up with this general line of reasoning, because

1) Why are we comparing ourselves to India?

There are several different groups of people who enjoy comparing Singapore to countries clearly worse off than us. Our politicians; our neutered media channels; well-off Singaporeans who have succeeded here; and foreigners (like the Indians).

Perhaps sometimes there is reason to compare and reflect on our successes, but there’s a bit too much of that going on. In order to progress, we should be engaging in upward comparison, not downward comparison.

In other words, we should not be asking
“How did Singapore succeed economically where so many other poor countries have failed?”

But instead, we should be asking
“How come there are other countries that are more developed politically, socially and economically than Singapore? What did they do right? How do we get there?”

2) Do expatriates really know what’s going on?

My Indian banker friend may not think an extra million or two is much. But not everybody is in his shoes. There are plenty of Singaporeans who are finding it tough to keep up. The bottom 30% of households has actually seen their real income drop over the past 7 years, even as Singapore continues to grow millionaires at a faster rate than anywhere else in the world. Income inequality is rising fast.

In this climate, raising the salaries of Ministers to stratospheric levels does, for many, appear like ‘legitimised corruption’ (a term bandied around on an online discussion group, Singapore Review).

I think a premium must be paid, because that is one way to lure the best. However, the current salaries seem a bit much (average salary of government minister--US$1.25m)

Sometimes it is good to get an external perspective on things. Other times, it is misleading. When a jet-setting Indian banker makes big proclamations about Singapore, its politics and its economy, after having lived only in a bubble of expense-account French wine and company-paid luxury apartments, it smacks of bias.
(For sure, I too don’t fully understand the challenges that many of my less well-off countrymen face.)

The irony? The well-heeled, sharp-tongued banker, having lived here for 6 months, will probably get much more air time from our government and its press than the fourth-generation Singaporean single mother in a 1-room HDB flat, her everyday a struggle.

Of course, it’s not just Indians from India who say these things. People from all over the world come here and say similar things. They’re just comparing life here as they see it with life as it was from where they came…only natural.

But that shouldn’t stop us from understanding the realities of life in Singapore, and trying our best to match up (and beat) the world’s best.

The Forbidden City

2006-09-18T17:08:00.000-07:00

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.

random quote

2006-09-11T21:16:00.000-07:00

"an insane asylum has lots of creative ideas, but you have to have management discipline to have a meritocracy of ideas"

The things that matter

2006-08-25T23:46:00.000-07:00

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.

Singapore Government's take on old vs. new media

2006-07-25T04:47:00.000-07:00

"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:

"Rock the Junta"

2006-07-18T08:44:00.000-07:00

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.'

human frailty as told by Zinedine

2006-07-18T07:39:00.000-07:00

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.)

football in america

2006-06-29T08:40:00.000-07:00

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.

Malaysia

2006-05-23T08:03:00.000-07:00

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.

a Singaporean dilemma?

2006-05-22T03:36:00.000-07:00

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. "

Courts in Singapore come under scrutiny

2006-05-15T01:45:00.000-07:00

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.

a quote

2006-05-08T03:43:00.000-07:00

“There is no more perfect form of subjection than the one that preserves the appearance of freedom.”

- Rousseau

Singapore Elections Key Points

2006-05-06T19:37:00.000-07:00

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.

Elections: My vote is secret

2006-04-28T01:09:00.000-07:00

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."

Elections: Of course the PAP!

2006-04-28T01:01:00.000-07:00

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?

Chinese/Malay/Indian

2006-04-27T21:41:00.000-07:00

'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.

An Old Muslim Democracy?

2006-04-26T18:49:00.000-07:00

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.

When you shoot

2006-04-25T23:59:00.000-07:00

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?

Just A Cartoon?

2006-02-09T06:53:00.000-08:00

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.

Addendum to previous...

2006-01-08T07:44:00.000-08:00

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...

The Singaporean Expat revisited

2006-01-05T00:05:00.000-08:00

This is a bit of a follow up to my SCC 7s post below....

What has amazed me most since my return to Singapore in July (after 6
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 Singapore today than when
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 American School, International School or United World College and like Expat kids everywhere, for the most part kept to themselves. Once in a while, they’d act like jackasses, ruining our walls with graffiti and our cars with tar, and have to face Singaporean law. Tough.

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 Europe, South America, China, India, Malaysia, Africa, etc.

Today’s expats range from 21 years old to 99 years old.

Crucially, today’s expats come to Singapore to fill ‘very ordinary jobs’,

(‘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 Singapore to be a cosmopolitan paradise, with fascinating people of every shade mingling. The oneness of humanity, the need for races to mix and live harmoniously is part of our country’s founding ethos.

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 London or New York etc. before arriving on Singaporean shores, it is really hard to begrudge them that specialized knowledge, be it their exposure to a much more mature market, the depth of their Rolodex, or simply their improved PR/ presentation skills, all of which matter tremendously.

Colonial Overhang: This permeates everybody, consciously or not, and in all honesty there is no easy answer to it.

An Investment Bank in Singapore might prefer to have a White Guy in their ranks (even lower down) because people the world over look up to the White Guy. Whether it’s his Singaporean colleagues who feel that the Bank is worth their salt because they’re able to attract a White Guy. Or the clients in China and India who are impressed when the Bank’s M&A team shows up with a young White Guy on board.

In Asia, there is a huge premium just for being White. Whether it’s applying for jobs, or picking up sarong clad, Anglo-accented partners at clubs.

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 Hollywood, take it with a pinch of salt. But hey, who’s propagating this White Man’s Burden nonsense?)

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 London or New York. So, after reading 15th Century Portuguese Navigators, they set their sight on some faraway tropical paradise where Asian men will lick their boots and Asian women kiss their bodies, and lo and behold, here they are in Singapore.

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 Singapore irritation:

While every other country in the world has some form of indigenous labour protectionism – whether they care to admit it or not – Singapore does not. In short, the local job market is being squeezed while foreign markets are just as difficult for the Singaporean to penetrate. We have no intrinsic advantages at home, but are seriously disadvantaged abroad.

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. Singapore has become the skilled immigrant’s paradise. Singaporean citizenship is up for grabs to the ‘best and the brightest’. (Note: Don’t ever think of getting citizenship for that Filipino maid who’s been with your family for eons, or the Bangladeshi who’s built half your neighbourhood) Singaporean tax payer’s money is also funding foreign scholars, in the hope that they’ll become Singaporean and work hard for us.

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…

The price of being rich?

2005-12-02T21:44:00.000-08:00

"This is something that is supported by the overwhelming majority of Singaporeans."

- Joseph Koh, Singapore’s High Commissioner to Australia

In the seemingly endless debate about Singapore’s mandatory death penalty, Mr. Koh’s statement caught me by surprise. But on hindsight, maybe I should have expected it.

(I won’t bother getting into the death penalty. There has been enough comment on it, on this blog and all over the web. Just Google ‘Australia’, ‘Singapore’, ‘Death Penalty’ and lots should come up.)

I have mentioned how Singaporeans generally outsource most thinking vis-à-vis policy issues to the Government. We stay focused on the important things in life – making money and watching movies.

However, we have also outsourced final opinion to the Government. Frequently, a Singaporean Government official or civil servant will make a sweeping statement about ‘The opinions of Singaporeans’ that he/she really has no way of knowing.

Mr. Koh is an intelligent person. His cogent argument in yesterday's papers, “Separating Fact from Fiction’ succinctly highlights why Singapore will go ahead and execute Australian Nguyen.

But I really wonder how he knows that the death penalty ‘is supported by the overwhelming majority of Singaporeans’.

Was a poll done? I never took nor heard of one.

Does he assume that because we voted in the PAP that we support the death penalty? That would be an enormous intellectual and representative leap. Even if our elections were over specific issues, the death penalty has never been tabled.

All said and done, he is probably right. But we will never know. Because public opinion here in Singapore is brewed in a sacred chalice. We know what it tastes likes, but not where its ingredients are from.

“Most Singaporeans are against homosexuality”

“Most Singaporeans would like a Casino”

“[Death penalty] is something that is supported by the overwhelming majority of Singaporeans."

You will frequently hear these declarations, booming from one beacon of authority to another – Diplomat, Minister, The Straits Times, yet you never see the hard statistical evidence that backs them up. There are neither polls nor referendums.

Even if the above statements are correct, you then have to wonder how Singaporeans arrive at these opinions. And you will sadly conclude that we are prone to opinion inbreeding, pack mentality and circular reasoning.

Let me explain. Our opinions are driven by the Powers that be. We have been told that the death penalty is essential to maintain safety and security in Singapore, and that’s all we need to know. Our parents tell us that. Our teachers tell us that. The local media outfits tell us that. Anybody who detracts is a looney tune. There is no organic, independent thinking on an issue. We only have opinion inbreeding.

Next, let’s suppose I decide to be very un-Singaporean and question a policy in my head: “Can a mandatory life sentence serve the same deterrence function as a mandatory death penalty?”

(Note: For those who care, very cursory Googling on the Internet suggests that the answer is YES)

If I dare arrive at an answer that differs from Government (and hence popular) opinion, the pack mentality pulls me back to sense and sensibility. There is no such thing as a different opinion here. Only a wrong opinion.

Circular reasoning: every time a Government official speaks on behalf of ‘the majority of Singaporeans’, there is an element of circular reasoning.

So, I would agree (although I would never know for sure) with Mr. Joseph Koh that the death penalty ‘is supported by the overwhelming majority of Singaporeans’.

However! However, this hides the fact that our opinions are wholly formed by the Government and the Government controlled media. A classic chicken and egg. Sure, perhaps you could say that every Government tries to shape (and later reflect) public opinion. But ours does so to a much greater degree than any other democratically elected one.

But you know what? This is just how our country functions. The Government thinks for us, and we work hard (for those who've read a few of my postings, you've heard this ad nauseum, sorry). It is no secret formula, we haven’t been hoodwinked for generations. Our dear architect Lee Kuan Yew has openly admitted that our people can’t think for ourselves, and thus he and his cadres have to.

What do we Singaporeans think about all this? There is a great commentary from Alkman Granitsas in today's Straits Times, republished from Yale Global. You should really read it. It's about Americans, but he rounds off with a De Tocqueville quote:

“There is indeed, a most dangerous passage in the history of a democratic people. When the taste for physical gratifications among them has grown more rapidly than their education and their experience of free institutions…the discharge of political duties appears to them to be a troublesome impediment which diverts them from their occupations and business.”

SCC 7s at the Padang

2005-11-07T23:46:00.000-08:00

This past Sunday, old Raffles Number 8 and my good buddy Kuang Yuan managed to score some VIP passes for the Singapore Cricket Club (SCC) Rugby 7s at the Padang, Singapore's famous green that sits in front of our City Hall.

Views: You really get to appreciate Singapore's mix of modern and colonial architecture. St. Andrew's Cathedral, City Hall, Suntec City, The Durians etc. etc. Really is quite stunning, and also perhaps a more attractive backdrop than cities like New York and Hong Kong, which are so crammed that they feel too claustrophobic. I'm a big fan of our urban planners.

It was a rollicking good time, great rugby, as the Fijians won again,
much to our delight, though we wished the others put up more of a
fight. Free Heineken beer, always a good thing, served by Hooters
girls no less. At the risk of exposing my superficial bastardness, the
average Singaporean girl does not a quintessential Hooter make. Pretty
in their own right, just not a Hooter.

Beer, good looking women and rugby. What more could we want? Alas, my
social justice radar couldn't be turned off.

We had the fortune to sit in the Sponsor's booth. Big companies had
paid top dollar for a weekend out for employees and honored guests. I,
somehow, was one of the latter. At most events, I'm used to small
Sponsor's Booths and Large general admission areas. Not here. There
clearly seemed to be more people in the VIP Sponsor's Booths than
everywhere else around the field.

Here's the kicker - about 90% of the people in the Sponsor's Booth
were Ang Moh. Gweilo. Mat Salleh. Expats. Nothing wrong with that,
really. They are nice folk. They probably work (or are guests of) big
rugby-loving companies. And they're in Singapore. Why shouldn't they
be here?

No reason. Except that KY (yes, he's used to the lubricant jokes) and
I felt slightly out of place after, oh, 5 minutes. There we were, in
the 'exclusive' VIP booth, surrounded by expats, taking in the show,
while the other Singaporeans were either serving us icy beer, cute
sandwiches and fried wontons or sweating it out in the 'General
Admission' stands below.

The Irrational Nationalist in us screamed for us to stop sleeping with
the enemy and join our brethren in the pits below. Nah, free beer too
good.

There was nothing morally wrong or illegal going on really. It was
just one of those moments in life where you take a step back, look at
how things are....and wonder how far we've come from colonialism...how
far we've come from Orientalism...whether we're living in a system
that really lets the disadvantaged raise themselves up....or one
that's just going to perpetuate the madness. (Yikes! I probably sound
like a flaming Berkeleyan Communist now....don't take that last line
at face value. Just a musing)

Big show was on at the Padang, our Padang. Singaporeans hardly in
sight. Foreigners partying it up. A service-oriented country?
Servicing who?

Will continue with another post about my Singaporean friends'
attitudes towards and perceptions of foreigners, which i find
illuminating and disturbing...

Bit more on Australian Nguyen and the death penalty

2005-11-07T02:07:00.000-08:00

Connie Levett, an Australian journalist based in Bangkok, read this blog last week and then called me up in Singapore to interview for a piece she was writing, "Fighting against the tide of opinion"
Hopefully there'll be more discussion of the death penalty soon. Like I told Connie, if Singaporeans want the death penalty, then fine, so be it, we should be allowed to live how we want.

But I just don't think enough people are actually taking time off to think about the issue properly. Which is a real shame.

The hangman cryeth!

2005-10-28T22:38:00.000-07:00

Amazing!
One day after I wrote and wondered about Singaporean hangmen....this article is published:
Singapore executioner wants out

Click and read. What a kill rate, huh?

One day later, this one with a photo...
Unmasked

Does the hangman cry?

2005-10-27T09:14:00.000-07:00

I would like to thank Maureen Tee, charming SMU student I recently had the pleasure of working with, for giving me the procrastinating-blogger kick up the butt I needed. It has indeed been too long since my last post.

In my last post, I spoke about people whose job incentivizes them to bring sadness to others – the parking ticket auntie, in that case. And then I thought of another thankless Singaporean profession – the hangman. Given that our country kills more than 50 people each year (mostly for drug related crimes), each Singaporean hangman might kill more people than a Republican GI in downtown Fallujah.

Is the hangman incentivized as well? I.e. Is it a fixed monthly salary or do they get paid per killing? If there’s a commission, do they cheer when another one bites the dust? And cry if it’s a particularly dry month at border control? Scary thoughts. But we should always bear in mind the effects our system has on individual psyches.

The Editorial of The Australian today highlights the case of Aussie Vietnamese Mr. Nguyen Tuong Van, who will soon die in Singapore. He was desperate and stupid enough to be in possession of 400g of Heroin in our spick and span Singapore Changi Airport.

Now that I think of it, it is quite chilling that the manicured, pristine environment of Changi is where so many people every year first realize that they are going to be hung. Can you imagine their ‘Singaporean Tour’? Off the plane, heavenly Changi Airport and then the Gallows. There is perhaps no emotional journey as traumatic, as roller-coastery.

Because every other crime that warrants the death penalty leaves a scar and fills the perpetrator with guilt. Think of a murderer – they are filled with an intense emotion (hate, jealousy, whatever) and then they see the suffering in their victim. They spend the remainder of their lives as either guilt-ridden fugitives or convicted criminals – there is no simple after-life. (There are some exceptions I suppose, like those who kill in the name of God, whether it’s a Jihad, an Inquisition or Lord Ram’s Birthplace – they might actually feel really good about themselves post-homicide. Another scary thought.)

But not the drug trafficker. The drug trafficker never sees the pain his actions cause. The ODed Heroin addict. The death by dehydration E popper. The obese, overeating stoner. Drug trafficking leaves almost no moral blemish inside a person. While commiting the crime, it seems at worst like an adult version of hide-and-seek.

So, when the drug trafficker first realizes that he is going to die. Wow. That is one cataclysmic downer.

Anyways, back to our unfortunate Australian. Mr. Nguyen was in transit. Many drug mules transit in Singapore because of the belief – not unfounded – that final destination countries’ customs will be more lax with passengers from Singapore, given our draconian security. But the mules don’t realize one thing – our policemen scour transit passengers as if they were all wearing ski masks and “I love Arafat” t-shirts in downtown New York.

Mr. Nguyen admits to the crime, and claims he did it to drag his brother out of debt. Well, the law really doesn’t care why he did it. He almost certainly will die. Quite soon, actually – in Singapore, we don’t keep people hanging around on death row.

His case has raised a number of important issues:

1) The Death Penalty itself

A well-flushed out for/against debate can be found in many places.

On Deterrence:

Liberals argue that statistics prove it doesn’t really act as a deterrent. I think it may not in a country like the US, where nothing really seems to deter criminals.

But, in a socially controlled and micromanaged society like Singapore, I think it does in fact act as a deterrent. Does anybody want to do a controlled test?

I am against The Death Penalty for one simple reason – the possibility that we might kill an innocent:

All judicial systems are prone to human error.

If human error wrongfully puts somebody in prison for life, we can make up for it.

If human error wrongfully kills somebody, that’s it. Finito. The person is gone.

I cannot support any system that may erroneously kill innocent people.

Some also say that having the death penalty brings added economic costs to society (lawyers, death row etc.). It’s cheaper to keep them incarcerated.

Once again, probably not true in Singapore. Here, we kill the sentenced very quickly. If we suddenly abolished the death penalty and had life-long sentences, then there’d be an added economic burden.

That’s precisely the problem. We measure everything in $ and cents here. We have to stop putting a price on human life. I’m in favour of life-long sentences, even if it does mean an extra 0.1% on our ridiculously low tax rate.

2) Racism

Apparently, the Australian anti-death penalty squadron has not been as vociferous over Mr. Nguyen as they were for a Ms. Schapelle Corby, recently sentenced to 20 years in prison (later reduced to 15) for smuggling 4kg of Marijuana into Bali, and the ‘Bali 9’ – 8 Australian men and one woman – currently being tried for smuggling 8 kilograms of heroin into Bali.

Why not? The anti-racist lobby thinks it’s because poor old Mr. Nguyen is an Asian, while the others are white.

Still others disagree, claiming that race has nothing to do with it, but rather the fact that Mr. Nguyen has pleaded guilty, while the others claim they’re innocent.

Probably a bit of both.

One thing’s for sure, as far as the ‘race is not an issue’ people go. Hippy, neo-liberal humanists in the West always underestimate the level of xenophobia in their own countries. Many I’ve met are painfully ignorant of racist sentiments that the more insular folk in their country harbour.

In reality, it’s probably no safer for a Turbaned Punjabi to drive through middle Australia than it is for a White Couple to go skinny dipping in the Tehran Public Pool.

3) Neo-colonial Interference

The Australian Government, public and media have been trying to pressure the Indonesian and Singaporean Governments into letting their citizens off with a little slap on the wrists.

This is probably what riles us Asians the most – when a Western Government and Public try to tell us how to run our country. Few things get our blood boiling as much as this re-enactment of the good old colonial days. (remember Michael Fay?)

(Anyway, Americans have lost their right to preach about human rights to anybody. Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, etc. etc. have knocked them well off their moral high ground.)

The facts of the matter are always clear – they knew about the death penalty and they were caught in possession. Why should they get off while our criminals die?

Do Asian countries ever ask Western countries to give our citizens special judicial treatment?

The bloody cheek of it all.

4) Singaporean Apathy

For those who’ve read this far, some might have been perturbed by my flippant description of Mr. Nguyen’s plight and the death penalty. Well, I’m mimicking the average Singaporean’s take on these issues.

(Actually, that’s not true. The average Singaporean probably would never hear about ‘Mr. Nguyen on death row’. Too busy, either eating Chicken Rice or trying to make more money.)

Anyway, this is an extremely grave matter that we must start thinking about. It is most tragic that Mr. Nguyen is going to lose his life. We must start thinking about what kind of a country we want to be.

Thinking? Hah, that’s a good one. Sometime in the past forty years, as we were shedding our rags and kissing our riches, we decided to outsource all thinking to our dear Gahmen (Singlish, for Government). The Gahmen thinks for us, and we vote for them. It’s a symbiotic relationship that has made us rich.

And that’s all there is to life after all, isn’t it?

The Ticket Auntie only strikes fear in the hearts of some

2005-09-12T04:09:00.000-07:00

“What la, these fellas, spend hundred dollars on petrol, one two dollars also cannot put,” said the Skinny Tamil as he walked past me. I was sitting on the Astroturf at St. Wilfred’s Sports Complex, off St. George’s Rd, Bendemeer. I quite like playing there. Except for the micro black rubber sand that squirms into every possible crevice on your person – shorts, shirts, boots, hair. Oh, and falling on that frictionfull pitch can leave you with a nasty burn.

Skinny Tamil had just walloped the ball out of play (the tennis players on the adjacent courts were by now used to Size 5 Adidas balls bouncing in, interrupting their games. HAHA! There’s another class juxtaposition for you: Soccer vs. Tennis players) so that all the car-owning players could rush off the field, snatch their car key from their sport bags, and rush to their car before the Ticket Auntie got there. The Ticket Auntie? Yes, the dreaded Ticket Auntie. Dressed in white and blue. Prowling Singapore’s car parks for cars sans coupons. Keying offender’s details into their mobile computers and then issuing ‘samans’ (fines). I would hate their job. Their job is to bring misfortune to others. The more sadness they bring, they more money they make. Can you imagine? Every time you make money, you infuriate somebody. And nobody likes getting fined for parking offences. Especially when there are tons of spots available. I mean, what’s the Marginal Cost of me parking there, right? ZERO!

Anyway, somebody on the sidelines had screamed, “Ticket Auntie here!” a desperate call to action that most players initially dithered over. Once it sunk in, and Skinny Tamil had booted the ball out, the car-owners sprung into life, and raced off the field. Some got there in time, a few others ‘kena saman’ (got fined). Ticket Aunties showed no remorse. They had to make a living.

But Skinny Tamil had a point. Why do the few Singaporeans fortunate enough to own $100,000 cars find it so difficult to punch out $1 parking coupons? Lazy? In a rush? Cheap? Or that old adage, “Do what you want, just don’t get caught”?

Lazy? Are Singaporeans lazy? We can be if we want to. “Chin Chai la”. "Bo Chup". A bit of laziness in there

In a rush? Often we are. Often we invent it. Often we like to seem it.

Cheap? Again, we can be if we want to. Maybe frugal’s a better description though.

“Do what you want, just don’t get caught”?

That has Singapore written all over it. It’s in our blood, it pumps through our veins, it clouds every decision we make.

I bet that most people who don’t display coupons feel they’re not going to get caught.

“Quickly, lah, I’m sure I can run in and ta pao some char kway teow before she comes round.”

But at a more macro level, this strikes at a very fundamental Singaporean chord. We act according to what we can and cannot do. We think and speak with boundaries firmly in place. We walk where we’re told to, and don’t dance where we’re barred from.

Rules (and enforcement) govern our lives. Completely and absolutely. We Singaporeans have outsourced our moral judgment to our Government. It happened a long time ago. We flush the toilet not because we want to keep it clean. We flush because there is a big fat fine waiting for the pee crime.

When will we move from a culture of negative enforcement to positive enforcement? From sticks to carrots? When will organic civic consciousness grow and the need for top-down Government instruction decline? Who knows. Who really cares.

Why, you may ask, do we need positive enforcement if the negative works? The outcome is the same, isn’t it? Either way, the toilet gets flushed, right? Yes. But the spirit is different. And only when we start flushing because we care for the next user (and not because of a fine fear), will we be able to escape the self-interested, egotistical complex that this system has bred in us.

But this post has gone off-topic a bit. Let me bring it back, unsuccessfully probably. Skinny Tamil, after uttering the opening line of this blog to me, walked to his team’s psuedobench, where their belongings were. And then it struck me. Skinny Tamil’s entire team was there! They were still by the pitch! Not a single one of them had heeded the

“Ticket Auntie here!” call! They must be frustrated with us. Half our team had gone. We were holding the game up.

Half our team had cars, none of theirs did. Our team was Chinese (save for a Manjew – half Manjen, half Jew – and me), theirs was Indian.

All said and done, the wealth disparity in this country is startling.

This is not a jack against the powers that be. I doubt they can do much about this instantly. No silver bullet. In fact, we already live in a splendid meritocracy. We have tremendous equality in educational opportunity, compared to many other nations. No country has yet learnt how to redistribute wealth well, especially when the disparity falls along racial lines.

But we must keep trying.

The first one

2005-06-21T04:20:00.000-07:00

I have finally decided to start a blog. There are many reasons why I should have one, I suppose. Airing my thoughts. Exchange of ideas. Meeting fellow souls. Something to do now that I am unemployed. Improving my writing.

Of the above five reasons, only "Meeting fellow souls" is a vaguely Singaporean thing to do. (Being unemployed, and wanting to write, sadly, are not). I hope you appreciate how I've had to fight against my cultural upbringing.

I have however also had many anxieties and misgivings about my own blog, which perhaps explains how overdue this whole thing is. What will people think? One's words are sometimes too much of a window into the soul. Am not sure if I really want people knowing who I really am. But oh well, here goes.

Upload

2005-06-12T05:30:00.000-07:00

my picture